Standards V & VI- Reflections

Standard V: Productivity and Professional Practice

Several years ago, using calculators in a school setting was considered “technology integration.” Today, for many teachers, Microsoft Office is “technology.” For our students, “technology” means cell phones and iPads. Is technology changing that fast? Or is our definition of technology shifting steadily with each new development? What is considered “technology” for one generation does not receive the same label. It is as though something is only “technology” if was developed after our birth (Hartman, Moskal, & Dziuban, 2005). However, with each new advancement comes new potential. This standard is, at its core, about tapping into that potential and affecting the way educators operate on a daily basis, changing everything from teaching and learning to community communication to participation in professional growth activities (Williamson & Redish, 2009). One of the most important things I can do as an educator and as a technology facilitator/leader of the future is to encourage my colleagues to commit themselves to learning. Technology certainly has a role in this, especially with the rise of social networking sites such as NingPlurkFacebook, and Twitter for the purpose of expanding an educator’s practice and professionalism. It would be all too easy, however, to say that this standard is about finding new and creative ways for teachers to use new technologies that will make their lives easier/simpler/faster/cheaper. It would additionally be a gross oversimplification that radically misses the heart of the message presented by Williamson and Redish who, citing Michael Fullan, argue that, “addressing productivity and professional practice in schools… requires leveraging technology to support the ‘reculturing’ of schools” (1999; 2009). Through the use of technology, I am called not only to help teachers implement new tools that will support their own learning and productivity and their students’ learning and productivity, but also completely change the culture of the organization. This can only occur if I have facilitated a culture of learning and change. The organization itself cannot change nor can it learn unless the members that make up that organization are themselves learning individually (Senge, 1990/2010). This, then, is my call: facilitate an environment and even a culture of learning within the organization of which I am a member and thus model what I expect to see from my coworkers. Innovation and a culture of change starts with me.

Standard VI: Social, Ethical, Legal, and Human Issues

This standard might be the most pressing issue facing technology in education today. There has been much talk over the past several years about the difference between today’s students and teachers, even to the extent that they have been labeled based on this difference (Prensky, 2001). Narrowly defined, the issue is what to do with ethical and moral issues that technology use brings with it. In the arena of social, ethical, legal, and human issues, I have worked diligently, even before knowing that it was considered a tenet of being a successful technologist. In surveying the educational landscape, I am keenly aware that today’s teachers, almost exclusively members of older generations, believe today’s students to be inherently proficient with technology. Further complicating the issue, because many in older generations are not as comfortable with the latest in technology, they have opted to disengage from the dialogue that must occur to keep our students safe, productive members of a digital society. There are indeed unique challenges that the proliferation and ubiquity of computer use and Internet access have brought upon our schools, particularly with the introduction of web 2.0 and social technologies (James, 2009). What I find most interesting is the intersection of my own story with the story of public education, particularly in the area of technology. As schools face challenges adapting to new styles of learning and different educational needs expressed by students, along with the social and ethical issues raised with “digital natives,” I have realized that I have found myself with a foot on either side of this chasm. On the one hand, I myself am a digital native. I “speak the language” if you will. My own learning preferences are in tight alignment with those of my students and, in reading many different articles and pieces about how to relate to the “Net Gen,” I frequently finding myself asking if the author was genuinely ignorant of that topic prior to their discovery of it or if they really believe they point they are trying to make is ground-breaking. As such, I am faced with the proposition of attempting to relate and work with “digital immigrants.” So, in reading about how to relate to my own generation, I am learning more about how to relate to the generations that I will be responsible for moving forward in my career as a technologist. Keeping in mind, naturally, that just because people are born in one generation or another does not make them ignorant nor proficient with technology. Instead, research is increasingly showing what Prensky hinted at and what was later illuminated further in a report released in aggregate by Educause: experience with technology matters more than your birth date (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005; 2001). Thus, the issues of digital equity, privacy of electronic student records, students’ online safety, and copyright infringement must be addressed and we must actively engage ourselves in promoting policy and procedure that “promotes benefits for all and the exclusion of none (Williamson & Redish, 2009). Kids don’t inherently know what is right or wrong, even though they’ve always had technology around them. Teachers haven’t spent enough time learning about these pressing issues. The result, of course, is a major disconnect and one that must be closed if we, as social architects and culture-shapers, are to develop a system that is engaging and relevant, not just for children, but for the nation as a whole.

Full Reference List

Bransford, J. & Cocking, P. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Dewey, J. (1902/1966). The child and the curriculum. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. London: Falmer.

Hartman, J, Moskal, P, & Dziuban, C. (2005).Preparing the academy of today for the learner of tomorrow (Excerpted from Educating the Net Generation), Retrieved from

James, C. (2009). Young people, ethics, and the new digital media: a synthesis from the good play project (Kindle edition), doi: 0262513633

Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century (Kindle edition)
Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J. (2005). Is it age or it: first steps toward understanding the net generation[Excerpted from Educating the Net Generation, 2005]. Retrieved from
Paige, R. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Public Affairs. (2004). A guide to education and no child left behind Washington, DC: Retrieved from

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E.R., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Prensky, M. (2001, October). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On The Horizon9(5), Retrieved from,%20digital%20immigrants%20-%20part1.pdf

Schacter, J. (1999). The impact of education technology on student achievement: What the most current research has to say. Retrieved from

Schrum, L, & Solomon, G. (2007). Web 2.0: new tools, new schools (Kindle Edition)Senge, P. M. (1990/2010). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization (Kindle edition)
Wagner, M. (2006, December 16). Passion and professional development: four philosophies for lead learners [Web log message]. Retrieved from

Williamson, J, & Redish, T. (2009). Iste’s technology facilitation and leadership standards: What every k-12 leader should know and be able to do. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education.


Standards III & IV- Reflections

Standard III: Teaching, Learning, and the Curriclum

Where the previous standard looked at the environment in which students learn, that is to say, how they learn, this standard looks at what they are learning (Williamson & Redish, 2009). In terms of the impact of this particular standard on the individual, it has never had more importance than now, as we stand at the precipice of a sea change in the way our students learn. As a millennial myself, I can hear and feel much of the frustration expressed by my students as they are forced to conform to a system that does not make sense to them, “learning” material that is readily available to them. I often find myself frustrated on their behalf, knowing that what they are being told is “education” is often so irrelevant and useless that it’s little wonder more of them don’t abandon it (the system, not to be confused with the learning process) altogether. However, while there is certainly a marked difference in the way today’s students learn, there are certain markers in their behavior that have never changed. Students have always been more focused on the whole than the individual pieces. They are, after all, a whole child and they quickly and readily integrate the various puzzle pieces that is their life into a great tapestry that, more often than not, adults try to separate, segment, and isolate (Dewey, 1902/1966). The question, then, is what do we do moving forward?

For starters, it becomes clear that there must be clear alignment between what our students are learning and the world they live in. This could, effectually, be boiled down to the age-old question: “When will I ever use this?” There is little doubt that the world our students live in and the rooms they occupy during the time that is known as school are worlds apart, both in content and in form/structure. Where Standard II dealt with the physical learning spaces, Standard III ensures that technology facilitators are proficient in dealing with the actual curricula students are presented and asked to master. Thus, the “big question” of Standard III is essentially, “What are we teaching them?” Henry Jenkins argues, for example, that the influx of new technology does not mean we are pushing out everything that is not digital. On the contrary, he argues that textual literacy is of utmost importance if students are to be able to fluently participate in today’s society (2009). Many seem to think technology is the magic pill that, by simply adding to existing learning structures, will act as a cure-all. However, this is patently false. Technology must be aligned with existing structures and curricula to provide media-rich environments and new ways for students learn, particularly as the rest of the world, including business leaders, parents, government officials, and even parents are concerned that students are not being prepared for the world they will soon inherit (Williamson & Redish, 2009). Thus is the role of the technology facilitator according to Standard III.

Standard IV: Assessment and Evaluation

The now-infamous law known as No Child Left Behind set forth two key requirements in the area of accountability in that every state must now set standards for grade-level achievement as well as develop a system that will measure each student as well as each subgroup/demographic according to those standards (Paige, 2004). This has direct implications on Standard IV which delineates the knowledge and proficiency of a technology facilitator in the area of assessment and evaluation. This standard predominantly involves the development and execution of varied methods for assessment and evaluation, including technology-based tools.
This area has the most potential, assuming those at the highest levels of educational policy development are willing to listen to professionals in the field as well as what the most current research states. For example, there is essentially no research in existence that points to a single-modality, multiple-choice, paper-based exam as the best or most effective way to assess the learning of students. However, as John Schacter notes in a report that even pre-dates No Child Left Behind, students in “technology rich” environments as well as students with special needs in similar environments all saw marked increases in achievement beginning as early as preschool and continuing through higher education (Schacter, 1999). Why, then, are we as facilitators charged with the task of finding new and innovative ways to assess and evaluate student learning when all that is valid or credible at the state and federal level is a paper-based, multiple-choice test that, if we’re honest, is more based on fact-regurgitation than application, synthesis, or evaluation? However, it does appear as though there are a number of technology-assisted assessments that are be developed and may even begin to constitute evaluation beyond just that of “choose the best answer” (Williamson & Redish, 2009). Imagine a testing environment where some students are playing games, others are building a model of a historical object, others are developing a comprehensive report and presentation, and yet others are creating a multimedia presentation to serve as a cumulative portfolio of their learning. This is what is expected of instruction and it won’t be long before this is the realm we find ourselves in when it comes to testing, assessment, and evaluation. If our instruction should match the individual learning needs of students (differentiation, universal design for learning), shouldn’t our assessment of their learning?

Standards I & II– Reflections

Standard I: Technology Operations and Concepts

TF/TL Standard I: Technology Operations and Concepts ensures that schools have skilled personnel” (Williamson & Redish, 2009). This standard is specifically in place, first and foremost, to provide the overall framework for the remaining seven standards. Further, it sets the standard (no pun intended) for what is going to be required of facilitators and leaders in regards to their own skills. In my own experience, I have found that (while not impossible) it is very difficult to teach what you are not proficient in yourself. How would I be able to help a teacher begin using Excel to disaggregate student test scores if I wasn’t able to do this myself? How can I be expected to provide leadership and vision regarding technology if I am unfamiliar with it to begin with? Further, since this is the standard that is most closely related to the credentials or credibility of being able to lead and train other educators, it is imperative that I am familiar with appropriate training methods such as modeling and giving specific, meaningful examples that can be easily transferred (Bransford & Cocking, 1999). This standard can, in my humble opinion, be rephrased as “the basics you need to know; try to keep up.” That is to say, it is important that you have a baseline understanding of certain technology principles as well as the willingness to be a “lead-learner” (Wagner, 2006). This is probably the easiest of all the standards and simultaneously the most daunting. It’s certainly one thing to believe you are comfortable with computers/technology and another entirely to try and keep up with current trends and changes in technological innovation. My mentor actually experienced this phenomenon when I convinced him to go to the TCEA 2010 conference. As the campus lead technology teacher, his knowledge and skill with regards to technology far surpassed that of the nearest faculty member. However, after attending a couple of sessions and discovering the world of social media (etc.) he quickly realized just how much he had to learn.

Standard II: Planning and Designing Learning Environments and Experiences

Today’s students are not the same as the peers of current educators as they passed through the educational system. The students staring blankly at us (or, more likely, staring at the phone they are trying to hide under the desk) are quite different indeed. They are enveloped in a world of social connection, just-in-time information, and tabbed browsing. Schools have not only the obligation, but the opportunity to help students move from just playing with these tools into actually using them constructively for a specific educational purpose. As noted by education authors Lynne Schrum and Gwen Solomon, “the role of teachers will be to guide students in using the new tools for academically rigorous investigations and presentations” (2007). Standard II, Planning and Designing Learning Environments and Experiences, is essentially that. However, there are a number of disagreements that arise within the context of instructional design with regard to educational technology. The perceived main area of disagreement is the role of technology within the classroom. Some teachers feel that the learning environment is obtruded by technology. Technology will distract students from their learning goals, they might say. Some teachers feel as though technology is a nicety for occasional projects (typically of the “research” variety) but couldn’t possibly be implemented on a daily basis. Yet another group of teachers feel as though technology is “the answer.” These are the ones you might hear in the hallway saying, “if only we had more computers, then these kids might be engaged.” (To this, perhaps most dangerous attitude, I respond, “technology doesn’t fix instruction.”) Another group still believe that technology is merely another medium in which to educate. That is, the learning environment can be drastically altered by technology, but not for technology’s sake. Instead, the learning environment and learning activities are drastically altered for the explicit purposes of their namesake: learning. Another important issue that arises within the framework of this standard is that of access. Will all students have the opportunity to use the same tools? Will learning activities be designed in such a way that they specifically meet the needs of each of the diverse learners? As Schrum and Solomon note, “as society and the world of work change, the skills that students need to live and thrive in it also change” (2007). This standard, then, is ensuring that this can take place as it designs the very place where these skills will be developed as well as the process by which they will be developed.

Final Reflections– EDLD 5364

These five weeks have probably been the most formative and powerful in the entire graduate program. Ultimately, as each person enrolled seeks to augment their skills and abilities regarding the implementation of technology into the curricula, we are essentially asking the same question, “How do we teach with technology?” While I actually believe this question will be completely irrelevant in the future (much in the same way if you asked someone today how they planned on incorporating each child having a pencil they would give you a funny look), it is something that, at least for now, must be addressed. The main ideas that I drew from this course, reinforcing ideas already living deep within, were as follows:

  1. Every child should have the same opportunities to learn and thus, the same access to the curriculum (CAST: udl questions, 2009)
  2. Students should be responsible for creating their own learning, which looks very different than the schooling their teachers had growing up.
  3. Students should be working both collaboratively and cooperatively in order to create their own learning.
  4. Educators must constantly look for ways to assess student learning that accurately reflects their knowledge of the content.
  5. Educators must become co-learners with their students, designing curricula collaboratively and in a way that meets the four criteria mentioned above.


Universal Design for Learning (UDL) must be the way that all educators (certainly not just technology integrators) view their course design. All students must have access to the curriculum. We all inherently know this, but we don’t always design or create their learning environments with this understanding at the forefront of our minds. Many times we only think of IEP’s and making sure we have printed off the class notes for the children that need them. UDL, however, provides a larger framework that addresses the “what,” “how,” and “why” of learning, differentiating the learning experience so that it is relevant to all students, regardless of ability or disability (CAST: udl questions, 2009).


As students begin constructing their own learning, the teacher moves from the role of “purveyor of knowledge” to that of co-learner with the students. This, paired with the notion that information (that is, raw data) is ubiquitous, means teachers no longer have the corner market when it comes to the distribution of knowledge. This, I believe is rather empowering for the students. This means that instead of spending time with information acquisition, educators can instead focus on the application, synthesis, and analysis of information. (Sowash, 2009)


Naturally, this leads to the question that is quite the hot topic for political debate: how do you assess this kind of learning? I was fortunate enough to attend a training in the summer of 2010 with Dr. Kay Burke where she discussed ideas from her latest book, “Balanced Assessment: From Formative to Summative.” In this book, Dr. Burke argues that we must use varying forms and types of assessment and that assessment (gathering information to make instructional decisions) differs from evaluation (collecting information and making a judgment about it). Assessment is more important than evaluation, since it inherently means an on-going cyclical process of assessing, teaching, and discovering (Burke, 2010). When assessment is taken hand-in-hand with the numerous technology tools available, the possibilities are truly limitless. As is pointed out in “Using Technology with Classroom Instruction that Works,” “it should comprise not only teacher-designed tests and projects, but also students’ self-assessments, peer assessments, and automated assessments generated by hardware and software” (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007). Further, with the ability to put technology into the hands of students, “Perhaps the most obvious use of Web 2.0 tools for assessment would be for students to be able to show what they know in a wide variety of media” (Solomon & Schrum, 2007).


Enter this course’s group project. We were to work collaboratively in teams of three to five to develop a lesson, teacher professional development, assessment, intervention strategies, and more, all created with universal design principles in mind. It was a great experience working with my team (comprised of Tammy Bybee, Rachel Fickenscher, and Janette Hill) and a great learning experience on how curricula should be developed. We all spent hours reading, researching, and developing content (including, but not limited to: ebooks, videos, websites, and lesson plans) so that the students we were developing this for would be given equal access to the curriculum and a relevant, engaging lesson that could easily be applied to an existing classroom. Our lesson actually ended up being a school-wide curricular unit dealing with weather patterns, cultural studies, geologic events, and more (Bybee, Fickenscher, Garner, & Hill, 2011).


By implementing the very tools we were reading and learning about in a collaborative experience, I believe the project (and the skills required) became very “real” in that we now have experience seeing how the process should play out in our jobs. I am excited about taking the knowledge and skills acquired in this course and implementing them at the campus at which I work. I am confident that the potential exists for a sea change in student learning and assessment, but I know that it rests (at least partly) with me. Will I take the initiative to make it happen? Or will I sit and wait, thinking that someone else will take the big ideas (see previous reflection; Week 5) and implement them?



Cast: udl questions and answers. (2009). Retrieved from
Sowash, J. (2009, November 6). Google-proof questioning: a new use for bloom’s taxonomy [Web log message]. Retrieved from
Burke, K. (2010). Balanced assessment. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Pitler, H., Hubbell, E., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 39.
Solomon, G., & Schrum, L. (2007). Web 2.0: New tolls, New schools, Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education


Bybee, T, Fickenscher, R, Garner, G, & Hill, J. (2011, March). Teaching with technology: team awesome. Retrieved from


Teaching with Tech, Week 1– EDLD 5364

One of the things that I thought was very interesting as I read through the articles assigned to us was that these were topics that I (inherently or otherwise) already believed and understood. Perhaps it had to do with my business undergrad degree or the fact that constructivism and connectivism are foundational to a successful 8th grade classroom in the year 2011, but I had no problem following along with the idea that students build or construct their learning on top of their prior experiences paired with the idea that their learning is interconnected with everything else in the world.

One of the things I teach (or, rather, one of the ways in which I conduct my classes) is that it isn’t what you know, but do you know where to find it. I don’t care if you the expert of a question as long as you’re the expert of where to find the answer to that question. A great example of this was provided in Watson (the IBM super computer) soundly drumming two formidable opponents on Jeopardy! earlier this month. The great Ken Jennings may know the answers, but we are rapidly entering an age where rote memory doesn’t really matter. As the cell phone becomes less about one-way communication or even phone calls and more about being our external brain (think: Evernote, Google, etc), we are going to see less emphasis on the memorization of knowledge and a clearly defined shift to the application of this knowledge. This, I believe, is a very good thing and is nicely facilitated by the implementation of constructivism and connectivism.

Week 5 Reflection- ELD 5366

Over the past month, we have worked on digital graphics, animations, and desktop publishing. The assignment that I found most challenging was the task of creating my own personal logo. Understanding the elements of design is one thing. I can very easily look at something and analyze it. However, it is something entirely different to create from scratch based on those principles. Further, it is even more difficult to create something that should be a visual representation of yourself. It was never more important to heed the advice of Socrates, “Know thyself.” The clothing company “GAP” has been blasted as of late for their newest logo redesign, being labeled as “boring” with the suggestion that GAP wasn’t being true to its roots. In looking at the designs of other classmates as well as well-known logos from major companies, it’s clear to me why graphic design can be a very well-paid career choice. Personally, while I have the ability to recognize that which is good, I struggle to create it myself. In the end, I chose a simple, text-based design that would be easy to replicate and even modify as needed.

The assignment of creating an animation was fun and the use of animation in the classroom has great potential. Despite several warnings that extra time would be needed, the process only took about an hour to create a 30-frame animation using Stykz, a free downloadable program.

In today’s classroom students are used to 30-second video clips, tabbed browsing, MMS communication, and multitasking. We cannot afford instruction that rivals their experiences in the rest of their lives (Jenkins, 2009). Instead, we must leverage newer technologies and teach in new ways (Oblinger & Oblinger, 2005). The content may remain the same, but we must always look at news methods of delivery. By being attentive to the aesthetics of our work as well as incorporating visually appealing animations (etc) we can engage our students and motivate them towards higher quality work, higher retention rates, and more creativity (Pitler, Hubbell, Kuhn, & Malenoski, 2007).


Jenkins, H. (2009). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century (Kindle edition)

Oblinger, D., & Oblinger, J. (2005). Is it age or it: first steps toward understanding the net generation[Excerpted from Educating the Net Generation, 2005]. Retrieved from

Pitler, H., Hubbell, E.R., Kuhn, M., & Malenoski, K. (2007). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Digital Graphics EDLD 5366

“There is skepticism in the educational community regarding the applicability of gaming to education. Games have been shown, in numerous studies and in homes across America, to both excite and motivate students. What impact does this have on the education community? As with any technology integration, the integration of games and simulations affects how curriculum is delivered in the classroom. How would you assist your co-workers unpack the potential of educational gaming? What questions would you ask when evaluating an educational game prior to using it in the classroom?”

In the realm of education, the current emphasis is “data-driven decision making.” These days, it seems like you can’t do anything unless there is a mountain of data to back it up. (This, of course, proves to be a problem if you actually want to do something new.) Naturally, the reverse is true: you can justify nearly anything if you have the data to back it up. At this stage of the game, there is quite a significant amount of research and data now. I get the opportunity, almost daily, of talking with other educators about why it is that students just want to play games online. I hear all the time “all they wanna do is chat and play games.” Yup. There is something inherently “sticky” about games, even in a culture that can’t seem to pay attention to anything for more than 5 seconds. My question to them: What if the games they were playing were reinforcing learning? What if the game’s objectives were aligned with classroom objectives? What if the game was engaging them in higher order thinking skills? Would they be valuable then? (Incidentally, the rationale I use to justify gaming to other educators would mirror my selection criteria for in-classroom games.)

Week 4 Digital Newsletter

EDLD 5366 Week 3- Animation

Here is my animation for the Week 3 assignment for EDLD 5366. I used Stykz to create this 30-frame gem. Enjoy!

EDLD 5366 Week 2

This week, we had to create our own personal logo. Here is the process/journey I went on to create the logo (at the end).

List of words that describes me: Rebellious, unconventional, driven, compassionate, energetic

What were my initial goals for the logo? Establish a visual identity for myself; build/create various levels of meaning; create a simple, easy-to-replicate logo

What design elements did you include in your logo?

Contrast- I chose two starkly different colors (bright green and black) on a white background. This provides a high level of contrast and ensures that you see each piece of the logo.
Repetition- I chose to use the same font face for the green text as the black exponent. Additionally, I used the same green for the brackets as for the “g” inside them. This helps to tie it together and demonstrate the relationship between each element.
Alignment- The logo is almost center-aligned. However, I chose to use the exponent to off-set the balance of this design, putting more weight up and to the right of the overall design. This is a small break from convention, that might have kept everything “center, center.”
Proximity- The exponent has been kept close to the green text and the brackets have been kept extremely close to the letter “g.” This creates a simple, easy-to-follow design that is quickly recognizable.

Describe how this logo reflects you as a teacher, learner, or person:
You will notice three main parts to the logo. The brackets are a reference to my love of mathematics. In the order of operations, brackets are only used after you have used parentheses to denote another operation. This is significant since it represents that something else is going on inside those brackets. The second part of the logo is the single letter “g.” This is first and foremost a reference to my name(s), Greg Garner. However, it is lowercase, which represents the lack of formality that I have always felt regarding business and life in general. This is really personal to me and is quite intentional, although it might be confused with my missing the shift key. The third piece of the logo is the exponent. In mathematics, exponents are used to greatly and quickly increase the value of what is being raised to a higher power. My name, Greg Garner, has two G’s and so G-squared is rather appropriate in addition to my drive and desire to always move to a higher level in terms of quality, effort, etc. I chose two striking colors that are easily visible but stand apart from each other. The two colors specifically were carefully chosen. Black represents how we must all, at times, conform to the status quo and that it also provides a great vehicle for change (thus, the exponent). However, I don’t believe my identity to be tied up in this single instance. Instead, I chose a bright shade of green. This serves as both high contrast to the black (representing non-conformity) and also a slight reference to my love of pop culture as a popular movie once said “Geniuses choose green.” The character that statement was directed towards, interestingly enough, was named Greg as well. The font face that I chose is slightly messy with a few “holes” here and there, showing that I don’t believe that I have all the answers and that I do have a tendency to be unorganized. However, the formation of the “g” is more traditional in its nature, another homage to my desire to leverage conformity for social/societal change.

EDLD 5366 Week 1

Despite its age, Sultan Baybars’ Quran is visually stunning. It is incredibly beautiful in its design. The only real contrast (since it is mostly text on a page) comes from the color choices of darker brown on the faded, yellowed page. There are sporadically interspersed beautiful graphic designs the provide a definite contrast against the text on the other pages. These designs are repeated (with some variations) and there are also small medallions used to denote every fifth and tenth verse. Text is centered vertically and slightly off-center horizontally, cheating slightly to the interior binding of the book. It would be easy to mistake some of the pages as mirrors of one another, as they are so perfectly aligned to one another. For the periodic images, the graphics are well aligned and mirror one another across the vertical axis of the binding. The text is fairly even spaced vertically as well and the periodic medallions are proximate to the specific line of text they are denoting.

« Older entries