Preservation is Overtaking US Rem Koolhaus We were lucky in 2002 to receive a commission from the Beijing government that enabled us to investigate and define for China a specific form of preservation. This is one of those unique moments in which we come closer—and maybe I should say in this case that I come closer—to one of my most intimate utopian dreams, which is to find an architecture that does nothing. I’ve always been appalled that abstinence is the one part of the architectural repertoire that is never considered. Perhaps in architecture, a profession that fundamentally is supposed to change things it encounters (usually before reflection), there ought to be an equally important arm of it that is concerned with not doing anything. What we started to do was look at preservation in general and look a little bit at the history of preservation. Now, the first law of preservation ever defined was in 1790, just a few years after the French Revolution. That is already an interesting idea, that at the moment in France when the past was basically being prepared for the rubbish dump, the issue of preserving monuments was raised for the first time. Another equally important moment was in 1877, when, in Victorian England, in the most intense moment of civilization, there was the second preservation proposition. If you look at inventions that were taking place between these two moments—cement, the spinning frame, the stethoscope, anesthesia, photography, blueprints, etc.—you suddenly realize that preservation is not the enemy of modernity but actually one of its inventions. That makes perfect sense because clearly the whole idea of modernization raises, whether latently or overtly, the issue of what to keep. Historic preservation as a modern technological innovation. Courtesy of OMA. We then looked at the history of preservation in terms of what was being preserved, and it started logically enough with ancient monuments, then religious buildings, etc. Later, structures with more and more (and also less and less) sacred substance and more and more sociological substance were preserved, to the point that we now preserve concentration camps, department stores, factories, and amusement rides. In other words, everything we inhabit is potentially susceptible to preservation. That was another important discovery: The scale of preservation escalates relentlessly to include entire landscapes, and there is now even a campaign to preserve part of the moon as an important site. Historically, each new preservation law has moved the date for considering preservation-worthy architecture closer to the present. Courtesy of OMA. Then we started looking at the interval or the distance between the present and what was preserved. In 1818, it was 2,000 years. In 1900, it was only 200 years. And near the 1960s, it became 20 years. We are living in an incredibly exciting and slightly absurd moment, namely that preservation is overtaking us. Maybe we can be the first to ...

1. Preservation is Overtaking US Rem Koolhaus
We were lucky in 2002 to receive a commission from the
Beijing government that enabled us to investigate and define for
China a specific form of preservation. This is one of those
unique moments in which we come closer—and maybe I should
say in this case that I come closer—to one of my most intimate
utopian dreams, which is to find an architecture that does
nothing. I’ve always been appalled that abstinence is the one
part of the architectural repertoire that is never considered.
Perhaps in architecture, a profession that fundamentally is
supposed to change things it encounters (usually before
reflection), there ought to be an equally important arm of it that
is concerned with not doing anything.
What we started to do was look at preservation in general and
look a little bit at the history of preservation. Now, the first law
of preservation ever defined was in 1790, just a few years after
the French Revolution. That is already an interesting idea, that
at the moment in France when the past was basically being
prepared for the rubbish dump, the issue of preserving
monuments was raised for the first time. Another equally
important moment was in 1877, when, in Victorian England, in
the most intense moment of civilization, there was the second
preservation proposition. If you look at inventions that were
taking place between these two moments—cement, the spinning
frame, the stethoscope, anesthesia, photography, blueprints,
etc.—you suddenly realize that preservation is not the enemy of
modernity but actually one of its inventions. That makes perfect
sense because clearly the whole idea of modernization raises,
whether latently or overtly, the issue of what to keep.
Historic preservation as a modern technological innovation.
Courtesy of OMA.
We then looked at the history of preservation in terms of what
was being preserved, and it started logically enough with

2. ancient monuments, then religious buildings, etc. Later,
structures with more and more (and also less and less) sacred
substance and more and more sociological substance were
preserved, to the point that we now preserve concentration
camps, department stores, factories, and amusement rides. In
other words, everything we inhabit is potentially susceptible to
preservation. That was another important discovery: The scale
of preservation escalates relentlessly to include entire
landscapes, and there is now even a campaign to preserve part
of the moon as an important site.
Historically, each new preservation law has moved the date for
considering preservation-worthy architecture closer to the
present. Courtesy of OMA.
Then we started looking at the interval or the distance between
the present and what was preserved. In 1818, it was 2,000 years.
In 1900, it was only 200 years. And near the 1960s, it became
20 years. We are living in an incredibly exciting and slightly
absurd moment, namely that preservation is overtaking us.
Maybe we can be the first to actually experience the moment
that preservation is no longer a retroactive activity but becomes
a prospective activity. This makes perfect sense because it is
clear that we built so much mediocrity that it is literally
threatening our lives. Therefore, we will have to decide in
advance what we are going to build for posterity sooner or later.
Actually, this seems an absurd hypothesis, but it has happened,
for instance, in the cases of some houses that were preserved at
the moment they were finished, putting the inhabitants in a very
complex conundrum.
“Barcode” preservation scheme for Beijing where different
preservation scenarios can be implemented in horizontal bands.
Courtesy of OMA.
We then started to look at how to apply this thinking to the
issue of preservation. Of course, preservation is also dominated
by the lobby of authenticity, ancientness, and beauty, but that
is, of course, a very limited conception of preservation. We
started to conceive and imagine that you could perhaps impose

3. upon the entire center of Beijing a kind of barcode and declare
that the bands in the barcode could either be preserved forever
or systematically scraped. In such a case, you would have the
certainty that you preserved everything in a very democratic,
dispassionate way—highways, Chinese monuments, bad things,
good things, ugly things, mediocre things—and therefore really
maintained an authentic condition. Also you could begin to plan
the city in terms of phasing. In all the cities that now are almost
suffocatingly stable in the center and alarmingly unstable at the
periphery, you could introduce a new condition of phasing in
which, sooner or later, any part of the city would be eliminated
to be replaced by other development. You could project and
plan over almost millennia to generate a situation in which each
part of the city would always confront its opposite in a kind of
complementary condition.
Week 2 discussion 1 Student Motivation and Technology
This discussion provides an opportunity to evaluate a variety of
digital and assistive technologies for supporting diverse
learners. Based on the required readings from Housand &
Housand (2012), McCombs (2000), and Page (2002), you know
that research shows that effective technology integration can
support student motivation, engagement, and interest in
learning. Furthermore, research has shown that through
thoughtful integration of audio, video, and other media,
instruction can be differentiated, ultimately increasing a
student’s motivation to learn. To explore this research, in this
discussion you will analyze how technology integration can be
used as a method of intervention to meet the needs of diverse
learners. To prepare for this discussion, review the Week Two
Instructor Guidance and the Required Resources for the week.
Next, access either The Teaching Channel (Links to an external
site.) or Edutopia (Links to an external site.) and conduct a
search using the key words “using technology for learning
motivation” or similar. Select one video that can inform your

4. response to the discussion points below. If for some reason you
are unable to support your response to this discussion using the
video option, please contact your instructor for an alternative
way to complete this discussion.
Initial Post: Respond with an initial post that includes the
following components:
a. Provide a link to the video you viewed and a succinct
description of the video’s focus, such as the grade and/or
ability-levels of students, the educator(s) involved, and the
subject being taught (e.g., science or language arts).
b. In at least one paragraph, describe how the technology is
being used in the video and describe what you observed in the
video that informs you that students’ motivation is increased or
otherwise supported due to the use of the technology.
c. Next, succinctly describe how the use of the technology
promotes students’ engagement during the learning process.
d. Finally, describe the extent to which the use of technology
and its motivating factors outweighs the potential challenges the
educator might face in acquiring the technology and learning
how to effectively implement it.
Week Two Instructor Guidance
Welcome to Week Two of EDU620: Meeting Individual Student
Needs with Technology. Please begin this week by opening the
Week Two unit homepage and reviewing the Week Two
homepage and the learning outcomes for the week, the schedule
overview, the required and recommended resources, the
introduction to the week, and a listing of the assessments for the
week. Next, return here and read this Instructor Guidance page.
Overview
Recall that in Week One you viewed videos modeling
innovative uses of technology in the classroom and by
completing the assessments you have now developed a
foundational understanding of how technology can be

5. effectively integrated instructionally. This week, it is important
that you recognize that how technology is integrated into
classroom instruction entails more than just teaching basic
computer skills. Effective technology integration occurs when
technology is used across the curriculum in ways that support
learning. Therefore, Week Two is designed to ensure you
expand upon your early understandings of technology
integration and recognize that technology can be a powerful
motivator for expanding student learning opportunities. As part
of the Week One Post Your Introduction discussion, you were
encouraged to review the weekly homepages for the course and
take note of the assessments each week. Now is an appropriate
time to revisit the Week Six Final Project instructions and
Grading Rubric to be sure you understand the scope of what you
will do in that assessment and how your participation in Week
Two supports your success.
Intellectual Elaboration
"We keep moving forward, opening new doors, and doing new
things, because we're curious and curiosity keeps leading us
down new paths." -Walt Disney
The above quote by Walt Disney can be interpreted in a variety
of ways. You are encouraged to think about this quote as you
prepare for the assessments in Week Two: In what ways does
curiosity impact your motivation to learn? How might your
curiosity influence a student’s motivation to learn? To fully
consider these questions, it will be helpful to review what is
meant by learner motivation.
Learner Motivation
There are many different theories on learner motivation.
Regardless of which theory you subscribe to, you will recognize
that there are two major types of motivation for learning:
intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic motivation comes from within

6. and may be caused by characteristics in the task being
performed. Extrinsic motivation comes from outside the task,
such as through praise, recognition, or another system of
rewards. Think about the concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation as you view this 18 minute video by Daniel Pink,
The Puzzle of Motivation (Links to an external site.). In
essence, what Pink claims is that superficial motivation (e.g,.
carrot and stick), or extrinsic motivation has a limited influence
and suggests that we need deeper intrinsic motivations to ensure
longer lasting results.
The analogy of the carrot and stick is commonly used to
describe the occurrence of extrinsic motivators.
In the video, Pink states that “…deeper motivation comes from
autonomy (the urge to direct our own lives), mastery (the desire
to get better and better at something that matters) and purpose
(the yearning to do what we do in the service of something
larger than ourselves)” (Pink, 2009).
Reflection about Pink’s (2009) thoughts on motivation
(autonomy, mastery and purpose) and on how deeper motivation
can be applied in relationship to integrating technology in the
classroom is provided below.
· Autonomy – typically, students want the opportunity to choose
how they learn. Technology affords students more opportunity
to choose methods of learning, such as by using audio podcasts,
videos, websites, blogs, and so forth.
· Mastery – many students are considered masters at using
technology although use of technology for learning may not be
intentional. Fact is, most learning occurs through socializing

7. with peers or through technology-mediated methods, such as
searching the Internet.
· Purpose – learning for a single assessment is known to have
limited results for retention, yet providing students the
opportunity to demonstrate their learning in different modalities
often provides more lasting results and helps with transfer of
learning knowledge and skills to new contexts.
When considering Pink’s (2013) claim regarding the need for
deeper motivation in relationship to technology integration into
the learning process, we can begin to see how technology
integration can increase student self-efficacy as well as how it
may produce greater results for student learning and
constructing knowledge. Several authors, including Beffa-
Negrini, Cohen & Miller (2002), Boster, Myer, Roberto & Inge
(2002), Maushak, Chen, & Lau (2001), Swan, van’tHooft &
Unger (2005) and Qing & Xin (2010), support Pink’s
conclusions (2013). These authors conclude that the use of
technology for learning improves motivation, engagement and
interest. Thus, the challenge is not if technology actually
increases motivation, but rather the challenge is how teachers
can effectively integrate technology into instruction to increase
a student’s intrinsic motivation. To address this challenge,
many methods for use of technology have been investigated;
gamification is increasingly a popular technology integration
choice used by educators to promote student motivation.
Gamification
As discussed during Week One, technology integration is more
than just having computers in the classroom or teaching basic
computer skills; it is about providing opportunities for students
to use technology and build upon 21st- century skills needed to
be effective citizens, workers, and leaders. Additionally, it is

8. about helping learners become more fully prepared to excel in
the rigors of higher education coursework, increasingly
technology-centered careers, and the globally competitive
economy (Partnership for 21st-Century Skills (Links to an
external site.)).
Increasingly, portable web-enabled devices, such as the tablet
seen in this image, are used in classrooms to provide individual
students access to games and other online content for learning.
In a recent study by the Joan Ganz Cooney Center (Links to an
external site.)(2014), it as determined that 74 percent of
Kindergarten through grade-eight teachers surveyed used digital
games for instruction with 55 percent using them weekly as part
of formal instructional methods. Additionally, the survey found
that while digital games are being used in the classroom, many
teachers use them only as supplemental material or as a reward
for students after classroom seatwork has been accomplished
and not as the main instructional method. The reason behind the
limited use of digital games, as found in the survey, was that
many teachers are uncertain that students can learn curriculum
from digital games well enough to demonstrate a mastery of the
content on state exams.
In the Week Two assignment, you will consider how technology
can be used to differentiate instruction to meet the needs of
every student in every lesson. More specifically, you will
discuss gamification as an instructional method. To help prepare
for this assignment, reflect on the findings by the Joan Ganz
Cooney Center survey mentioned above as you view this
approximately five minute video Student Mentors Teach Game
Design (Links to an external site.)(2009) about how high
school students mentor peers to design computer games. As you
view the video, consider whether your initial thoughts on the
data presented by the Joan Ganz Cooney Center are being
validated or whether they are altered by what you see and hear

9. in the video?
21st Century Skills
As you work through each week of this course it will be
important to have an understanding of 21st- century skills. 21st-
century learning is an integral concept weaved throughout this,
and many other courses you will participate in and supports the
nation’s movement on preparing students for post-secondary
education, career preparation, and contributing to society
globally.
Review this short video from Teknolojileri (2013) (Links to an
external site.)discussing 21st century skills. Specifically,
Teknolojileri discusses creativity, communication,
collaboration, critical thinking, media literacy, information
literacy, and problem solving which are skills that make up the
framework for 21st-century learning.
Next, review this approximately three minute video from
Knowledge Delivery Systems (Links to an external site.) (2013)
that explores the fundamentals of 21st century skills and what
they mean to the practice of educators. The information you
gather from these videos will further inform your responses to
this week’s discussion and assignment.
Assessment Guidance
This section includes additional specific assistance for excelling
in the discussions for Week Two beyond what is given with the
instructions for the assessments. If you have questions about

10. what is expected on any assessment for Week Two, contact your
instructor before the due date.
Discussion 1: Student Motivation and Technology
This discussion is an opportunity to demonstrate your mastery
of the course learning outcome; evaluate a variety of digital and
assistive technologies for supporting diverse learners. In this
discussion, you will analyze how technology integration can be
used as a method of intervention to meet the needs of diverse
learners.
For your response you are asked to find a video that supports
how technology integration into the classroom supports
increasing students’ motivation. If for some reason you are
unable to support your response to this discussion using the
video option, please contact your instructor for an alternative
way to complete this discussion before the due date of the
initial post.
Recall the strategies for active reading provided in the Week
One Instructor Guidance – applying those same principles to
viewing media in this course will be helpful. In other words, as
you view the video you select for this discussion, consider the
instructions for the initial post. Doing this will help you to
focus on the most relevant points in the video that will inform
your response. The overall goal of the initial post is to share
what you have learned from the video as it relates to supporting
student motivation while also providing the link to the video so
that classmates and the instructor may view it as well. As
indicated in the instructions for replies, in the Guided
Response, you will learn further about ways technology
integration in instruction can support student motivation by
viewing at least two videos shared by classmates.
Remember to follow the Guided Response prompt for all
Discussions. Doing so helps to create a more robust dialogue,

11. which will lead to increased learning opportunities for
everyone.
Assignment: Games in the Classroom
This written assignment is an opportunity to demonstrate your
mastery of the course learning outcomes; evaluate how the
purposeful integration of technology in instruction and
assessment supports student acquisition of 21st century skills,
and evaluate a variety of digital and assistive technologies for
supporting diverse learners.
As you have noticed from the required course readings and
videos in the course thus far, there is an intricate relationship
between the integration of technology and teaching methods.
Teachers must always examine the appropriateness of
technology they use in the classroom and be prepared to provide
a rational for the integration of a specific technology in
instruction. By demonstrating your mastery of the above course
learning outcomes in this assignment, you will be better
prepared to examine the appropriateness of games in instruction
and provide rationale for their use.
In this assignment you will analyze the influences gamification
and integration of technology can have on teaching and
learning. Start the assignment by reviewing the TED Talk
(2010) video of gamification as well as the Required and
Recommended Resources for Week Two. Next, review the
essential writing requirements for APA to compose a formal
written response that demonstrates graduate level writing
showcasing what you have learned about the topic of
gamification as it relates to supporting student motivation.
Follow the content and written communication instructions
outlined in the Week Two Assignment instructions.

12. References
Beffa-Negrini, P., Cohen, N., & Miller, B. (2002). Strategies to
motivate students in online learning environments. Journal Of
Nutrition Education & Behavior, 34(6), 334-340.
Boster, F.J., Meyer, G.S., Roberto, A.J. & Inge, C.C. (2002). A
Report on the Effect of the United streaming Application on
Educational Performance. Retrieved from
http://www.unitedlearning.com/images/
streaming/evaluation.pdf
Ellis, K. (2009, May 27). Student mentors teach game design.
[Video file] Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/digital-
generation-game-design-video
Framework for 21st century learning. (n.d.). Retrieved from
http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-framework.
Knowledge Delivery Systems (2013, June 5). 21st century
skills: Rethinking how students learn. [Video file]. Retrieved
from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMG5dvhEzyo
Maushak, N. J., Chen, H., & Lau, H. (2001). Utilizing
edutainment to actively engage K-12 learners and promote
students’ learning: An emergent phenomenon.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 470100)
Takeuchi, L. & Vaala, S. (2014, Oct. 20). Leveling up learning:
A national survey on teaching with digital games. Retrieved
from http://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/publication/level-
up-learning-a- national-survey-on-teaching-with-digital-games/
TED. (2009, July) The puzzle of motivation. [Video file]
Retrieved from
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation?language=en

13. Swan, K., van't Hooft, M., Kratcoski, A., & Unger, D. (2005).
Uses and effects of mobile computing devices in K-8
classrooms. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
38(1), 99-112.
Teknolojileri, B. (2013, May). 21st century skills [Video file].
Retrieved from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwJIhZcAd0I
Qing, L., & Xin, M. (2010). A Meta-analysis of the Effects of
Computer Technology on School Students’ Mathematics
Learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 215-243.
doi:10.1007/s10648- 010-9125-8