I’m Back….

Back from MSET and new found inspiration has encouraged me to revisit my blog. Let’s get this party started!  They keynote, Yong Zhao made sense to me and I will be purchasing his book, “Catching Up or Leading the Way: American Education in the Age of Globalization”.  More later after I read it!  I was also intrigued by all of the sessions on e-learning and particularly liked that MSET had partnered with other organizations to create the conference.

Looking into the following:  Calais, Zemanta, and articles about semantic websites:  Web 3.0.  You knew it had to arrive right?  Put your seatbelt on!

Related articles by Zemanta

• ViewChange.org – a semantic video experience (zemanta.com)

The Procrastinator (1952) – From Film to Video Integration – Where is Multimedia Taking Our Instruction?

more about “The Procrastinator (1952) – Part One …“, posted with vodpod

Poor Jean, in this 1953 video by Centron Productions, “Procrastination” she just cannot seem to find the time to organize herself! Her intentions are good, but her follow through is not! (You can find this film in its entirety here.) The funny thing is, change the clothes and the props and you will recognize commonalities between students from 1953 and today! Procrastination is still amongst us.

I can remember my elementary class sitting on the stage in our cafeteria, the curtain closes and the lights go down….we were all settled in to watch a television broadcast about science. We loved it. Video. Visual learning. I don’t recall being “prepared” for the television show. I don’t recall taking notes during the broadcast. But I do recall our entire class sitting silently taking in every word, probably very much like the class who observed this film in 1953.

Our students are different. They are not casual observers. They are collaborative, participatory, integrated thinkers who expect to use multimedia tools simultaneously. That’s how they come to us. They are automatically wired. Where are we? Do we procrastinate using these tools while teaching from a sense of nostalgia? Do we say, “It worked for me!?”

If you took the time to watch the film, you would have seen that Jean’s principal tried to show her how to make a “To Do” list on paper. Jean watched with feigned enthusiasm. Then, she went back to business as usual. She had a lot to learn. Yet, sometimes educators have a lot to learn, too. Integrating video and other multimedia tools into our instruction is not something we can procrastinate on any longer! The student is ready to acquire information – digitally. We have to instruct in the forum that they will be living.

Visual learning is a strong partner in online and Web 2.0 tools. Check out SearchMe.com or Visuwords

There are multiple ways to integrated video into instruction. Streaming video from Discovery Streaming is one. Educators can develop lesson plans using the assignment builder allowing students to interact with the streaming video. Educators can create blogs and wikis and embed video into them as a resource. Video can be a final product choice for students using iMovie or other software. Educators and students can create screencasts to explain their thinking, resources, or how to complete a task. Students can extend their learning by adding to a classroom wiki and add pertinent video. Teams of students and educators can use a bookmarking tool such as Del.icio.us to share video resources and collaborate their learning experiences. Video is one component, we also must consider audio and interactive games!

Nostalgia holds a place in our hearts and memories. It has no place in our profession – our students must be ready for the future not the past.

The Blogosphere: Our New Ecosystem

When you are met with a new frontier, what do you do? Should you forge ahead with old patterns, tools, and expectations – and expect to know exactly how everything will interact and work? Can you alter it, manipulate it, and control it until it looks like what you already knew? I’m guessing that neither would be the case.

Here we stand as educators looking into a new world of information. As Clay Shirkey calls it, “a new ecosystem”. The world is at our doorstep. Should we close the door and peer through the window? Should we wait a few years, until somebody tells us that everything is safe – and then open the door? Here’s what some anonymous educational laymen think about using blogs in education – one of the new life forms of this unchartered ecosystem.

From Revellian: “Our education system often teach brilliant children as if they are mentally challenged and most are never inspired to reach early intellectual potential.”

From lilyputts: “I think it really depends on what the class is to blog about. After many years with a child that has Asbergers Syndrome (autism), knowing his strong point is the computer I must agree. However in classes with teachers that are just there for the paycheck, well there’s a different matter. You would be surprised how many teachers are computer illiterate!”

From Theresa 111: “All right…put on the brakes. Food for thought. If blogging is an art form and a way to express ourselves then it would be a good thing to encourage our children to BLOG. However, and this is where a line of demarcation should be drawn, they should only be encouraged to do this internally. Within their school system. This way they learn many necessary skills and begin to develop and learn to enjoy interaction with others, on a wholly more intrinsic level than they would in the classroom or on the playground. As long as the school monitored the blog interactions to keep the children safe, perhaps they would be more supportive of one another and less prone to violence. Allowing them to BLOG on the Internet would be pure folly!”

From legbamel: “The idea of intranet blogs for school systems is, however, a stroke of genius. Make the date and time stamp unchangeable and you’ve got a great way to write about the book your supposed to be reading for class, trouble you’re having with your math homework, and the confusion engendered by a new topic in science class. Your teachers can see exactly what question came up and address it either in the comments or to the class as a whole in school. Fantastic! Now, how do I propose this to my school board…”

In this one post, we find many of the pros and cons surrounding blogging in schools. On the one hand blogging may be a valid learning tool for our brightest students – a way for them to reach out to the world. It may be a tool for those students whom otherwise might have great difficulty connecting to other students. On the other hand, we can’t control the blogosphere. Should we limit our students to a school system intranet? Should we monitor their blogs 24/7 and tell parents that we will keep their students safe?

If we use a definition of blogging as written by Will Richardson, ” Blogging as in writing that has “Links with analysis and synthesis that articulates a deeper understanding or relationship to the content being linked [to] and written [about] with potential audience response in mind.” – then perhaps an intranet option would work. Except there is only one problem. Do we want our children to learn how to interact with only people like them – in a pending global economy? Or, can we trust that they can learn – and more importantly – learn how to be safe - in a larger audience? Is Theresa111 right when she asks that as educators we must, “As long as the school monitored the blog interactions to keep the children safe, perhaps they would be more supportive of one another and less prone to violence”?

Education and educators cannot solve society’s problems nor can it predict with pure accuracy that forging ahead in a new ecosystem will be flawless. Do we stay with what we know in order to be safe? Do we allow our students to participate in a limited blogosphere that eliminates their interactions with anyone outside of the schoolhouse? Yes, there are reasons to do both – but that should not be the absolute answer.

Could it be possible that elementary students could successfully blog with students from other nations? Absolutely. The problem is that there can be no absolute assurance that something might not go wrong. That is not to say that there cannot be guidelines in place to try to make sure things go right! Educators can make sure that all comments go through them first. Students can be taught nettetiquette and how to analyze others writing while linking it to their own analysis of content, world events and interests.

I think that we must allow our students to begin to enter their new frontier in school – where we can teach them how to navigate as safely as possible. To wait for absolutes may render them lost in an ecosystem that is theirs to own.

Jing! Bringing a beam of sunlight into tech training…

I love Jing. This is the most exciting tool I’ve used in a while! Do you have teachers in your building that are technology immigrants – to the point that they soak up lots of your time being trained on the same tool? That’s a digital immigrant. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not their fault! They have been trained to do things right. I mean, they fear making a mistake. They were taught that the definition of excellence is something – error free. Well, that kind of thinking works well when you are editing a final draft, but what if you are trying to learn a new technology tool? If you love using technology, then you know trial and error is expected. In most cases, if you do something wrong it can be corrected.

Digital immigrants hate making mistakes. They fear that if they do something wrong, it will be unchangeable. Jing is a great solution to helping these folks.

I’m thinking about creating a bunch of quick tutorials using Jing. These tutorials will help the digital immigrants answer those simple questions – without the embarrassment of asking again! And, it saves me a bit of time, too. Imagine wanting to learn how to send an e-mail with an attachment – and it will take three sessions to fully understand the steps. No problem! Create a Jing screencast of the directions and the user can replay it as many times as needed. Perfect!

Anyone, digital immigrant (some teachers), or digital native (most students) will love the combination of visual and auditory directions. Add a piece of music in the background and you have a mini-movie ready to share!

Be sure to remember the cognitive load theory. Keep your screencasts focused on the task at hand. If you are creating some how-to screencasts for your folks who have trouble learning new technology software – keep the video short and to the point. Everyone will benefit from screencasts that:

• begin with a short overview of what will be learned
• stay focused on the task at hand
• show what the user needs to know in sequential steps
• explains why
• keep directions simple
• provides a positive and friendly tone
• invites them back

Be sure not to overload your learner. Use Jing, your staff will love it. Professional development just in time!

Website Design Simplicity

My post is late! Apart from wanting to write this blog, I must confess that there is an official reason for creating it. Yes, it is part of a master’s class. Up until now, every post has been inspired. This one seems forced. But, a grade is a grade none the less!

This week, we have discussed usability in web design. It wasn’t a great “thinking” week for me. The guru of usability had a website that I thought was unusable. So, where do you go from there? Yep, uninspired.

Our forum conversations swirled around simplicity of design for websites. We all agreed that websites should be designed with the user in mind. As educators, our users will include a myriad of teachers and students. Each individual will approach any website we create with individualized awareness of the site and its contents. Clearly, there are some basic good design practices: use of white space, photographs that add value to the page, limited scrolling, buttons placed in the same place on each page, care in choosing colors, limited text and being cognizant of reading levels. The puzzle for me was how to create a website that would be intuitive for a group of users with varying experiences, knowledge, and aptitude.

Then, I found the article written by Jared M. Spool, “What Makes a Design Seem ‘Intuitive’?. In his article he discusses the two different kinds of users. “The first user’s current knowledge point and the target knowledge point are identical. In other words, when the user walks up to the design, they know everything they need to operate it and complete their objective. The second user’s current knowledge point and the target knowledge point are separate but the user is completely unaware that the design is helping them bridge the gap. The user is being trained, but in a way that seems natural.” Mr. Spool likes usability testing as a way to determine the gaps in user knowledge. He states that in order for the user to perceive the design as intuitive the knowledge the user has when they arrive at the design (current knowledge), the knowledge they’ll need to complete their tasks (target knowledge), and what the design needs to do to help them complete the task (the gap) are the key ingredients for making an interface that seems ‘intuitive’ to the users. In education, we often train the user to use the tool in order to be successful with the task. We also can design the website to reduce the amount of training needed.

I’ve had some personal experiences of late with a website that brought this usability point home for me. Our master’s certificate requires that we use a website interface for online learning. The interface doesn’t change from class to class (current knowledge)- but the instructors have. Small differences in setting up the class, changes in rhythm, and different expectations have rendered me confused in an environment that I once felt quite comfortable (target knowledge). In some ways the usability of the course interface has become more difficult for me. (the gap) I sometimes wonder whether it is my thinking style that gets in the way. I am very aware that I am a global learner, which by the way seems more like a curse than a blessing at times. Most people think sequentially. Not me. I have to see the big picture. Well, my big picture for my online learning environment has changed – big time. The rhythm has changed. I can’t depend upon my intuition to move through this class. My preferred way of learning is to jump around different ideas and make connections. The connections are different now. You can give me a sequence of steps, but I can’t focus on it without understanding the connections. My learning style is intuitive, and now I’m out of step. Details are lost to me and my learning style weaknesses are showing! I’m not saying I can’t think sequentially. But I am saying that I was comfortable in the environment – and now suddenly my current knowledge isn’t meeting the target. Something has changed. It’s subtle to the casual sequential observer but huge for me. Jumping isn’t sequential and the connections I had made now are not there. Sequential learners don’t get this and probably can’t imagine how it feels to be missing those intuitive connections. And, I bet they don’t think much about rhythm or intuitive connections when designing new activities. Why should they, everything is there in sequential steps – just follow it! That’s the frustration of being in a “thinking minority”. Awareness of users is key and remembering the weaknesses of your learning style is a significant part of unlocking new information. I think I may have zigged when I should have zagged!

Will Richardson’s Interview with Clay Shirky author of “Here Comes Everybody”

View the clip from Will Richardson’s UStream website. I am intrigued by the cultural shift we are encountering with the read/write web. I think it would be fair to say that I will be reading Clay Shirky’s book, “Here Comes Everybody: The Power of Organizing without Organizations” soon. Based on the interview that Will Richardson conducted and shared on UStream, there are many interesting and thoughtful ideas that educators will want to ponder after reading this book. The jist of the book is “organizing without organizations” and the idea that “group action just got easier”.

What ramifications will this cultural shift have on education? What has already happened? What is inevitable? Where should our focus be? How can we be part of the change in an effective way – a way that solves some of our inherent problems? The thoughts that follow share much of Mr. Shirky’s interview as I think about how his findings may affect education.

One of the problems, is that a majority of teachers are focused on teaching from a very narrow lens. We know that assessment drives instruction – and like it or not “No Child Left Behind” has created our official assessment tools. When teachers need PD to improve instruction, an educational system comes in and provides information that rarely includes technology innovation as a primary solution. The solutions tend to be strongly print based – especially in the area of reading interventions. At the same time, teachers are encouraged to integrate technology – not as a direct, high-stakes link to student achievement, but rather to motivate learning. Once students are motivated by technology, instruction returns to primarily print based choices. True integration and collaboration amongst teachers, specialists, administration, coordinators and students through the use of technology is still considered an option. And, in many ways the options of collaboration are controlled by the educational system. There are controlled decisions about who can collaborate with whom and why. Imagine the kinds of conversations that might occur if anyone could join any specialty’s e-mail conference. Would teachers of English find reasons to collaborate with teachers of Economics – who knows? The problem is many options are closed by the system to only those who “belong” narrowing the focus and opportunity for conversation and collaboration. Now, with technology teachers in some schools, teachers often look at technology options that are outlined within their curriculum explicitly – as something the technology teacher should take over. This magnifies their isolation and narrow focus for teaching and learning. However, it is not their fault. The system does not truly value innovation. Teachers are not assessed by their propensity to innovate. In fact, the idea of attempting something challenging or new during an official observation could be an invitation for more official observations – especially if your innovation failed!

Until the educational system changes its focus on primarily assessing the individual rather than assessing the individual’s ability to collaborate (a 21st century skill) or create a collaborated product, the focus of education will be misaligned with the needs of our cultural shift. Our focus should be in teaching students how to function within a group successfully – by adding value – and how to assess their own ability to contribute – rather than free ride. (Shirky)

Our cultural shift, thanks to the read/write web, embraces the concept of collaboration and ease of conversation – our collective intelligence to solve problems. The educational system as we know – is industrially based. Teachers are assessed individually as well as students. There is an inherent lack of flexibility in this kind of assessment. It should be of no surprise that collaboration, while discussed as an important element of both teaching and learning, is not a valued component of assessment. As long as our assessment of ourselves and our students remains rigidly based and narrowly focused – our teaching and the effects of our teaching will remain the same.

Technology teachers who are at the helm of technology integration have a near impossible mission. In the hierarchy, they are no more seen as leaders then any other teacher. They cannot be. There is no form of reward for innovation. There are numerous rewards for compliance. There is no venue in which for them to excel or prove their worth within the realm of innovation – innovation requires flexibility – and the hierarchy was not created to encourage, reward, or cultivate this kind of thinking. Change is “glacially slow” in education. Our culture, however, is rapidly changing its ability to converse and collaborate. Our systems’ answer to this high flexibility change is to control it. It can during the day, as teachers plan their lessons, and as students traverse its hallways. But, after school, students and teachers are free to explore and learn. As they do, the day to day control of information, collaborative opportunity, and the ability to reach out beyond the walls of the educational system reveals the expanding irrelevancy of the system. A contradiction occurs within the learning of both teacher and student. And, for those teachers who react in disbelief to our rapidly changing culture – they find themselves more and more in contradiction with “today’s student”. They puzzle at not being able to reach them or teach them.

The answer lies not in constantly gently pushing the envelope of providing optional technology PD for the individual teacher. The answer lies in our collective use of technology to answer the problems we see in education – and rewarding those innovations. But, alas, if we can collectively improve education without organizations as we know them, where does that leave the archaic, heavily entrenched systems like teacher’s unions and industrial hierarchies? Where do they fit in this new way of conversing and collaborating? Do we need them, or can they foresee their own limitations and as such refuse to allow us to propel forward?

The printing press is here. We can’t ignore the elephant in the room. We can’t ignore its potential, nor can we refuse it because of potential problems. Instead we should be thinking about changing our focus to a more global one, teaching our students ethics in its use, and assisting them as they stumble along the way…as WE stumble along the way. Think about the first products that came from the printing press….we certainly learned how to create a more effective, relevant product as time went on. We are on the cusp of a new method of sharing information. Education cannot afford to ignore the change. Will there come a time when students learn more after school than during school? Has that time already arrived? Buy your own copy of Mr. Shirky’s book and lets continue conversing about the future of education. Check back and let me know what you think!

Adobe Fireworks: A Powerful Tool with a Powerful Learning Curve

Thanks to UTube and a few helpful techie friends I was able to change my banner today! I think Adobe Fireworks is probably an extremely creative tool – once you know how to use it!

My banner change hopefully reflects my desire to think creatively and “outside the box”. ThinkTech was born with a hope that one day it would be a “think tank” for integrating technology into our schools. But, it will take more than just me to create it! If you are interested in discussing technology integration, learning, thinking, and how best to teach our students 21st century skills – come back and join the conversation!

ThinkTech – where “thinking outside the box” is the only way to think about innovation!

Arizona, 2008

Sedona

Phoenix, Arizona from South Mountain

Phoenix, Arizona

Hot, dry, and flat with sharp mountains edging up around you as if magically! Sedona – the land of the red rocks is majestic. The beauty is awe inspiring. We did not have the forethought to “book” some sightseeing trips in order to see the rocks close-up, but another trip we will! The early settlers and Native Americans who lived in this area hundreds of years ago were a rugged group! The land is beautiful, but extremely difficult to travel and living conditions must have been challenging.

Pondering Desktop Publishing

“Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower.” Steve Jobs

How do you view the future of low-tech tools such as desktop publishing software, and is there a worthwhile space for publishing tools in today’s curriculum?

This would have been an easy question, if it weren’t for the word “future“. Pondering what the future of education and the use of low-tech tools may be is an exercise in analyzing complicated concurrent events!

Let’s look at the low-tech desktop publishing software individually. The innovation of software is the ease in which anyone can access it – for free – through Web 2.0 websites. The power of Web 1.0 was commerce. The power of Web 2.0 is people. Empowering people to connect, communicate, and create information is the strength of Web 2.0. Web 2.0 websites crop up in beta formats with the direct desire to create a tool that will work for the people who desire to use it. Innovation of the tool is styled by everyday people with everyday purposes. These purposes lean heavily toward applications for the business world. Check out the Web 2.0 Summit 2008 website and note how much of the summit is geared toward educational interests. Nada. The future of software technology is definitely not low-tech desktop publishing software. Not for business. But, what about education?

The Web 2.0 Summit 2008 is narrowing its focus this year to this question, “How can the web, its technologies, its values, and its culture be tapped to address pressing opportunities?” This question is based on the assumption that complex systems are reaching their limits. Complex systems like: financial markets, healthcare, religious wars. From harnessing collective intelligence to a bias toward open systems – worldwide issues could approach solution through innovative Web 2.0 social movements.

How far away from understanding the value and essential nature of digital information can the United States educational system be? While our “complex system” discusses how to integrate technology within strict guidelines, control, and restraint – the world is opening up. The question becomes, “As a complex system has education as we know it reached its limit? “

David Warlick, posed this question to NECC 2008 attendees, “What do you believe are the fundamental disruptive conditions that are demanding a new kind of educational institution?” Two interesting responses follow:

From Lee Kobert: “This may be politically incorrect, but I believe the compulsion to be politically correct in every area, really shortchanges the kids. The desire to avoid conflict, and perhaps litigation, at all cost in our schools has caused us to do bizarre things in the name of “increasing graduation rates” or “protecting the feelings” of our children. For example, we’ve removed playground equipment and snuffed out recess from the elementary school day, banned awards ceremonies because not everyone gets an award, locked down Internet sites based on a single parent’s complaint, changed the content of history books and give extra credit for bringing in cans of food for food drives. The top-down pressure has caused our creative teachers to cower in the corners of their classrooms, waiting for the door to close so they can teach away from the worksheets and #2 bubble forms. I imagine an education institution where project-based learning and the whole student is allowed on the educational playground, even if he/she may get a bruised knee!

And this from Barbara Jansen:

“Another disruptive condition is the prevalence of technology in the workplace–not just using Microsoft Word, but using technology to solve problems and redefine the traditional ways of doing business, from conducting research to communicating with clients. Traditional administrators and teachers (those who still teach the way they learned in high school and college in the 1950s-mid 90s) sometimes have a difficult time seeing a need for, and identifying how 21st century skills fit into their curriculum so that we can prepare students for success in the workplace. State educational learning standards are far behind the real world. It can take ten or more years for a state to update standards, then many more for them to actually filter down into the curriculum that is actually taught. How can we expedite this process?”

If we believe that desktop publishing as we know it, is a thing of the past for the business world, can it still have significance for education? And, better still – should it?

The answer lies in your fundamental beliefs about education. Is “good enough” enough? Is what is easy, the best? Is teaching to the test, education? I think China answered a resounding, “No!” to “all of the above” when they procured an e-learning deal with the UK. From the BBC, “Education and training are increasingly being seen as an important export market – with a report last week claiming that it was earning more for the UK economy than financial services or the car industry.” The United Kingdom’s innovative e-learning techniques have rendered them a leader – and the United States – a follower. Our educational systems recreate the wheel in each individual state – we do not collaborate between states to create a collaborated curriculum – how can we merge into collaboration with the world?

So then, is there a space for publishing tools in today’s curriculum. Yes. Students must learn how to publish their thoughts into dynamic presentations that may include: newsletters, magazines, flyers, and brochures. The digital formats that desktop publishing allows can introduce students to the Internet as “information provider” platform (Web 1.0). Our need for present day desktop publishing amplifies our loss of opportunity to collaborate with others in Web 2.0 applications.

I leave you with this, “How can the web, its technologies, its values, and its culture be tapped to address pressing opportunities in education?” The answer lies among the collaborative technologies of Web 2.0. Perhaps we should be on the invitation list for Web 2.0 Summit 2008 for our students’ sake.

Do schools today kill creativity? (Ken Robinson, TEDTalks)

more about “Do schools today kill creativity? (Ke…“, posted with vodpod

Innovation meets Bureaucracy

For those who become impatient with the glacially slow pace in which the educational system embraces innovation, this video may inspire you. Bureaucracy and innovation seem an unlikely pair. Yet, bureaucracy helps us be efficient. How then, to move our bureaucratic school system toward innovation? Thompson (1965) suggests the following:

Increased Professionalism. Incentive systems should be created to reward those who are knowledgeable and innovative. Employees need a certain amount of autonomy and a voice in how they work. In order for creativity to flourish, a level of uncertainty and personal security is needed.

What if? What if educators were evaluated on their ability to innovate their curriculum? What if they were rewarded for learning in ways that valued more than monetary compensation? What if educators could be evaluated beyond “satisfactory” to other identifiers like, “highly creative”, or “highly collaborative” or “best adapter”? What if exceptional teachers could be advanced? What if teachers felt comfortable in questioning administrative decisions because the school was a true learning community?

Untidy Organizational Structure. In order for collaboration to occur, practical overlapping of duties/responsibilities between groups of employees with a common goal is necessary.

What if? What if on any given day, the principal sat in the classroom, or the novice teacher sat in the front office – each with an eye on finding ways to improve education at the school? What if the duties of the classroom teacher, specialist, principal, or curriculum coordinator were seamless and changed depending on the project at hand – with each having the opportunity to lead?

Project Organization of Work, Rotation of Assignments. Organizational structure and leadership style change with the kind of problem to be solved.

What if? What if teachers could give presentations to curriculum coordinators about their research concerning content – because that kind of collaboration was expected? What if a teacher could teach at a different school each week depending upon their strengths as a teacher?

Free Communication, Decentralization of Power. As employees move from project to project within a project-based rather than hierarchical structure both a decentralization of power and free communication will emerge. Thompson (1965) suggests that dispersion of power and open communication are important – especially since concentrated power prevents imaginative solutions to problems.

What if? What if  innovation was encouraged and mistakes never stigmatized? What if educational spin was deemed dysfunctional to education?

As we continue to teach the whole child in isolated experiences, I can’t help but wonder if the child makes any connection in their mind between physical education and art or music and science. As educators, what connections are we making between the hierarchical offices of our institution and our personal need for information or purpose or support? In our hierarchy, once an idea is put into action do we have the ability to enhance or alter that idea? Or, is that attempt at uncertainty squelched? How are we valued, by our ability to conform or innovate? Our propensity to question or accept? Our educational system is a reflection of the values of the Industrial Age. Our students demand us to prepare them for the future, not the past.

And, in order to train them, we must teach in an environment that embraces the characteristics of a flat world. Our system must become one that embraces the values of the Digital Age – the ability to: collaborate, leverage the use of technology, explain complex topics in simple terms, synthesize to make original connections, and the ability to learn how to learn. Imagine a system that values, prioritizes, and motivates based on the values of the Digital Age!

(Thompson, V. A. (1965). Bureaucracy and Innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 10(1), 1-20.)