Another dot in the blogosphere?

Posts Tagged ‘change

History repeats itself. We just have to be still and reflective enough to notice. For example:

But to actually change, we need to have the courage and persistence to take action.

As I start another teaching semester, I draw inspiration from someone whose blog I added to my RSS feed a long time ago.

In a recent post, Lisa Lane shared how she helped her students keep the cost of higher education down by offering a free textbook.

She lamented how policies stood in the way of progressive change. She could not tap an Open Educational Resources (OER) fund as compensation because the grant was for those adopting OERs, not for those creating them.

Furthermore, the grants were for those who could prove cost-savings over the previous semester. Lane relied on the free model the previous semester, so she could not justify how free was better than free.

Such policies punish progressive faculty who move ahead of policies written by those who do not teach or have forgotten how to.

But there is a silver lining. Lane’s students valued the gifts of free books that they were treated gingerly. Some were good enough to be used another semester. She inadvertently developed a method to sustain the good will.

I take inspiration from the fact that Lane shares her trials, tribulations, and triumphs. I know full well how moving ahead quickly means taking difficult paths that few initially follow. But I take comfort in that more eventually will.

What could be cuter than a teddy bear? Not much.

Yet there was an anti-teddy bear movement. The most recent Pessimists Archive podcast provides all the details.

In hindsight, such a fear seems unreasonable and even impossible. But back then, it was fuelled by irrational fear and the need to maintain the status quo.

There is still much fear of educational technologies current, cutting edge, and future. The fears are based on the same unwillingness to see possibilities, mitigate risks, and embrace change.

So while edtech evangelists might feel the burden to be unbearable now, this too shall pass. I say we grin and bear with it.

Video source

Watching this video about the original Macintosh and other old computers brought back memories. When I was in secondary school, I joined a brand new computer club that had a few Apple I computers and IBMs.

We had lessons on BASIC and optionally on COBOL. We learnt from recipes the teacher in charge wrote on a blackboard and we wrote them down in note books.

As each of us had very little time with the shared computers, we wrote our simple programmes on paper in advance and tried to foresee what might happen. When we had actual access, we typed in what we wrote and tried to troubleshoot as fast as we could.

This was one of the first few times I felt empowered to create something, test it, and learn safely from failing. I caught the bug and needed my own Apple I.

But these computers were expensive and I bugged my father for one. Long story short — we could not afford an original so we bought one of the many clones.

I dove into simple programming at every waking moment. I enjoyed being able to start the Apple computer with my own programme running from a floppy diskette.

But my joy was interrupted by a demand from my father. He dumped a pile of unmarked papers in front of me and asked if the computer could grade them.

I was flabbergasted then and the memory troubles me now. Computers, particularly those without any of the peripherals and AI we have now, could not grade homework almost 40 years ago. Despite the advances in computing power and ability, they are still stumped by human nuance.

I was also stumped by wilful human ignorance as well. Older and sometimes well-meaningful folk (like administrators and policymakers) tend to observe technology from a distance. Without an immersive experience and use, they cannot see possibilities or limitations.

Technology makes change seem inevitable. But human change, not so much.

Just as soon as the harried assessment phase of the semester of one institution was over, I had to contend with the administrative and preparatory work with another institution.

So occupied was I that I left this little gem languishing as a draft in my Notes app — the “evils” of the telegraph.

The tweet, newspaper clipping, and podcast comes courtesy of the Pessimists Archive.

In the 1800s, the telegraph was a new technology and along with it came fear, mistrust, and disinformation. Back then, people wondered about:

  • Speed vs truth
  • Ease vs security
  • Convenience vs privacy

Today, people wonder the same about social media. The more things change, the more they remain the same. This happens because we do not learn from critical analyses of history.

See the world as it is… and defy it. -- Satya Nadella, Microsoft CEO

I got the quote above from this interview.

Taken out of context, the words of Satya Nadella, the Microsoft CEO, might sound like a call for chaos.

Change might resonate or disrupt. But it rarely starts with getting permission first. It often starts with defiance to norms that feel wrong or could be elevated.

I listen to several podcasts. One I meander to frequently is the Pessimists Archive. (Yes, I have mentioned it before. No, I am not sponsored to do this.)

I listened to the episode on The Waltz. I did not realise that one objection to the dance was that women would get dizzy and then lose themselves to lust. Never mind that the restrictive clothing and poor ventilation were more likely culprits.

Another objection to the waltz was that women had moves equal to those of men. So men, concerned more about ego and place, sought to protect the fairer sex from such perceived evil.

Doing the waltz is a non-issue today. So how did such a change take place?

One contributor to change was the polka, which came after the waltz. It was similar to the waltz except that it was “the happy, bouncy version”. The polka allowed people to see the waltz as safe because nothing bad happened after people spun around a room in both cases.

This led the narrator to reveal a change principle:

If something seems threatening, find a safer way to express that same thing. It’s like innovation inoculation, a vaccine for new things.

Change agents with serious agendas can relate. The changes that they see are urgent and important, but they face the inertia of entire organisations or societies. Trying to ring change in its immediate and pure form is likely to be stopped dead in its tracks. They might try the sneaky but possibly more effective inoculation method instead.

Click to see all the nominees!

QR code

Get a mobile QR code app to figure out what this means!

My tweets


Usage policy

%d bloggers like this: