Introduction to the Jan. 31 General Session
In the Tuesday morning general session at ELI 2006, EDUCAUSE Senior Fellow Carole Barone will be joined by Marla Gerein of Colorado College, Uli Rauch of the University of British Columbia, and Heather Stewart of Seton Hall University for a discussion of the evolving roles of the instructional technologist. You are invited to join the discussion via this blog. Please post your questions, comments, and thoughts here for review and response during the session, and continued discussion afterwards.To get the ball rolling, the panelists would like to get your responses to the following questions, and you don't need to wait for the session - feel free to begin commenting now:
Changes in learning design are occurring along at least the following dimensions:
* Social Construction of Knowledge
* Security, Privacy
* Access to Information, Knowledge and People
* Learning Experiences Customized for the Learner’s Needs
What are the implications of these changes for the learner, the faculty member, and the learning technologist? And for 25 bonus points: What impact are these changes having on higher education, and what does that mean for the learning technologist? Do we have new roles, responsibilities, and possibilities? What are they and how do we prepare for them?
posted by Paul Hagner @ 7:25 AM
97 comments
97 Comments:
Thank Paul, a clear introduction and I hope, short pithy responeses. 7:30 AM
This is very cool.
A question and a thought:
Do we have a good working definition of the word "understanding"? What does it mean to understand something? How does learning design facilitate understanding?
I think we should have a conversation not only about fast trains but also about destinations. The latter conversation is inescapably an ethical conversation.
Question: Learning Experiences Customized for the Learner’s Needs
A different focus – the faculty as the learner- what are schools doing to assess their faculty and to create programs to assist them with learning design?
The real issue seems to be--whatever we call ourselves or our staff--to get the faculty to be more open-minded and willing to try new technologies--the challenge is to make progress with faculty who don't have these understandings--even though we try to help them with the understandings of changes in learning for today's students.
Technologists seem enthralled by new constructivist tools, yet our political environment is increasingly emphasizing accountability. I posit that you can't efficiently meet the demands of an objectivist policy by a shift away from instructivism.
jf
"different focus – the faculty as the learner" ....
Exactly! Subject matter expertise is now much more distributed - there are the academic, the technolical and socio-cultural, among students, faculty and learning design professionals.
How do students evaluate the vast amount of material available - esp if we have 200 million blogs a day (or whatever)? how do they read and then make judgements about what they read?
Also, I (above 25 years of age) find it very difficult to multitask - to hear the speaker, get logged on, write a comment and read comments all at the same time! do students REALLY do this well?
Many instructional design professionals seem to assume that faculty are a problem, and that faculty members' attitudes need adjusting. What would it cost, and what would be the gain, if instructional designers were willing to accept and work with the different perspectives that faculty bring to their teaching?
I agree we need to look at career paths and labels used for instructional designers. Finding new hires with appropriate skills is difficult too.
Just to play devil's advocate, is a sea change actually underway yet or are we only beginning to rake the beach? This is certainly something we WANT to see, but is it catching on with anyone beyond early adopters?
Building on what Gardner said, in exploring “understanding” I believe we also need to look at what the expectations are external to the institution. In today’s k-12 world, organizations such as ISTE and the Partnership for 21st Century skills are defining new learner charachteristics. States are responding to NCLB by developing standards for all discipline areas. What will be the impact of these forces on Higher Education.
It is hard to listen to the speakers while waiting for the web page to load, etc. As a multi-tasker, I have alot to learn:)
Maybe I'm just old, but I find the blog and polling distracting from the presentation...
To have a common terminology is important to begin our conversation. What are the definitions of instructional designer and instructional technologist? In my mind, instructional designers are responsible for the alignment of objectives with learning activities and assessment. They are also responsible for being able to use the technologies capable of delivering the content to learners. How is this different from an instructional technologist?
As an online instructional designer, these roles seem interchangeable. Can you explain the difference?
As a librarian-technologist, my perspective is heavily driven by the content end of instructional design, and I find it is useful to think of content from two facets:
Knowledge that is Done -- traditional library content: books and journals, commercial audio and video and learning objects from publishers, purchased or licensed, in physical form or online
Knowledge that being created -- institutional repositories, grey literature, faculty-created learning objects, demonstrations of student competencies
Libraries typically have been the stewards of the first type, and are only now recognizing their responsibilities for the second.
I wonder what the panelist think about the role of librarians and content under the stewardship of the library (both done and being-created) in the instructional design process.
I'd like to hear from one of the eight who disagree with question 1. Why do they disagree?
Good discussion, and I'm very glad to see your using these two technologies.
Responses and questions:
1) What is the role of the library in this transformation? Can instructional technologists take advantage of library skillsets and traditions - reference librarians' information query strategies, the preservation approaches of archivists, and so on?
2) The specter of copyright: intellectual property problems reward silo strategies. The United States TEACH Act, for example, drives users to wall off content. To what extent does copyright help keep instructional designers and their networks walled off from each other? And how do we best go beyond?
Should we engage more thoroughly with alternative copyright movements? or join up with third-party projects, like the Open Content Alliance or iTunes U?
3) How do we engage with the rest of the world, beyond the United States and Canada? How do we learn from, share work with, build partnerships with instructional designers in Europe and Asia, for example?
"understand" is not a good verb! we can't measure understanding - we need to define what we mean - analyze a concept, define a concept, etc - this is one of the basic challenges - to really define and concretely express what we are trying to teach and what we want students to learn...the destination!
joni said:
"Also, I (above 25 years of age) find it very difficult to multitask - to hear the speaker, get logged on, write a comment and read comments all at the same time! do students REALLY do this well?"
Hah hah!
I find myself engaged with the blog... the acts of reading and posting... almost entirely as a social activity. And, in a way, disengaged from the topic of instructional design.
Moving away from an essentially one-person "development team" (the faculty member) to a multi-disciplinary team and, therefore, some elements of project management, can pose a significant challenege - particularly at institutions at which there is no top-down "requirement" (or perceived incentives) to work with a larger design and development team.
Raising perceptions of pedagogical needs and benefits with faculty members is an essential first step -often more akin to a high-quality "marketing" and "public relations" strategy.
Chris (in the Devil's Advocate role) raises a good question. I would perhaps suggest that the question that we want to answer is "Higher Education SHOULD be in the misdst of a sea change in the approach to learning design."
I think that this is what all three of the panelists (and participator) are saying, especially with regard to the "blending" and "silos...breaking down" that we see happening to enable us to do the work that we are called to do.
It is hard to listen to the speakers while waiting for the web page to load, think through an answer, etc. As a multi-tasker, I have alot to learn:)
On the other hand, maybe I'm learning on multiple levels and just don't know it:)
Wisdom, integration, synthesis, later as I meditate during my flight, perhaps:)?
So... if the reason we can't blog and listen at the same time is because we are digital immigrants, does that limit this technique to ONLY digital natives? Additionally, we shouldn't assume that everyone under the age of 25 is a digital native.
we may NOT be in a sea of change because - faculty don't want to change - it is those in this audience who want to push the change - but most faculty just want to teach as they have been - why should they change? even if students are coming in with differenet skills or expectations - too bad - not "my" problem -
With all due respect to Joni's comment, and agreeing that understanding is a very tricky concept to discuss, I'd argue that we must discuss understanding. We must use "understand" as a verb. It's the goal of education. Analysis, definition, articulation: all these things are in the service of understanding. Uli's point is key, however: the moment of emerging understanding can happen anywhere, anytime. Our learning design should foster understanding in its full social and solitary manifestations by creating a sense of occasion within both real and virtual environments. It's part of what defines our humanity, and it's an essential part of the destination conversation.
I think so, anyhow. :-)
It seems like much of this is wishful thinking. Isn't it possible that folks like us WANT a sea-change, but that there really isn't one going on?
The authors in Declining by Degrees argue that the problems in higher ed are deeply ingrained and, therefore, will be difficult to change.
The collusion of teachers pretending to teach & students pretending to learn will not be easily undone.
speaking of boxes... how many instructional designers/instructional technologists feel like they are being put in a "tech support" box...
... when we know that attention to the learner and attention to the application of technology to learning problems is just as important as the technical tools we use?
I chose “Not Sure” for the question 1. I chose that because many, many colleges and universities have “one-man-shows” and nearly none are appropriately staffed to meet the needs of the faculty within their universities.
i agree with not hiring instructional designer....they tend not to have the flexibilty to to do the best we can in a given messy situations...sometimes the best we can do is not the most effective possible....but is the best we can induce faculty to do.....instructional designer tend to have a rigid framework that gets in the way of their adaptability......
jim
learning designers may now be seen less as service providers and more as partners that bring complimentary skills to faculty and students - We are bridges among different skill sets and knowledge bases.
learning designers may now be seen less as service providers and more as partners that bring complimentary skills to faculty and students - We are bridges among different skill sets and knowledge bases.
learning designers may now be seen less as service providers and more as partners that bring complimentary skills to faculty and students - We are bridges among different skill sets and knowledge bases.
learning designers may now be seen less as service providers and more as partners that bring complimentary skills to faculty and students - We are bridges among different skill sets and knowledge bases.
learning designers may now be seen less as service providers and more as partners that bring complimentary skills to faculty and students - We are bridges among different skill sets and knowledge bases.
It would be interesting to hear from those who agree with question 2, some examples of "listening" from decision makers.
Digeratus has a very subtle point. For many on our campuses, technology isn't a fun sphere of learning and excitement, but a gray, forbidding fog. Instructional designers get to be guides into and through that fog, first.
I think the sea change is just beginning, at our institution anyway. I wonder how or at what level we want to get faculty involved in the conversation. It's threatening to many, hogwash to others and fascinating to still others..Or should we just be subversives.
In today's ever-changing educational environment What does it mean to be a technologist or designer? It seems to me that we need to bee and find educational explorers. Can our faculty and students be those for us? Can we harness their energy for change? If so, how?
the technology is great as far as bells and whistles, but our students still perform terribly on standardized tests
If we want faculty to change, perhaps we should work with university administrators to create incentives to help them change. For instance:
--release-time for course redesign
-- credit toward tenure for spending time on innovation
--credit toward promotion for publishing on the subject of teaching in their fields
I believe that faculty aren't necessarily hide-bound, and are rational actors. They are merely burdened by institutional constraints that inhibit innovation.
I am very weary of the metaphor "silo." Back in the midwest where I come from, silos are good things. It keeps things from rotting.
In the case of higher education, our embracing this metaphor as the state of the art makes the problem worse than it really is. We look for evidence to confirm our biases of silo negativity and find them. Instead could there be a more positive, generative metaphor that would help us strive toward a better state instead of falling back on silo talk?
I love Ulrich's comment about being subversive. When we help a faculty member solve a tech problem we have an opportunity to share an approach for improving learing through technology. Many faculty members are willing to admit they have little training in teaching and learning but are passionate about their subject matter. When we show they an effective way to "hook" their students, we have an opportunity for change--and someone now willing to come back for more ideas and support.
Instructional Designers should be service oriented creators of content. The faculty should be respected as the expert and or manager of the intellectual content working with the designer to fashion the content into forms that this generation of learners can best disgest it. Though faculty need to embrace these new vehicles and understand the substance doesn't get thrown out.
faculty do not have the time nor inclination to spend time on learning new technology sand the technology does not get them promoted
designers that don't teach are like choreographers that never learned to dance.
it's not about the flash.
Many faculty simply do not have the time needed to make the changes.
Re faculty change:
The bulk of faculty will change when there are significant incentives for change.
Is there any evidence that the push for accountability is leading senior administrators to pay more attention to teaching (and learning) and improve the institutional rewards (or at least not penalties) to spending more time on teaching?
Hats off to EDUCAUSE for trying this, a nice refreshing change. Keep on pushing the conference format from lecturing.
I've had trouble answering the very very broad poll questions and trying to resolve labels of "what is instruction design" or "learning designre".
For "understanding" it seems we still think of it in terms of containing knowledge; the hardest aspect to catch (IMHO) seems to accept your inability to "know everything" about technology and learning, and to embrace the social network that does. I try to humbly ear my ignoramce and try to be in a network of colleagues that complement my own gaps. It's pretty much against much of academic culture to not be an expert. And to "play".
I understand the reluctance amd deeper fear of chamge (and not being a master of it), but it is harder and harder to ignore where society is moving, so do we move or not?
In response to gardner's comments about understanding:
How will you know when learning has taken place? Joni is saying that "understanding" cannot be seen, regardless of how and when it happens. How do we know when someone has reached that understanding? They need to demonstrate that understanding in some way. See Bloom's Taxonomy.
We need to be thinking more about Alan Kay's talk. This technology stuff is in some ways a red herring. It's still all about people and relationships. What we understand through our particular lenses is small - how do we look at these issues through a beginner's mind that allows us to re-examine our assumptions.
Unfortunately, as a learning designer, I spend very little time designing learning, but am more engaged in fighting the battle of getting faculty to acknowledge the electronic age and the possibilites of constructivism.
There are, undoubtedly, bright spots here & there. But when the vast majority of faculty members are rewarded for minimizing the amount of time spent on teaching (and students reciprocate by minimizing the time they spend on learning) we need paradigm-busting leadership.
To avoid being a naysayer only, let me suggest a solution (or at least the beginning of one). I think most of our ID engagements are ad hoc & tactical, i.e. w/ individual faculty in individual courses. Change (a "sea-change"?) might begin by focusing time, attention and resources at the department and college level. In this way we can focus on broader curricular issues, maintaining the momentum of accreditation beyond a narrow 1-2 year burst of energy.
In response to the speaker's comment, how can the desired sea change occur without the faculty?
Maybe we should be talking about how to help faculty understand that their students are changing.
Regarding question 5, "Audience polling and blogging enhances the knowledge generated in a plenary session," this is a trick question! My answer is "they certainly can, but they don't necessarily." I'm reminded of the old saying that in teaching, everything works and nothing works. There's an oblique truth in that old saw, I think, which is cautionary: no magic wands, no silver bullets. Information technologies in teaching and learning have been less effective than they might be because they were sold too often at the answer to all our prayers.
Bryan (hello, fellow librarian!) --
If I can follow-up your comments with this notion of our stewardship of knowledge as it is being created, I propose that the librarian profession needs to engaged in issues surrounding the use of commercial content in an instructional setting (TEACH Act, etc.), but also to get engaged with faculty and instructional designers as they are creating new learning objects that can fall under much less restrictive use terms than commercial content. We can apply our skills of knowledge storage and retrieval to this content to allow both faculty and instructional designers to do their jobs better. For this to be effective, I think we need to mix this content in the same repository and use rules in the repository to apply the access restrictions as needed.
Perhaps I'm starting to show my own opinion to the role of librarians in instructional design...
Working with faculty means winning them over one at a time. Building relationships with those who are interested, not necessarily trying to win over the ones who do not have any interest in developing their teaching or changing what they do. Who has ever been able to tell faculty that they had to do something?
The group/department with whom the instructional designer is employed can significantly assist or hinder the perception of their value in providing comprehensive faculty professional development support.
For example, if one works within a "Center for Faculty Excellence", the expectation is that one speaks from a teaching/learning benefits perspective. On the other hand, if one is a member of a group historically associated with hardware and software support, it is considerably more difficult to be accepted as an educator with many ideas for effective technology integration.
Getting back to Gardner's excellent question about destinations: it's an ethical question, and also a political one. Where are we aiming to end up?
Think about the ideas we've heard so far:
-growing a community of learners
-better information literacy for students
-improving faculty engagement and/or teaching skills
-the development of instructional design as a field
-increasing the campus political heft of instructional designers
-dealing with public accountability in some way
-and more.
There's a lot of overlap among these choices, and a great deal of contradiction, especially among ethical assumptions and political models!
A suggestion for the future - poll results might be more meaningful if questions asked "how much." For example, "To what degree does campus culture recognize..."
I'm finding it challenging to reconcile my own convictions and enthusiasm for a sea change with the realization that we here at ELI probably represent the outliers at our institutions, in higher ed generally, and perhaps even among instructional technologists. How to be change agents and not simply charging at windmills?
I too battle for faculty time and focus for "technology" type items. Content and Curriculum are the main focus of teaching. Behaviorism is more comfortable than constructivism. With teaching loads of 3-4 per academic year, faculty are in a survival mode. How do we help them to see a value in our work? How do we get the resources needed from the administration?
do we have to wage "gorilla warfare" because our aims and goals are not shared by our institutional leadership?
A concern I have from a senior IT leadership level is the ability (or inability) to scale instructional developer/technologist/desinger support to meet the needs across the institution. I believe this work is very important but the issue of scale stymies me. Any response on how to do this or think about it?
Ellen
Our SWAT teams will have a better chance of being effective if we can be multidisciplinary and non-competitive. We should be easy to get to and coordinate amongst ourselves when it comes to figuring out how best to partner with faculty. Hopefully an easy win is to remove organizational barriers - the complexity of a distirbuted support environment could discourage even the most enthusiastic, ready-for-sea- change faculty.
I think Marla is right about choosing language carefully; but I think it goes further than language to assumptions. Please, let's not assume that faculty don't respect their students, that they aren't investing time and thought into communication; and that they know nothing about teaching. These assumptions will hinder any ability to work collaboratively for change.
We have primarily focused our conversation on working within institutional contexts. Faculty members often have dual citizenships. One is associated with an institution, the other is associated with an academic discipline.
How might learning designers/instructional technologists work with academic disciplines? Is this a means of "gorilla" work alluded to by the panel?
I am quite surprised at the comments about the administration not supporting or understanding the learning designers: who do you suppose allocated the resources to hire and empower the designers?
THe comment about "tricking" the faculty into thinking learning design was their own idea is relevant. Perhaps the adminstrators are actually using this technique?
Finally, I would posit that learning design must be focused on the culture of the discipline. Each discipline has its own way of organizing knowledge, colleagues and resources to discover and solve problems. Using technology to empower this culture -- to tell the story of the discipline -- is the way in which it can be most powerful.
-- evil administrator
gorilla or guerilla- I think chimps would take offense ! !!
Some college cultures are much more receptive to change(s) than others. Many times, early adopters are often community colleges as illustrated in the latest SLOAN survey about online learning.
To the anonymous commenter on paying attention to Alan Kay's talk: I salute you! You make a key point, in my view.
More on understanding: I think that *making* is essential to the demonstration of understanding. I'm also struck by something George Orwell once said, something to the effect of what we want even more than to be loved is to be understood.
I suppose I'm saying that I want us to talk about meaning, not just the construction of knowledge, vital as that discussion is too. My most compelling experiences as a faculty member, as a student, and as a digital citizen (neither native nor immigrant!) have had to do more with meaning than with knowledge. I think that's part of what it means (!) to reflect on community.
Working with disciplines has been most effective for organizations like MERLOT so Andrea makes a very viable point.
This field may be too broad for a single job title. It would help, however, if we had a single descriptive title for the field, like "instructional technology", "educational technology", or ...
I thought that the term "instructional designer" was related to working with faculty to build course materials, particularly for distance education (and often had degree requirements), and that "instructional technologist" was related to the more general (subversive) role that we have in encouraging/assisting faculty to use technology (and degree requirements were very flexible, for good reason).
It seems like blogging -- as a technology -- is too "heavy weight" to use in sessions like this. Judging by the number of responses to the poll questions, there are about 75 of us in the room that are refreshing the same HTML page to get the latest coments. When each of us refresh, we get not only the new comments, but the growing content bloat of previous comments as well.
(How big is the HTML of this page now?)
Again with politics: listen to Uli's sense of insurgence and transformation. Or (Marla?) discussing undoing the master-apprentice model.
Stirring the soup...we see the new role of provideing momenteum suppport to cuuriculum innovation and development projects at department and faculty levels...we provide effort and expertise that faculty may not want to do or acquire
jim
There's a mistaken notion here that learning design professionals are the change agents. It's the academics that have to be the change agents, and that change is going to happen within their academic units.
Also, the fact is that many of these tools are still too hard to use. We've seen that as the tools get easier, faculty adopt them at a faster rate.
Andrea Nixon makes an important point in highlighting the importance of the disciplines. In many (most?) institutions, the disciplinary citizenship is more important than the institutional one. As the disciplines adopt technology as central to learning and research, greater number of faculty will value them. We need to invest time in understanding departmental and disciplinary needs as well as those of the needs of individuals.
What factors drive institutional change? I think the problems of instructional designers feeling like "digital janitor" or students & teachers just "doing school" would change RADICALLY if the assessment of learning effectiveness rises to the top of the institution's agenda. Knowing if your mission of educating students is being fulfilled or not, is sure to drive institutional change. An individual "change agent" is not as powerful as an individual who has clear, compelling, and urgent news to share...
Andrea: I think you raise a good point. I think helping faculty work with their academic discipline is a major focus of learning technology consultant roles. We help faculty with not only the design and production of learner centered environments, but we help them to be teaching scholars within their disciplines. Linda
I agree with Peter Murray: blogging is too "heavy" for this kind of discussion. It fosters a lot of independent (individual) critical thinking, but not enough real-time collaborative interaction to advance the conversation.
In addressing the issue of time, when responsive to ALL faculty on campus, I hope to develop an "instructional design team" using graduate student interns from our COE's "College and Continuing Ed" program.
This type of partnership seems to me to be a very promising strategy for so many reasons.
Has any other institution at this conference implemented something similar?
What does learning design mean when we talk and discuss about learning design? Assuming that learning designers work with faculty to design better learning environments for students and to use most appropriate technology tools. Assuming that instructional designers are doing the same. Does it matter how call ourselves?
The basic question we need to keep in mind is that where does learning take place. Learning takes places mostly outside of instructional or learning environments, which neither learning designers nor instructional designers have control or influence over them.
This was absolutely the most frustrating sessions. Too much bouncing around. A couple of the speakers are too idealistic and I question why type of experience they have.
As someone who prepares folks to be instructional designers, I will say that novices designers are ill prepared for the role of initiator of change. What I see is the love and passion for the field not how to change the world. And yet all the instructional designers I know have assumed or have been compelled into this role.
Jerome Bruner (personal hero!) writes that one of the subjects in any school is always, or should always be, consciousness-raising about the possibilities of communal mental activity. For me, IT can make those possibilities more tangible, more persistent, more accessible to our conversation. This blog is an excellent example of how to do that. I will study and use this resource when I try to describe what this session was "about"--or the scatter-plot (love that) destination it pointed to.
I actually found this session to be quite stimulating. I agree that it had a "stream-of-consciousness" feel to it, but it was a nice change of pace.
The fact that the panelist had a variety of perspectives (and "experience-sets") added to the flavor of the session.
Additionally, I think forcing us in the over-25 crowd to interact in this fashion is great (paradigm-shifting). I have personally enjoyed listening AND reading at the same time. This has been an unstructured, free-flowing learning experience. While I don't think all learning experiences (conference sessions) should be like this, this has been great!
The speaker who said there is a guild approach operating here is right. I think it encourages an us-vs.-them approach that is counter-productive.
Sorry, Bryan -- didn't intend to accuse you of being a librarian...
Regarding job descriptions and "guild-ness", the Association of Learning Technology (based out of the UK) has done some work on that, including discussions regarding certification as a "Learning Technologist", which includes skills and foci of an Instructional Designer and Educational Developer, too.
We need to look beyond our process, to other countries and organizations.
Here is the url for the ALT site regarding certification:
http://www.alt.ac.uk/cmalt.html
There was a fundamental design flaw embedded in this session. It is unreasonable to expect the audience to do three things simultaneously: listen to what others are saying; read what has been said or written on the blog; and contribute to the blog. WHICH of the three activities are most important? Why not press the PAUSE button during the session and let the audience switch modes?
This session, in other words, needs to be redesigned. I trust that we have people who could do this if we'd ask them for guidance.
I found the blogging component of this session to be innovative and very valuable. Indeed, I felt that the session itself was rather weak and found some of the comments from the presenters to fairly shallow. The most interesting and thougtful part of the session is in the blog, so in that sense the blog "saved" the session.
I'm sure that this can be improved -- the network was clearly overloaded for example. Also the presence of the blog has the potential to transform the way a panel discussion like this works -- not that I have any specific ideas on that. I bet the experts in team learning could make a contribution here!
I did think this was a successful experiment that I would encourage repeating. I did not find it difficult to follow the discussion and scan the blogs simultaneously. Posting required more attention, but still did not prevent listening. Of course I did not read and post simultaneously as one blogger suggested.
My prior experience with blogs is quite limited -- my daugher has one and I read them during the last political campaign -- but they are largely foriegn to me. Since I liked this experiment very much, I wonder about the reality of the new generational digital divide that threaded through much of this conference (I'm 56).
"Lord, I have a problem!"
"What's the problem, Eve?"
"Lord, I know you've created me and have provided this beautiful garden and all of these wonderful animals and that hilarious comedy snake, but I'm just not happy."
"Why is that, Eve?" came the reply from above.
"Lord, I am lonely. And I'm sick to death of apples." "Well, Eve, in that case, I have a solution. I shall create a man for you."
"What's a 'man,' Lord?"
"This man will be a flawed creature, with aggressive tendencies, an enormous ego and an inability to empathize or listen to you properly, he'll basically give you a hard time. He'll be bigger, faster, and more muscular than you. He'll be really good at fighting and kicking a ball about and hunting fleet-footed ruminants, But, he'll be pretty good in the sack."
"I can put up with that," says Eve, with an ironically raised eyebrow.
"Yeah well, he's better than a poke in the eye with a burnt stick. But, there is one condition."
"What's that, Lord?"
"You'll have to let him believe that I made him first."
:D :D :D
_____________________________
shemale cartoon sex pic
i'd rather say that ppl under 18 are not allowed - too hot for their young brains:-)
free shemale sex picture gallery
black free gallery hoe hood pussy sex shack xxx
book free pic porn sex star
deep fucked mature movie porn sexy star
cam free hardcore sex
adult clip free group sex video
o/free-fuck-group-sex-shemale.html>free fuck group sex shemale
free group sex thumb
free ebony sex story
free asian japanese interracial sex movies
free index link movies.html porn zadawut.za.funpic.org
free porn movies no credit card required
free couples home sex videos
adult college free partys porn sex wild
bizarre free gay porn sex
clip free movie movie porn preview sex
Happy to anounce my birthday movies:-)
blog shemale sex
shemale sex party
black hairy pussy sex show woman
african hardcore sex
bitch group hardcore sex
black group sex movie
beach oral sex
free hardcore porn movie clip
free hardcore porn preview
adult group porn star
animal cumshots
cumshot circus
ashley blue blowjob
awesome blowjob
ml>adult anal extreme free man man penetration pussy sex
adult pussy pic
I'd like to untroduce my home video
amateur clip free sex video
amateur free lesbian sex video
anal free gay mpeg sex
advice case free harassment lawyer legal maritime sexual
free massage video sex
asian free hose pantie pic sex
banner clip free hairy mature sex video
free gallery mature pantie picture sex
free hand job mature sex
anal clip free gay sex
archive free gay sex story
amateur free movie sex teen
cam free sexy teen
black free sex lesbian picture
download free lesbian sex
hairy sex free picture
Bush goes ballistic about other countries being evil and dangerous, because they have weapons of mass destruction. But, he insists on building up even a more deadly supply of nuclear arms right here in the US. What do you think? What is he doing to us, and what is he doing to the world?
If ever there was ever a time in our nation's history that called for a change, this is it!
We have lost friends and influenced no one. No wonder most of the world thinks we suck. Thanks to what george bush has done to our country during the past three years, we do!
Post a Comment
<< Home