Blurts

I became interested in net neutrality in the earlier days of the Internet. I found at least one previous post from 2008. Net neutrality proposes that the company that provides you access to content on the Internet cannot intervene in what you watch or read. It was once described as any packet must be treated the same as any other packet. At the time, the concern was that most folks had access to only a single entry point (and sometimes no access point), and it should not be possible to manipulate what they accessed when there was not reasonable access to an alternative source.

At the time the FCC took this position, it was under Democratic control. When Republicans gained control, they reversed this decision. Now, I admit I did not feel I had a lack of control over what I could access under the Republican FCC, but I objected because by removing the neutrality ruling this manipulation was possible.

This past week the FCC has again reinstated the requirement of neutrality. Under the Biden administration, the FCC is now back to 3-2 Democratic commissioners. Should the government have a role in requiring neutrality? Given the tremendous influence of the information we access online, I would argue neutrality must be guaranteed. The potential for abuse seems so obvious and so damaging this seems like a matter that should not be associated with a political party.

The time it took to get to this change in policy must say something about how our government works. For a time, the newly nominated commissioner was not approved to be seated. When there are complaints about why political actions are happening now and why not two years ago, this makes a good example. Resistance to action needs to be properly attributed.

I have written about the use of technology in classrooms since the mid-1990s. Looking back over some of the topics that interested me, it seems that some topics that were emphasized at one time and would still be equally as valuable now seldom show up in what I would describe as the “online discussion”. Two examples that I would place in this category would be a) project-based learning and b) the classroom use of digital probes.

I have been thinking about how the observation that such trends exist might be demonstrated. I remember years ago that Google made data available about the frequency of search terms and I looked to see if I could still find such data. Google still offers what it calls Google Trends.

My exploration involved the following: a) science of reading, b) project-based learning, c) computer literacy, and d) classroom AI. A direct comparison among search goals is difficult because some issues are likely to be searched using a consistent phrase and others with a variety of terms. I think Google recognizes this challenge and differentiates search term from search topic. However, with the topics I wanted to investigate both term and topic were not always available and a consistent approach would not work. I decided that focusing on relative trends would be more meaningful than comparing relative frequency at a point in time. I have no idea if this is true or not.

This graph compares data from 2004 through the present. The blue line represents “project-based learning”, the red line “science of reading”, the yellow line “computer literacy”, and the green line “classroom AI”. Again, the trends rather than the relative frequency seem most useful because of the confounds I have already mentioned. The Science of Reading and Classroom AI (red and green) have shown recent increases in interest. Computer literacy (much more general than something such as learning to program) and project-based learning have shown declines (blue line, yellow line).

This tool would seem interesting to explore within a classroom setting. What trends might interest students?

Here is a recommendation for educators at all levels interested in a broad perspecctive on present AI applications in education. Lawrence Holt has updated his and colleagues’ existing work titled “A map of generative AI for education”. This work describes the multiple ways AI is being used by educators, learners, and administrators and provides links to a large selection of applications available to implement these applications. This is a great and complete work identifying many applications and services I had not tried. For any educator, you will learn something new from this content.

As a side note, this resource is provided through Medium. Medium is a subscription service asking that readers pay $5 a month for access to all content. Compared to approaches such as Substack that charge a similar amount for each author you follow, this is a great bargain. With Medium, authors receive compensation depending on the popularity of their contributions. The $5 is divided based on what you read with a percentage going to Medium. I do publish some of my longer articles on Medium and I have yet to generate enough revenue to cover the cost of my membership. I don’t expect to generate a lot of income. I value the principle that those who invest time producing quality content should be compensated in some way. The article I link here is a great example of why. The research that went into this work must have been extensive and assumptions that this work does not deserve compensation is absurd.

I bring up this point based on a personal observation. I am an educational technologist so I write both about technology and about education. With Medium, I find that what I write about technology receives a good deal of attention while what I have to say about education less so. My true expertise would suggest the opposite reaction should be the case. My hypothesis is that this response reflects core values and expectations.

Online content and how it is delivered seems to be at a cross road of a sort. Free services are criticized because these services collect information about readers that allows targeted ads and manipulative propaganda. This is especially the case when 3rd party cookies are allowed, These criticisms are legitimate. The alternative is really subscription-based services.

I found a notice that the National Library Board was experimenting with AI as a way to increase interest in reading. An AI activity named Playbrary was their first venture. The application uses ChatGPT to turn public-domain classics into choose-your-own adventures. You don’t need the paid version of ChatGPT for the text version and if you have the paid version of ChatGPT the adventures will include some graphics. I explored the Sherlock Holmes adventure.

It was great fun and then I hit the end and was told to read the book and that would be fun too.

I started to wonder how ChatGPT did this and just for kicks tried the following prompt.

Prompt: I want to read a choose-your-own adventure story. Include an occasional image that supports the story. Wait after each choice for my response.

It turns out ChatGPT will create choose-your-own adventure games.

I don’t know if this is a good or a bad thing. I don’t know if it is a waste of the resources ChatGPT must bring to bear to do this. I just know it works.

You can request an adventure on pretty much any subject. I never got to the end of an adventure so I wonder if ChatGPT even knows where the story is going.

Prompt: I want to read a chose-your-own adventure story set in a middle school. Include an occasional image that supports the story. Wait after each choice for my response.

Jason Howell and Jeff Jarvis interview Sal Kahn about the Kahn Academy’s AI tool. The interview includes descriptions of how Kahnmigo is designed to interact with learners, the capabilities it provides educators, and some of the topics covered in Kahn’s future book about AI in education.