Blurts

Cindy and I listen to podcasts. We frequently travel by car and spend most of the time listening to podcasts rather than say audiobooks or music. I guess we are more likely to agree on a podcast than we are on a music genre or book.

We enjoy several podcasts from the TWIT network (This week in Google, MacBreak Weekly, Tech News Today) and a few others Upgrade. What I realize is that I have yet to find an educational podcast we can stick with. We have tried a few, but they tend to lack the substance that keeps you coming back.

I wonder why this is the case. I recognize that the TWIT network and RelayFM (Upgrade) are professionally done. The participants have great experience, devote considerable time even full time to podcasting, and have the advantage of organizations that can afford high quality production assistance. I would think educational organizations (e.g., ISTE) would have the size to provide similar services but I am guessing ISTE is mostly about their conference and may see a quality podcast as competing with the popularity of the conference. The multiple education conferences also support keynote speakers who make their money as professional presenters moving from conference to conference and probably workshop to workshop presenting one of a limited number of presentations. In contrast, podcasting is more demanding. You can’t get away with using the same content over and over again. You also must rely on ad support  rather than guaranteed fees derived from attendee admission costs. Without institutional support provided most attendees and the fees charged vendors, I wonder if the conference model would persist.

My point is that the organizations are primarily about the conference (ISTE, FETC, etc.) rather the conference being one of the services of the organization.

Allow me to offer a book recommendation with an explanation. The explanation is necessary because the title of the book and even the focus may not seem relevant to educators. I think the topic is very relevant.

The book is “Machines of loving grace” by John Markoff. The focus of the book is the past and future of artificial intelligence. I admit to having a thing for the history of digital technology. This is perhaps the only historical topic that interests me or that I have studied with any intensity. The historical component is only relevant to most because it reveals the trajectory and direction of the field.

The treatment of the topic is multifaceted and incorporates history, capabilities, ethics and many other components. A fundamental theme is the contrast between the visions of AI (artificial intelligence) and IA (intelligence augmentation) traced back as far as John McCarthy and Doug Engelbart. Engelbart happens to be one of my wife's heroes dating back to some interaction she had with him at an Apple conference (or some conference). Perhaps one way to contrast these perspectives is to suggest AI proposes systems that can function independently of humans (replacement) and IA proposes systems that facilitate the functioning of humans (augmentation).

No spoilers here so what does this have to do with education. I propose that the comparison of AI and IA offers a way to address the concern so many may have with instructional technology. Are the developers of ever more sophisticated instructional systems intending these systems to replace humans? If so, is the outcome inevitable or can it be headed off by decision makers? I am not claiming the author answers these questions, but the comparison to so many other fields provides a great way to examine the issues. Are we educators the cab and truck drivers of the future fighting to hold on to our jobs even though self driving vehicles are far safer and more productive? If we object, on whose behalf are we making our arguments (learners or ourselves)?

One thing about venturing out from a narrow focus on our daily focus is the “forest and trees” opportunity. The role played by technology is disrupting many fields and keeping this in mind may allow a broader perspective.

Posted with Blogsy

When educators talk about education they tend to say it is important but then are critical of educational practice. Standards are too low. Teachers are lazy of incompetent. Costs are too high. Teachers hide behind unions. If you work in the field, the negative attention gets tiresome. It also seems that turn-about is not allowed. Educators are discouraged from being political unless their efforts are disconnected from their classrooms.

There is good news and there is bad news. This article from Forbes claims that the politicians are going to back off criticizing k-12 and will focus more attention on higher education.

Teaching Students to Live Tweet – Starr Sackstein, MJE, NBCT http://nzzl.us/2oysnPu  – really wish we wouldn’t. Engage in extended writing.

I posted the tweet appearing above earlier today. Some time later my wife saw the tweet and took exception. She told me that I should be more positive and educators would think of me as a luddite because I question interest in using twitter.

I suppose she was right. My criticism of Twitter might be offensive to those teachers interested in this tool and they might make assumptions about my commitment to educational uses of technology.

However, the potential of this misunderstanding illustrates my major objection to Twitter. Simply put – you can’t say much and brevity at the level of a few words hinders communication and I would argue the use of writing as a learning experience. For example, I would suggest that interest in online writing is great, but it makes more sense to me to engage students in blogging. To be fair to the author of the post linked in the tweet, live tweeting might be a little different than most writing tasks that would involve greater student reflection.

The fact is I make fairly extensive use of Twitter. I tend to share links – content I find interesting and content I have written. This is also the reason I watch Twitter. I do not expect to find profound arguments within tweets, but there is always the possibility something mentioned in a tweet will be impressive.

Mimi Ito claims teen mastery of phone technology is an untended consequence of this age group having limited privacy in other areas of their lives. Other opportunities for privacy are declining due to parent fears. “Constraints configure practice.” The phone provides privacy and messing with other capabilities develops expertise. This is interesting and seems logical, but I wonder how you would test this proposal. The digital native assumption of expertise was such a destructive proposal and points to the danger of untested claims.

Posted with Blogsy