Where does our motivation come from? In our present society it comes from governments, teachers and bosses telling you what you need to do. What you need to know, what you need to do in order to survive and be “successful”, to provide for your basic necessities, and to lead a reasonable quality of life. Of course, a significant percentage of people on this planet don’t even have that choice. They live in poverty because the greedy and powerful live in abundance. We live in a world of abudance in a cage of manufactured scarcity.  I could very easily defend these positions, but I shan’t. Those who are open or informed already know something is very wrong with our culture and our civilization, and those who don’t want to recognize it will not pursue avenues that open their perspective to the true nature of reality.

Of course greed and the ability to wield power over others are being continuously created and amplified due to our economic and governmental systems.

I believe in passion and when you have that passion and are given the opportunity to pursue your passion, you will “succeed”. Technology has reached a point where it now assists humans in discovering and developing their passions. Iteratively, it is also an avenue for the expression of our passions and a means to support the evolution of our passions. We (humans) are dynamic, the world is dynamic, and yet, in our aberrated educational systems we are being trained to think and apply information in a static manner. Technology is a product of human thinking and as it evolves it is slowly brining us back into a state of normality. It is freeing us from the burdens of control and indoctrination.

Also, I do believe that technology has fundamentally altered the way learners see themselves. I believe that technology has allowed for an open and decentralized form of education where learners are capable of becoming active participants and creators of educational content and materials. The Internet and social media technologies provide uncensored and often unrestricted access to knowledge. This is why it is so important to support Internet freedom and eliminate Internet censorship. As I have stated before, the Internet would look significantly different now if the corporations and governmental entities that fought against net neutrality had their way. To control the way in which people access the Internet in many ways means controlling the awareness of a global audience. We can only make decisions based upon that which is in our awareness, and so to control our awareness means to control our choices and decisions.

We as individuals owe it to ourselves to take possession of our own awareness.

This is a very complex question to answer because there are a variety of issues that need to be taken into consideration. These include but are not limited to:

1) The genre of game – strategy, fps, adventure, simulation, role-playing, action.

2) Interface design – a keyboard and mouse, a standard video game controller, a wii control, or the type of controls built into Project Natal.

3) How long the student play the game.

4) Whether the game has a social element to it like MMORPGs.

Whereas playing an action keyboard and mouse game with no social element may have some sort of adverse effects on a child, those same adverse effects may not be present playing a simulation project-natal-based socially-oriented game. I think it is a complex issue, and although I do believe that in some cases electronic games can have adverse effects, I also think that electronic games can have many extraordinary benefits for children. I think that when it comes to games the most important thing to do is to teach children to have a degree of command over their game playing desires and to ensure they acquire an understanding of balance. But, children are not taught balance through force or through punishment. When force and violence come into play, children are taught other things. In my opinion, they are taught much worse things than the effects any video game could have on them when they are threatened with violence and force. There are many ways of helping children make wiser decisions for themselves that don’t involve the threat of force or violence.

Technology isn’t going away any time soon. I think we need to work with technology and work with children who grow up around technology. I don’t think it matters if by playing video games children find “traditional” learning less interesting. I think that should give us the impetus to innovate to find non-traditional avenues of instruction that children find exciting.

I personally find the traditional form of classroom based learning abhorrent. If a child can’t sit still for hour(s) on end, then there is something wrong with them, and they need medication so that they can conform. Something just seems wrong with that perspective.

Do we really want to have kids interact more and more with computer screens in more aspects of their life and learning?

I don’t have an answer to this. I think it is important to point out two things though. First, interface and 3D interactive design is evolving in the gaming industry, and second, games are becoming more socially oriented now that they are connected to the Internet. In education, however, I think it is important to design an instructional environment such that children are exposed to a wide variety of instructional and social mediums. I think there are some creative ways we could come up with to appropriately and intelligently incorporate computerized tutoring into the learning environment that would only add benefit for the children.

This is why I am so enamored with Project Natal, because it is an adaptive learning system. The technology can be programmed to adapt to the emotional responses, cognitive responses, and acquisition of knowledge by the learner throughout the learning process. In my view this technology provides the ultimate sophistication in consideration of learning from the learners perspective. Of course all of this must be pre-programmed, but it is absolutely possible.

I agree, and what you have stated makes a lot of sense. But, here is another perspective. Is the social environment in schools conducive to the mental and social health of children. Many kids detest the social environment present in school. In school environments kids pick on one another, bully one another, segregate themselves, manipulate one another, cheat off of one another, and much much worse. These are some of the social skills that kids learn in most school environments.

As I stated before, the propriety nature of expressions in our current society is an outgrowth of our monetary system and is unethical by the standards I noted in my prior post.

The primary two reasons people want their expressions to have a proprietary nature are: firstly, that expressions have monetary value in our current society and people need money in order to provide for their basic necessities, and secondly, that people tend to act egotistically under our present environmental conditions.

Further, in our current society, thoughts and ideas are capable of being owned. That is why we presently have copyright and patent law.

I absolutely agree that using or sharing someone else’s work without their permission and right under this economic system harms them and is stealing. In fact, many people whom I follow somewhat closely have been hurt by pirating. Michael Ruppert, author of the book and documentary film “Collapse”, has just given a presentation in Vermont entitled “Confronting the Peak Oil Crisis”. In the presentation he discusses how the pirating of his documentary has seriously impacted his financial buoyancy. In fact, you might be interested in watching his presentation. I feel it might add another dimension to our conversation.

http://a.blip.tv/scripts/flash/showplayer.swf?file=http://blip.tv/rss/flash/3672422

The sheer number of comments that the blog has drawn shows how relevant and important this is to instructors and instructional designers alike. I tend to believe that learning personalities and preferences exist, but unless the instruction is individualized (Read: tutoring), such as would be possible via Project Natal (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HluWsMlfj68), then the instruction should not be designed with the learning styles concept in mind.

Learner attentiveness including such concepts as curiosity and interest transcend the learning styles theory. When learners are highly interested or highly curious, they learn regardless of failures in instruction. How does the concept of learning styles apply to this model. Engagement and learning and how that triggers remembering. Learning styles are only a portion of how people and the way that people learn.  Individuals with a high self-efficacy are more flexible in concern to their learning styles and the elements of peak state, motivation, and guidance assist in creating a higher state of self-efficacy within the learners (Dr. Keller’s ARCs Model Textbook, 2009, p124).

Whether or not learning personalities and preferences can be categorized as learning styles is highly debatable and so far unproven. There are more important issues to consider than unproven individual learning styles. Of course learners have dynamic learning preferences based on subjective past experiences, but there are more important topics to consider including but not limited to learner motivation, prior knowledge of subject matter and their aptitude for learning.

I believe that tyranny of the majority is a very real thing in many “democratic” countries. Also, and this is especially true in this country, too many people want the freedom to restrict other peoples freedoms.

I also disagree with the culture we have associated with plagiarism. Remember that culture is emergent, and that in a future culture, using someone else’s language and representing it as your own may not be considered unethical. There are 7 billion people on the planet. It is unrealistic to think they all have unique thoughts all the time. Our ethics around plagiarism also limit humanities evolution and the evolution of instruction. I can’t tell you how much time I have wasted in my life rewriting what other people have written just to make sure I didn’t plagiarize and because our culture forbids instructors from accepting entire papers full of quotes. Now, this isn’t to say that I disagree with citing sources; for I absolutely believe that knowing the source is of the utmost importance. However, the number of research papers I have had to write in my life is utterly amazing. Typically, we rewrite what others have written, often in a dumbed down manner, so as not to plagiarize, and on occasion add a few thoughts of our own. Were these thoughts really our thoughts though, or were they accumulated thoughts of others.

Thankfully, the Internet is quickly becoming the great equalizer.

Our cultural norms in concern to plagiarism are an outgrowth of our monetary system. In a monetary-based society information has monetary value and will therefore be treated as a scarce commodity.

Instructional designers are compromised from the start because they are trying to design and develop the most effective, efficient, and appealing instruction within the bounds of copyright, plagiarism, and a financial budget and its associated timeline.

Share and share alike.

“However, if we (Lane, whoever) want students to become more involved in the process, they have to have some direction. If it doesn’t come from the teacher, then who does it come from?”

The discussion of direction is of course age dependent; but after a certain age, let’s says 6 or 7, should it not come from the students themselves?

I should note that this is a topic discussed in a great degree of depth in “School Sucks Podcast”.

I believe the article states that whereas with closed content the author of the content is the sole creator and owner of said content, but with open content the “primary creator” is in a state of collaboration with the community of users of the content. The community of users and the “primary creator” are all creators and to an extent, owners, of the content. The later of course is a closer approximation to actual reality, and the former goes a long way toward limiting the evolution of a community and causing untold pain and suffering in the world. The later of course doesn’t take into account the fact that the “primary creator” of the content would have been unable to create the content in the first place were it not for their prior education and training. So, I have just identified three perspectives, each reaching a closer approximation of actual reality.

I think the real question is: should a learner be able to own any knowledge they have acquired regardless of its source? And, if the answer to this question is “no”, then are you not simply stating that said learners do not own a portion of their brain, that which holds the knowledge and any thinking process that incorporates the knowledge. And, isn’t responding with a “no” to this question a form of fascism wherein an outside body is attempting to control your own body (specifically your brain), intellect, and mind.

Who is responsible for the educational effectiveness of open content?

In my personal opinion, there are several responsible parties. The “primary creator” is responsible as is the user community responsible for the effectiveness of the content. When dealing with closed content, however, it appears to me that only the creator is responsible. I think the truth of the matter is that when dealing with the educational effectiveness of content, the “primary creator” is responsible, the user community is responsible, AND the community at large is responsible. The community at large is responsible in my view because the education of a specific group of people has an effect upon the community at large. For example, the education and training of individuals in concern to alternative energy or food production or art has an effect upon the community at large; and thus, the community at large should take responsibility in ensuring the educational effectives of the content. In our present society though, the community at large turns to politicians and business to ensure the educational effectiveness of content. And that is a highly unwise and irresponsible thing to do.

First, it is our civilization’s economic and governmental systems that have allowed for the creation and perpetuation of what we now call “big” business.

Change begins with education and re-culturation. Only an expansion of awareness, some might say conscious awareness, can bring the potential for positive change. As the saying goes, the same level of consciousness that went into creating the problem cannot be used to solve the problem.

Part of the problem with our culture is that we tend to perceive existence as final instead of emergent and continuous. I have spoken of this earlier and in prior courses. A re-culturation is necessary to change society’s perspective on the emergent versus absolute nature of all things.

I think we need to teach people to actually think for themselves. Our current culture and education feeds people information in such a manner that it creates a fractured and discontinuous thinking process. This allows for easier manipulation of individuals’ and groups’ awarenesses. In the military industrial complex this is known as compartmentalization. The NSA is one of the most compartmentalized organizations in existence.

Typically, education does not teach people to see the interconnectedness of things. Therefore, when they approach a problem they are incapable of approaching it from and integrated and holistic perspective, which leads to errors/flaws in the solution.

The monetary system itself is the root cause of the vast majority of our civilizations problems. What we need is a new global economic system. One that doesn’t leave the vast majority of Earthlings (Read: humans and other beings on Earth) behind while the few, those in control of the system, prosper and profit. The most difficult thing for people to understand is that the system itself is the problem. It isn’t health care that is the problem, it isn’t religion that is the problem, it isn’t the whites, the blacks, the Asians, the corporations, or whatever other isolated group one wishes to pick. It is the monetary system, and to a lesser extent, governmental systems. Patching the system(s) is not the solution, just as treating the symptoms of a disease, and not the cause of the disease, is not the solution to a disease. People have a difficult time seeing this because they have not been educated, both in how to think, discern, and what information sources to pay attention to. Most people are indoctrinated and not educated. You can tell people that we have the Prussian education system, that they need to read John Gatto’s books or at least listen to interviews with him, and they simply couldn’t care. They have more immediate things to worry about such as how they are going to find a job, pay for their necessities, pay their debt, take care of their kids, manage their “responsibilities”. Let politicians who have very few problem solving capabilities deal with such problems. The corruption and aberration of ethics in the system is systemic. The system itself needs changing, and the only way to change it is through education and a probable collapse of the present system.

We are not living sustainably on this planet. And I understand why people in certain geographic regions do not see that. They live under a nanny state corporatocracy that censors their awareness. It is my understanding that if everyone lived as prolifically as Americans, all 7 billion and growing people, we would need more than 1 Earth, and I think the estimates go as high as 9 Earths, to provide the sort of lifestyle for everyone that Americans live with now.

Big business will not change willingly. Now, I am aware of conscious capitalism and I have argued elsewhere that it is a positive change for capitalism in general, but it will never become widespread and it will not make the foundational changes to the system that are required. Conscious capitalism is an evolved form of business. However, conscious capitalism will never become widespread and it cannot take into account that which I discuss prior or that which I discuss below because it still operates within a broken and aberrated system. It is patchwork. It is an evolvement, but what we need is a transformation.

Open and free economic models typically compete fundamentally with the sort of business models seen in a capitalist system. But, people don’t see this until it effects their bottom line, either profit or their job security. We can talk about openness, and we can taught its benefits and discuss its shortcomings, but we need to realize that it is at fundamental odds with our current economic system. In addition, it is important to realize that technological unemployment and associated issues are other factors that have an impact on our discussion. As I said earlier, the topic is very complex. There are open business models that do generate profit under our present system. I am aware of these. But they are not widespread and they can never be widespread in our current system. There are a variety of compounding factors, as I have stated, that necessitate a transformation. It is a bit like toxins in our environment. 1ppm of xzy compound may have no toxic effect, but it isn’t just xyz toxin that you need to be concerned about, it is the compounding effect of a variety of toxins such as, xyz, abc, bfg, tlz, that will lead to serious health problems. There are a variety of compounding issues going on now that necessitate a transformation.

We need a systemic transformation of our economic and governmental systems and we need it now. The longer we wait the more discomfort we will feel when everyone wakes up to the fact that a transformation of systems is the only option.

If people want a good reading list to start off with then I suggest the reading list recommended to all members of the Zeitgeist Movement/Venus project: http://www.amazon.com/SUGGESTED-READING-Zeitgeist-Movement-Project/lm/R2ZL8MT5VC0N7B

Watch some free political documentaries: http://freedocumentaries.org/

Educate yourself on matters of health: oneradionetwork.com & naturalnews.com & mercola.com

Listen to netcasts:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Peter-Joseph.rss

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/v-radio.rss

http://gnosticmedia.podOmatic.com/rss2.xml

http://renaissance.libsyn.com/rss

http://schoolsucks.podOmatic.com/rss2.xml

Some additional commentary:

I find it strange that people don’t find it an ethical aberration that we need to pay money, which is actually debt under our current system, in order to be born onto this planet…under our current economic system. That we need to pay and often work as a wage slave in order to provide for our necessities, that we then need to pay in order to die or someone else must pay for us.

I lived in Asia and traveled there regularly for over 15 years, and until several weeks ago I never knew why most Asians were better at math than westerners. No one ever told me. I just finished reading Martin Gladwell’s book “Outliers”. In the book, he explains fairly precisely why Asians are better at mathematics than most westerners and it is primarily, although there are other factors (there always are), due to the differences in our linguistic structures in concern to numbers and math. http://www.gladwell.com/outliers/outliers_excerpt3.html

This TED video discusses the same issue: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html

It has been my experience that the four primary motivators in the corporate environment are lust for power, the acquisition of resources, profit, and better alignment for easier profit, power, or resource acquisition. These videos provide a refreshing look into why we are motivated to do the things we do.