Recently writer, Alison Wynn, published new research in Gender & Society. She spent over a year conducting an in-depth case study of one of the largest technology companies in Silicon Valley. This company, which was not named, was implementing a gender and equality initiative – one that included unconscious bias trainings and mentorship programs.

The idea behind these initiatives is that if men can be taught to limit unconscious bias, and women can be taught to behave more assertively and demonstrate valued skills, only maybe can gender inequalities be reduced.

Through her findings, she realized that these initiatives, in fact, were ineffective. If anything, they promoted this unwanted bias. The problem is not only in the people, a huge factor is no one is holding the organization responsible for the role it plays in causing inequality.

https://hbr.org/2019/10/why-techs-approach-to-fixing-its-gender-inequality-isnt-working

---

Last week, I had shared about how the Asian and Chinese population was starting to get very worried about bullying toward their race amid the COVID-19, also known as Coronavirus. Unfortunately, according to a report, hateful online abuse toward the Asian and Chinese population has increased by 900%. The report stated, “Toxic tweets are using explicit language to accuse Asians of carrying the coronavirus and blaming people of Asian origin as a collective for spreading the virus.”

During these scary and unfortunate times, online bullying should not be one more thing anyone has had to worry about. Additionally, there has been a 70% increase of toxic comments and posts due to the coronavirus between kids and teens. With more and more time spent on social networks due to social distancing and safer-at-home orders, online hate speech and cyberbullying will only continue to go up.

---

To learn more about the report and what the startup L1ght has found, go to:

https://www.digitaltrends.com/news/cyberbullying-asian-people-hate-speech-coronavirus/

Recently, law enforcement was able to search a suspect’s cell phone without a warrant. Many people want to know how this is possible. The “abandonment doctrine” in the Fourth Amendment gives the police the ability to search a suspect’s cell phone is they believe it to be abandoned. The problem is what makes a cell phone abandoned? Unfortunately, this is unclear, and who determines whether the device is abandoned? The law enforcement agency. This seems quite conflicting, if a law enforcement agency wants information from a suspect’s cell phone, they will likely do what they can to deem the phone as “abandoned” to search it if they are unable to acquire a warrant. This came to light in a recent court case, Small v. United States where the suspect’s cell phone was found “abandoned” 100ft from their car after a police chase. It was then later used to locate the suspect. Should these warrantless cell phone searches be allowed? There is not doubt that they are an invasion of privacy, always secure your personal electronic devices and keep them on your person, even if you are not a suspect. Do what you can to protect your privacy.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/03/eff-supreme-court-losing-your-phone-shouldnt-mean-you-lose-your-fourth-amendment

Why is there a distinction between Instructional Designers and Teachers? Does this distinction prepare us for the direction and climate of education’s future?

One day, as I was pondering about the qualities and metaphysics of Instructional Design (ID) as any normal, cool human being does, I came to realization that instructional designers are a lot like teachers. Being in a family full of teachers, this fact became apparent to me quickly. I mean, do teachers not plan out their own curriculum? Aren’t they concerned with how their content is delivered as well? What is the difference, and what’s the point of instructional designer if there isn’t?

Starting off with some surface sign, designers design, and teachers teach. They are similar and utilize the same set of skills and knowledge, but aim at different functions of the learning process. Designer are not subject experts, so they have to consult an expert of a subject to get content for a delivery system. Teachers are masters at their subject, and can rely on themselves for content. Instructional designer have more variety where they can provide their services; they can work not only in the education field, but for the corporate world, focusing on mass employee training (which has different age groups and vastly different demographics).

What at their core makes them different? I believe it comes down to experience vs theory. Instruction designers focus on the theory behind how instruction should be taught, because their job is to make curricula cohesive yet holistic, and deliver it in the most effective way possible. They have more autonomy to mess with the format and medium (technology) of the content and see how it changes the outcome. Yes, they do rely on empirical and evidence, but they lack the instantaneous feedback that teachers have to make slight adjustments right away. Teachers’ strength is the experience they have of managing a classroom structure, understanding, tending to, and relating to kids in person, and know how to deliver information to make it relatable and alive. Since teachers’ focus are given to so many facets with a smaller, improportionate amount of time (content mastery, curriculum development, tutoring, teaching, etc.), there time is stretch between the mount of detail they can give. Yet, they still devote their time to the betterment of their students.

In a sense, a teacher is like a large plate, in that their focus is spread out to provide a more holistic experience. An instructional designer is like a bowl; it can’t do as much as the plate, but it’s depth allows more focus into certain topics. I believe the distinction is important, especially for the future. As the education system as it is now, teacher don’t have time or resources to improve their teaching; Instructional Designers can come in and help them design more efficient teaching methods if instruction is failing them. That said, working with teacher will help with practical and realistic design, and they it will be more adjusted to the teacher to convey the information to their class. In a perfect world with a superb education system, the distinct could still be possible. Teachers could adapt more into their Instructional Designer role, while the instructional designers become educational consultants, helping the teachers try out new theories of learning and conveyance to continue pushing the limits of what education can do. They might be similar, but they are truly the perfect team.

Here is another though piece between actual teachers and designers on what constitutes the difference:

https://evolvingeducator.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/teacher-vs-instructional-designer/

What can the principles of gaming can provide to the field of learning theory? How would one go about transitioning from games to structured learning? 

Here’s a simple truth in academia that is unsaid: no student likes to learn. A hard to swallow notion, but if student were not trying to get into the best schools nor show their worth through their grades, the learning content would become obsolete instantly, and the institution would cease because no student would willing do so. This begs the question, how and why do students learn? Why would they learn something like a video game or the rules for chess? Because games are fun to learn, and work is not. In games, the stakes are confined to the game itself, and can incorporate more facets of yourself to participate (at least facets not conventional to academia), which leads to engagement because the effort you put in leads to a victory over yourself. For work, it takes on serious tone that has consequences to yourself, and it asks the you to deliberately practice or display your skill or skill set; this provokes a voluntary unwillingness to participate in schoolwork, and the effort you put in can be seen as draining, a deficit toward yourself. Yet, there is schoolwork, and it has to be done; how can get the same engagement and attitudes from games towards schooling and learning?

In the early 2000’s, a new concept of instructional practice has emerged that basically changed the path of how instructional development was viewed: gamification. Gamification is the process of using game design principles in non-game environments to help students engage in content as if it was a game of tag or chess. This is different from Game-Based Learning, in which a game is specifically made to enhance players’ learning through it’s gameplay (the education is the focus); gamification takes the perspective of a subject and makes it into a game-like environment (activities that provide incentives of personal benefit). Such elements of gamification rely on the reward factor (ex. getting points for doing something right, prizes for a certain amount of points). Another example would be to have optional paths for the students to explore, such as a “choose-your-own-story” game to have autonomy of the curriculum (yet still arrive at the same point as everyone). This concept allowed for creative minds to perceive their topics as opportunities to become interactive, engaging experiences that would either resonate with the students or motivate them to learn how to accomplish the task at hand.

In my personal view, I feel gamification is the future of education, but it can go further through a different branch. I see gamification understanding the problem how to make education/learning engaging and “fun”, but its executions are missing an element; engaging the topics directly. Motivating children through rewards and using literal gaming elements can be helpful, but I perceive the motivation being the instant or material gratification; the incentive of education needs to the education itself. By framing education like this, it helps the students not only understand the content, but learn the mindsets and philosophies to perceive regular patterns in that certain subject. For example, you learn the game by doing/playing the game. Not so much in the sense of experimentation by experiential learning, but that the game itself is built in a way that helps you understand not only how to play, but learn and understand the principles and mechanics in so the user can approach the problems by themselves. If you want to see a great analysis on this new idea, watch the video below:

(WARNING: The following content contains a high use of profanities, please watch at your own discretion. Also, the tone seems too comical to be taken seriously, but it is the medium in which the analysis is presented.)

 

I have a good feeling that gamification will adapt and lead Instructional Design down a new road of how to better using systems to create optimal learning environments. Here’s a link how to start implementing Gamification into your Instructional Design!

https://elearningindustry.com/step-instructional-design-guide-elearning-gamification

Repeat after me: Social Media Activism is Valid. Social Media Activism is Valid. Social Media Activism is Valid. Social Media Activism is Valid. Social Media Activism is Valid.

Social Media Activism is extremely powerful. Before, activism was limited to local issues to national issues, but with the newfound ability to organize online, it can help bring awareness to and build momentum around geographically distant causes. THAT IS INSANE!!!

I am so grateful for the plethora of ways that we can organize in the 21st century that are an advancement of traditional ways of activism. Neither is better than the other. From using sites such as Twitter, Facebook, TikTok, Instagram, and Tumblr, folks young enough to use the internet can make a change. Hashtags brings awareness. They start the conversation. The validity of this type of activism is being felt currently with the COVID-19 pandemic and quarantines.

To end this post, repeat after me: Social Media Activism is Valid. Social Media Activism is Valid. Social Media Activism is Valid. Social Media Activism is Valid. Social Media Activism is Valid.

Harvardpolitics.com/world/social-media-activism/

A large number of companies are rolling out mandatory work-from-home policies to help limit the risks posed by the coronavirus outbreak. But cybersecurity experts warn that those remote setups invite new hacking risks. This means that more personal devices, being used to handle and process business data are at the upmost risk.

There have been so many data breaches with all of our passwords for so many years now that there’s always a password that you can associate with an individual. So what hackers will try is password spraying which is just taking your username with your password and variations on a theme of your password and trying to brute force their way into your office systems.

Read more about it here: https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/03/30/822687397/cybersecurity-lawyer-who-flagged-the-who-hack-warns-of-massive-remote-work-risks

With the corona virus pandemic ongoing, many countries around the world have been taking aggressive action to stop the spread. This has caused many industries to be on the verge of shutting down, due to people no longer being able to do their work, let alone many have already shut down. Our work is so reliant on physical, human interaction, that this is essentially what is exacerbating the spread of the virus. The strength of our economy relies on the ability for industries to continue doing work and being productive despite circumstances, but this is just not the case.

This has ultimately created a downward spiral of our finical market over the past few weeks. Most of industries work has already switched from physical to digital, work of which can be done by AI. It would make more sense for the work to eventually be automated by AI, or directly automate industries physical work using advanced robotics powered by AI. By allowing AI to take on the roles of humans, we can eliminate the need for human interaction without halting a significant part of our economy.

In the future, AI and robots could automate many of the crucial operations that are needed for a society to function without little to no human supervision. These robots can function autonomously, receiving instructions remotely or be controlled remotely. Crucial functions of our society can still be executed when human interaction is not advisable such as what is happening in the world today. AI can help us build a more resilient economy from this exactly, otherwise it will spiral out of control leading us into a recession sort of what we are witnessing today.

https://www.cmswire.com/digital-workplace/can-ai-help-us-build-a-more-resilient-economy-in-the-face-of-covid-19/

https://qz.com/1822127/encryption-app-to-avoid-coronavirus-censorship-removed-by-apple-in-china/

Last week, Apple reportedly removed a Chinese encryption app, called Boom the Encryption Keyboard, from the China app store. Boom is an encryption keyboard app that allows users in China to discuss and share information online, particularly about the coronavirus, without having to worry about the information being censored or removed by the Chinese government due to their strict internet censorship laws. The app allows Chinese users to keep their opinions and information censorship free by converting text, in English and Chinese, to emojis, Japanese characters, Korean characters, and by rearranging the text in random order. Chinese users can then decrypt the text by copying the emojis or characters onto the app.

I feel disappointed that the Boom Encryption Keyboard app was removed from the Apple app store in China. I think that this app was a great tool for Chinese citizens to use in order to spread knowledge and awareness in a country where the government doesn’t allow you to speak freely and openly. However, I think it is very sad that Chinese citizens have to go to these lengths just to discuss sensitive matters online such as the coronavirus. In Apple’s perspective, I do understand why they felt the need to remove the app from the app store. Apple is a very large company who I imagine never wants to get on people’s bad side, especially not on the bad side of an entire government. As far as the Boom creator is concerned, I hope that he, and other Chinese citizens, continue to do what they safely can do to spread awareness and knowledge of issues concerning their country such as information about the coronavirus.