2,073 Matching Annotations
  1. Sep 2016
    1. All of us recognize that students’ communication skills benefit greatly from substantial amounts of writing. But many faculty members limit the amount of assigned writing because drafting comments and grading is too time-consuming. But one can imagine other ways to give students more opportunities to write while ensuring that they receive valuable feedback. These might include peer or near peer feedback, using carefully designed rubrics, or even a degree of auto feedback.
    2. We need to recognize that many students who are not ready for an exam on October 15 might succeed on November 1.

      According to some, this is the core shift needed to make Competency-Based Education (CBE) work, in practice. The idea isn’t to sort people out by testing everyone at the same time but to allow people to develop the needed competencies at their own pace. In fact, some discussions of CBE revolve around the notion that a learner failing an exam demonstrates that it wasn’t administered at the right time. May sound really strange in the current system for formal education but there are plenty of similar models outside of formal education, including in (at least the popular culture version of) martial arts.

    1. L’enseignant joue quatre rôles distincts : celui de client, qui juge l’adéquation du produit au cahier des charges, celui d’expert technique, en cas de difficulté bloquante, celui de chef d’entreprise lorsque cela s’impose et que des décisions autoritaires (concernant les coûts, les délais ou les méthodes) doivent être prises pour empêcher l’échec du projet, et enfin le rôle traditionnel de tuteur.
    2. Pour leur faciliter la tâche, lorsqu’un enseignant dispense un cours magistral, un autre enseignant est présent dans la salle et joue un double rôle : il apporte éventuellement des points de clarification à travers une formulation alternative et il n’hésite pas à poser des questions, parfois volontairement naïves, afin de désinhiber les élèves qui n’oseraient pas intervenir.

      Interesting approach. Puts the primary teacher’s roles in a new light.

    3. Ces méthodes, qui pourraient sembler brutales si nous n’étions pas intimement convaincus de leurs vertus pédagogiques, s’avèrent avoir un effet extrêmement bénéfique sur les étudiants.
    1. The least valuable category of device among educators was, by far, smart watches, with 59 percent saying they are either "not very valuable" (50 percent) or actually "detrimental" to education (9 percent).
    1. Some of the other benefits include: Permits for peer review. Fulfills social responsibility of offering education to all. Increases standard of educational resources. Improves a university’s status and that of the researcher or educators.
    1. this article is particularly concerned with the ways that uncritical adoption of educational technologies adversely impacts the autonomy of students and teachers within the shared enterprise of learning
    2. it’s productive to not only think of schools and colleges as sites of learning, but also as marketplaces where goods, knowledge, and services are consumed and produced

      Agreed that it’s productive. But isn’t it also about framing (formal/institutional) education in purely economic terms? Useful to think about goods and services which have exchange value. May be a bit too easy to slip into the implicit idea that a learner is among the system’s key products.

    3. A network perspective not only lays bare the various stakeholders with a vested social, economic, and political interest in what happens within schools and colleges, but also the ways agency for what happens within classrooms at my institution extends beyond the students and educators charged with constructing learning.

      Useful approach (reminiscent of ANT), especially if paired with a community-based approach.

    4. frame the purposes and value of education in purely economic terms

      Sign of the times? One part is about economics as the discipline of decision-making. Economists often claim that their work is about any risk/benefit analysis and isn’t purely about money. But the whole thing is still about “resources” or “exchange value”, in one way or another. So, it could be undue influence from this way of thinking. A second part is that, as this piece made clear at the onset, “education is big business”. In some ways, “education” is mostly a term for a sector or market. Schooling, Higher Education, Teaching, and Learning are all related. Corporate training may not belong to the same sector even though many of the aforementioned EdTech players bet big on this. So there’s a logic to focus on the money involved in “education”. Has little to do with learning experiences, but it’s an entrenched system.

      Finally, there’s something about efficiency, regardless of effectiveness. It’s somewhat related to economics, but it’s often at a much shallower level. The kind of “your tax dollars at work” thinking which is so common in the United States. “It’s the economy, silly!”

    5. who will (and will not) control and define the learning process, who will (and will not) profit from the ways that learning processes are enacted, who will (and will not) have access to science and scholarship and the infrastructure necessary for creating it, who will (and will not) participate in the design of curriculum and assessment and learning spaces, who will (and will not) profit from the benefits of science and artistry, and who will (and will not) have opportunities to attend schools and colleges.

      Several (though not all) of these questions relate to the core sociological one: Who Decides? The list sounds, in part, like a call for deeper and more nuanced “stakeholders” thinking than the typical case study. The apparent focus (at least with parenthetical mentions of those excluded) is on the limits of inclusion. From this, we could already be thinking about community-building, especially in view of a strong Community of Practice.

    6. Foregrounding the critical role that autonomy plays within learning, Chris gestures tacitly toward the decreasing level of agency that those most directly involved in learning have in defining the processes and purposes of education on their own terms

      How wordy!

    1. Activities such as time spent on task and discussion board interactions are at the forefront of research.

      Really? These aren’t uncontroversial, to say the least. For instance, discussion board interactions often call for careful, mixed-method work with an eye to preventing instructor effect and confirmation bias. “Time on task” is almost a codeword for distinctions between models of learning. Research in cognitive science gives very nuanced value to “time spent on task” while the Malcolm Gladwells of the world usurp some research results. A major insight behind Competency-Based Education is that it can allow for some variance in terms of “time on task”. So it’s kind of surprising that this summary puts those two things to the fore.

    2. Research: Student data are used to conduct empirical studies designed primarily to advance knowledge in the field, though with the potential to influence institutional practices and interventions. Application: Student data are used to inform changes in institutional practices, programs, or policies, in order to improve student learning and support. Representation: Student data are used to report on the educational experiences and achievements of students to internal and external audiences, in ways that are more extensive and nuanced than the traditional transcript.

      Ha! The Chronicle’s summary framed these categories somewhat differently. Interesting. To me, the “application” part is really about student retention. But maybe that’s a bit of a cynical reading, based on an over-emphasis in the Learning Analytics sphere towards teleological, linear, and insular models of learning. Then, the “representation” part sounds closer to UDL than to learner-driven microcredentials. Both approaches are really interesting and chances are that the report brings them together. Finally, the Chronicle made it sound as though the research implied here were less directed. The mention that it has “the potential to influence institutional practices and interventions” may be strategic, as applied research meant to influence “decision-makers” is more likely to sway them than the type of exploratory research we so badly need.

    1. the use of data in scholarly research about student learning; the use of data in systems like the admissions process or predictive-analytics programs that colleges use to spot students who should be referred to an academic counselor; and the ways colleges should treat nontraditional transcript data, alternative credentials, and other forms of documentation about students’ activities, such as badges, that recognize them for nonacademic skills.

      Useful breakdown. Research, predictive models, and recognition are quite distinct from one another and the approaches to data that they imply are quite different. In a way, the “personalized learning” model at the core of the second topic is close to the Big Data attitude (collect all the things and sense will come through eventually) with corresponding ethical problems. Through projects vary greatly, research has a much more solid base in both ethics and epistemology than the kind of Big Data approach used by technocentric outlets. The part about recognition, though, opens the most interesting door. Microcredentials and badges are a part of a broader picture. The data shared in those cases need not be so comprehensive and learners have a lot of agency in the matter. In fact, when then-Ashoka Charles Tsai interviewed Mozilla executive director Mark Surman about badges, the message was quite clear: badges are a way to rethink education as a learner-driven “create your own path” adventure. The contrast between the three models reveals a lot. From the abstract world of research, to the top-down models of Minority Report-style predictive educating, all the way to a form of heutagogy. Lots to chew on.

    2. the ways colleges should treat nontraditional transcript data, alternative credentials, and other forms of documentation about students’ activities, such as badges, that recognize them for nonacademic skills.
    1. I wonder what would have happened if someone I trust had provided me with a list of resources and people she admired when I started out in online learning and open education four years ago.

      Interesting scenario. Sounds quite a bit like the role of this one person in grad school who gives you the boost you need. Usually not your director, who’s more of a name than a resource. Possibly someone with a relatively low status. It becomes something of an “informal advisor” role. “Trust” is indeed key, here. My first reaction reading this was to balk at the “trust” part, because critical thinking skills warrant other methods to gather resources. But this is a situation where trust does matter quite a bit. Not that the resources are necessarily better. But there’s much less overhead involved if rapport has been established. In fact, it’s often easy to get through a text or to start a conversation with someone using knowledge of the angle through which they’ve been recommended. “If she told me to talk to so-and-so, chances are that this person won’t take it the wrong way if we start discussing this issue.”

    2. curate

      The term may still sound somewhat misleading to those who work in, say, museums (where “curator” is a very specific job title). But the notion behind it is quite important, especially when it comes to Open Education. A big part of the job is to find resources and bring them together for further reuse, remix, and reappropriation. In French, we often talk about «veille technologique», which is basically about watching/monitoring relevant resources, especially online.

    1. Some people define DH as divided into “hack” -- those who code and make digital things -- and “yack” -- those who critique and analyze “the digital.” I’m also interested in “stack” -- how do the structures of organizations and institutions enable or inhibit what we want to do? The people who “hack” and “yack” can’t work without the people in the “stack” (or without the people in the library stacks).
    1. "In a personalized learning environment, a student’s success is defined by knowledge, skills, habits and mindsets," she wrote. "Though we have a lot more work to do, we’re encouraged by student growth and survey results."
  2. Aug 2016
    1. Interestingly, the other MOOC professor at Stanford in 2011, who was not part of the media push or start-up aftermath,  was Jennifer Widom.  She has continued to teach MOOCs since 2011, and during her current sabbatical year is offering free courses in data and design…and those free courses are going to be in-person.

      This puts MOOC hype in perspective, including the Matthew Effect.

    1. A team at Facebook reviewed thousands of headlines using these criteria, validating each other’s work to identify a large set of clickbait headlines. From there, we built a system that looks at the set of clickbait headlines to determine what phrases are commonly used in clickbait headlines that are not used in other headlines. This is similar to how many email spam filters work.

      Though details are scarce, the very idea that Facebook would tackle this problem with both humans and algorithms is reassuring. The common argument about human filtering is that it doesn’t scale. The common argument about algorithmic filtering is that it requires good signal (though some transhumanists keep saying that things are getting better). So it’s useful to know that Facebook used so hybrid an approach. Of course, even algo-obsessed Google has used human filtering. Or, at least, human judgment to tweak their filtering algorithms. (Can’t remember who was in charge of this. Was a semi-frequent guest on This Week in Google… Update: Matt Cutts) But this very simple “we sat down and carefully identified stuff we think qualifies as clickbait before we fed the algorithm” is refreshingly clear.

  3. Jul 2016
    1. Google’s chief culture officer

      Her name is Stacy Savides Sullivan. She was already Google’s HR director by the time the CCO title was added to her position, in 2006. Somewhat surprising that Sullivan’d disagree with Teller, given her alleged role:

      Part of her job is to protect key parts of Google’s scrappy, open-source cultural core as the company has evolved into a massive multinational.

      And her own description:

      "I work with employees around the world to figure out ways to maintain and enhance and develop our culture and how to keep the core values we had in the very beginning–a flat organization, a lack of hierarchy, a collaborative environment–to keep these as we continue to grow and spread them and filtrate them into our new offices around the world.

      Though “failure bonuses” may sound a bit far-fetched in the abstract, they do fit with most everything else we know about Googloids’ “corporate culture” (and the Silicon Valley Ideology (aka Silicon Valley Narrative), more generally).

    1. One way to do this is to bring someone into the C-Suite whose job it is to keep an eye on culture. The best-known example of this approach is Google GOOG 3.07% , which added “chief culture officer” to head of HR Stacy Sullivan’s job title in 2006. Part of her job is to protect key parts of Google’s scrappy, open-source cultural core as the company has evolved into a massive multinational.

      Interesting that the title would be appended to the HR director position, instead of creating a new position. Stacy Savides Sullivan has been with the Goog’ since 1999, so pretty early in the company’s history. Not sure if her job is specifically with Google or if covers Alphabet more generally. It does sound like Sullivan’s ideas clashed with Astro Teller’s.

    1. By merely being in the room, the devices will monitor students’ behavior in the same way that the cameras and switches and lab coats did in Milgram’s experiments.

      Hope education scientists are deeply concerned about the consequences of their observing learners.

    2. But my own personal curiosity and fascination are outweighed by my concern at the degree to which similar devices are being used in education to monitor and police learning.

      Though it’s quite specific, this gap between our personal lives and what we envision in learning contexts underlies a lot of our discussions. It’s almost the opposite of context collapse. Sounds like it’s much more common in formal educational settings than in other contexts for learning.

    3. I’ll be candid. I am quite often an unabashed fan of the Internet of Things.

      Candour may bring us to a new level of dialogue. Sometimes sounds like enthusiasm isn’t allowed, in this scene. Which is a lot of what’s behind the “teaching, not tools” rallying cry. We may be deeply aware of many of the thick, tricky, problematic, thorny issues having to do with tools in our lives. We sure don’t assume that any thing or person or situation is value-free. But we really want to talk about learning. We care about learning. We’re big fans of learning. Cyclical debates about tools are playing in the EdTech court, even when they’re “critical”. Or cynical. Sharing about learning experiences can restore our faith in humanity. Which might be needed after delving so much into the experimental side of social psychology.

    1. Unilever is fortunate they don’t have a shaving business to protect

      Was wondering about this and went looking for it. While they do have lots of “personal care” brands (especially deodorants, it sounds like), couldn’t find a shaving business. So, now it makes sense. They’re not disrupting themselves internally by “cannibalising” their own lines. They’re not risking much. They’re not even killing a direct competitor. It even sounds possible that they’re not acq’hiring Levine and Dubin. Most of the Ben piece is about P&G so it’s a bit confusing.

    1. Both sides are wrong — Yiannopoulos is no free-speech martyr, and cheerleaders of the ban are likely fooling themselves if they interpret this as any sort of sign of evolving Twitter policy rather than a specific instance of damage control that’s unlikely to lead to wider reforms.
    1. I’ve heard it suggested often that the World Wide Web is an example of what Ivan Illich called “convivial tools” — although his book predates the Web by 15+ years, Illich speaks of “learning webs” in Deschooling Society. I grow less and less certain that the Web is quite “it."

      Yours in struggle.

    2. ed-tech hasn’t really changed much in schools

      Been butting against this quite a bit. One part discouragement: if we haven’t succeed in 40+ years (on the “progressive” side of the spectrum), can we ever succeed? One part nostalgia: education was so radical in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Are we going back to May 1968? Is that what #BlackLivesMatter and the Occupy Movement have been about? One part pseudo-historical: isn’t there a cycle involved, with frequent ups and downs? One part cultural: which contexts are we discussing, here? Is it only about hyperindustrialised societies? Because things sure have changed quite a bit around the world, if not necessarily in the direction we wish they did… One part conceptual: isn’t Ed Tech what we make it to be? Because it sounds like a focus on ed tech solutions, not educational use of technology more generally.

    3. reflexive communication

      Just a couple of years ago, Noam Chomsky finally understood that this is a large part of what we do with language. A significant proportion of language sciences has been assigned to getting him to get this. It took 40 years.

    4. a way for children could to learn computer programming but more importantly even, a way of giving them a powerful object, a powerful tool to think with

      There’s a lot of ambivalence about recent projects which seek to involve coding in a broader educational context. There’s probably a lot of backlash to come against the STEM focus of many of these programs. At the same time, though, coding has become the de facto power tool in “our world”, for better or worse. Which is part of the reason it’s so interesting to trace, as Fred Turner famously did, the roots of “cyberculture” in the 1960s “counterculture”. In both cases, the “culture” part is rooted in a certain part of the United States which links two Bays (San Francisco and Massachusetts). Even the discourse on empowerment is part neoliberal, part anti-establishment.

    5. don’t give ed-tech pep talks, where you leave the room with a list of 300 new apps you can use in your classroom.

      The impact these talks have is difficult to assess. Some may be quick to blame people for attending such talks. But it’s hard to fight cheery, enthusiastic pronouncements when your job is devalued.

    6. The phrase comes from his 1973 book Tools for Conviviality, published just 2 years after the book he’s probably best known for, Deschooling Society.  These are just two of a number of very interesting, progressive if not radical texts about education from roughly the same period: Paul Goodman’s Compulsory Mis-education (1964). Jonathan Kozol’s Death at an Early Age (1967). Neil Postman’s Teaching as a Subversive Activity (1969). Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed (first published in Portuguese in 1968 and in English in 1970). Everett Reimer’s School is Dead (1971).
    1. series of radical educational paperbacks, published by Penguin in the series Penguin Education Specials in the 1970’s. These included: Paulo Freire Pedagogy of the Opprressed ; Paul Goodman Compulsory Miseducation; Ivan Illich De-Schooling Society; Everett Reimer School is Dead. 
    1. cautiously optimistic

      One of the many reasons we need Maha in our world. Honestly, there’s a lot out there to bring us down. The problem with that, in part, is that it may discourage the most courageous among us. Not Maha, though. Proving once again how courageous she is (despite her claim to the contrary), she brings us forward on our quest for empowered learning despite technology.

    2. There is a lot of power coming from organisations that choose to fund particular initiatives and institutions who are able to push their content onto the rest of the world.

      On one hand, we might hope that there’ll be a shift in power and that these choices will eventually benefit those who are currently underprivileged. In that reading, this “backstep” is maybe more of a system feature. On the other hand, it can be perceived as being in line with the notion that philanthropy contributes to wealth inequality. In this context, much of the good intentions behind MOOCs can be assessed in a new light.

    3. There is still much more emphasis in hyperbolic education discourse on pushing content rather than enabling connections between people

      There is. But it might be shifting a bit. Or, at least, there are people around who are proposing another Sphere of Agency, one which relies much less on content and does a lot more with openness. As with Berkana, our job might be to connect these people who sing in a different voice. We might reach richer harmonies when we don’t expect unison.

    4. I don’t want to dwell on all the things that are still going wrong

      Maha does a neat job of bringing in diverse points, from postive to negative, neutral to orthogonal. But it’s very difficult, in this scene, to maintain our enthusiasm. Put another way, it’s incredibly easy to become cynical. Part of it may just be the academic mode of thought. We can’t enjoy something without criticising it at the same time. Another part may be the very polarised contexts in which many members of the scene live. There’s a lot of anger in some parts of the World. An effect of this, though, is the contrast with the cheery enthusiastic starry-eyed optimism of technocentric EdTech solutionist solution vendors (aka, “The Other Side”). If you have gloomy people on one end of the spectrum and feel-good sales reps on the other, it’s not necessarily that surprising that some teachers spend more time checking out “the top ten apps which will make your teaching a joyful pleasurable experience which really does empower those kids, we promise you and you can trust us because we’re good people”.

    5. localised to different regional contexts and curricula

      Local appropriation could lead to something interesting. Typically, though, localisation is a top-down process: take a culture-specific item, strip it down to its bare essentials, make it available in other cultural contexts, add a bit of local flavour.

    6. Translation apps continue to leave much to be desired.

      Cue Roman Jakobson. In a way, by giving the illusion of mutual understanding, these apps exacerbate the problem. Also, because they do the worst job with rich language work (nuance, subtlety, wordplay, polysemy, subtext…) they encourage a very “sterile” language which might have pleased Orwell like it pleases transhumanists, but which waters down what makes language worth speaking.

    7. what is the English-speaking world missing out on by not reading the content written in other languages

      Though he’s been associated with a very strange idea he never had, Edward Sapir was quite explicit about this loss over a hundred years ago. Thinking specifically about a later passage warning people about the glossocide English language. But it’s been clear in his work from long before that excerpt that we’re missing out when we focus on a single language.

    8. people who are not fluent in English

      In this case, it can apply to quite a few academics who are native speakers of one of the aforementioned “world languages”. Difficult to be a monolingual academic in an exclusively local language. Much easier as a French- or Mandarin-speaker to become an academic without learning much English. And speaking of monolinguals, there is a clear bias in tech towards monolingualism.