I find most courses, also academic presentations ignore the basic tenants of film and storytelling to lead strong, to hook people in, and to take them on a story shape of a journey where the end is not revealed at the startsource
Friedman envisaged a society in which we’d all be wealthy, thriving entrepreneurs. What we got in reality was a pay cut, reduced holiday or sick leave, a chronic skills deficit, credit-card debt and endless hours of pointless work. If anything, the story of human capital theory in Western economies has been about divesting in people, not the opposite.
That’s because it was born within an extreme period in 20th-century history, when many believed that the fate of humanity was hanging in the balance. It should therefore be approached as such, a rather eccentric and largely unrealistic relic of the Cold War. Only in that highly unusual milieu could mavericks such as Hayek and Friedman ever be taken seriously and listened to.source
Google makes $30 per device by selling management services for the millions of Chromebooks that ship to schools. But by habituating students to its offerings at a young age, Google obtains something much more valuable. source
Unsurprisingly, this has sparked some debate, with Andrew Stillman arguing,
Google has captured market share from these incumbents through scrappy, user-centric product management practices that have produced tools that transform what’s possible in classrooms in a way that — used well — can result in markedly more powerful, iterative, feedback-rich, creative student experiences. source
Doug Levin adds the following to the discussion,
The choice by education leaders to obfuscate and excuse the trading away of our children’s communications and information (about their social lives, emotions, and behaviors) in exchange for discounted school technology is neither a good deal for schools nor the only way that schools can afford technology. It speaks to the success of technology company advocacy and marketing (including the overselling of the intelligence of their tools), as much as it speaks to a lack of imagination by education leaders. source
On a side note is Bill Fitzgerald’s discussion of Edmodo and Doubleclick’s COPPA-compliant flag, where somehow collecting data is compliant.
Instead, he put all of it, all of every user’s needs and tools, into one pot and invented TruYou—one account, one identity, one password, one payment system, per person. There were no more passwords, no multiple identities. Your devices knew who you were, and your one identity—the TruYou, unbendable and unmaskable—was the person paying, signing up, responding, viewing and reviewing, seeing and being seen. You had to use your real name, and this was tied to your credit cards, your bank, and thus paying for anything was simple. One button for the rest of your life online. To use any of the Circle’s tools, and they were the best tools, the most dominant and ubiquitous and free, you had to do so as yourself, as your actual self, as your TruYou. The era of false identities, identity theft, multiple user names, complicated passwords and payment systems was over. Anytime you wanted to see anything, use anything, comment on anything or buy anything, it was one button, one account, everything tied together and trackable and simple, all of it operable via mobile or laptop, tablet or retinal. Once you had a single account, it carried you through every corner of the web, every portal, every pay site, everything you wanted to do. TruYou changed the internet, in toto, within a year. Though some sites were resistant at first, and free-internet advocates shouted about the right to be anonymous online, the TruYou wave was tidal and crushed all meaningful opposition. It started with the commerce sites. Why would any non-porn site want anonymous users when they could know exactly who had come through the door? Overnight, all comment boards became civil, all posters held accountable. The trolls, who had more or less overtaken the internet, were driven back into the darkness. source
This comes back to something that danah boyd spoke about in It’s Complicated where it was bad faith to take a conversation seen on the open web out of context.
>Twenty-first century education is about skills—sets of processes. Our students need to be able to adapt to contexts, meet challenges, and solve problems that are as yet unknown. Our best chance at helping them succeed is to thus use assessment to support their learning about the sets of processes that they will bring to bear in those situations. Let’s focus on the skills, not the scores.://ssir.org/articles/entry/education_is_changingits_time_assessment_caught_up“>source
it’s your browser, and you’re allowed to annotate anything you want with it. But the separate question is what should be encouraged by the design of our technology. People want to turn this into a legal debate, but it’s not. It’s a tools debate, and the main product of a builder of social tools is not the tool itself but the culture that it creates. So what sort of society do you want to create?
And this …
Annotation is incredibly promising. It’s also a chance to get this sort of social design right, and learn from the repeated mistakes of the past. I’m hoping those involved with it right now will reach out to those with a deep and personal knowledge of how these things go wrong and get ahead of the curve for once. source
[[Annotating a Copy of the Web]]
In educational circles, there is a theory that helps explain the compulsion; it’s called the theory of loose parts. Originally developed by architect Simon Nicholson in 1972, when he was puzzling over how to make playgrounds more engaging, the loose parts theory suggests that one needs random elements, changing environments, in order to think independently and cobble together one’s own vision of things. Nature is an infinite source of loose parts, whereas the office or the living room, being made by people, is limited. source
I wonder how this relates to concept of hot desks.
[[Open Office Stress]]
[[Taking a Walk to Restart the Mind]]
BYOT is just another facet of differentiation. Sure adjustments are needed, but these are less challenging than you might think. There will be no chaos. For teachers, there will be less focus on the technology and more on learning. Like the sound system at a concert, the technology will be present as an enabler, but not the focus. source
This is something that is captured in the work of Mal Lee and Roger Brodie in their work around the Digital Evolution of School
How do we get kids to work on laptops, and stop reading on phones? How do we get them to learn the techniques of multi-tab investigations? Because this world where we’ve started reading everything on single-tabbed phone browsers, without workable copy and paste, without context menus, without keyboards? It’s going to make us very dumb compared to the people that came before us. And I think we need all the intelligence we can use right now. source
I wonder if this is another positive for Chromebooks in schools?
Facebook is not an RSS reader. Its front page displays updates from friends based on… we have little idea what reasons. There’s software behind those display choices, a black box algorithm which picks or hides posts. We can guess what works – my favorite theory is that the number of comments and likes are key – but ultimately cannot tell. So I’ve missed posts from friends about weddings, deaths, international moves, major job changes, and who knows what else? With RSS I can count on being able to see stuff. I can also arrange feeds into whatever order I like, and into categorical folders. Not so with Facebook. source
Critical look at Facebook Pages
Commitment to building mutual trust and respect, and having open and honest dialogue won’t necessarily mean the team will encounter fewer issues, or find themselves free from pressure in the future. It will, however, give the team greater capacity to deal with these situations as they arise, and allow the team to resolve them in a more timely and productive way. This in turn leads to improved performance. source
This commitment comes through in a number of ways, whether it be mutual respect, shared understanding and open dialogue.
My take (of course) is that annotation works best through a system of copies. Anyone should be able to annotate a copy of your work. But it’s not clear to me that people have the right to piggyback on the popularity of an address that you’ve worked your butt off to promote.It’s not clear to me that they should get to annotate the master file. This has always been the problem with comments as well — they work best on small sites, and go bad when they give users a much larger platform than they have earned. As with everything online, the phenomenon is gendered as well. source
[[Why ‘A Domain of One’s Own’ Matters]]
[[The Garden and the Stream]]
It might be time to start thinking of corporate social media in this way, as a parasitic virus that gets us to offer our private lives up to advertisers, believing all the time that it is our own idea. Instead of making us tolerate the smell of cat urine, webo-plasmosis encourages us to share intimate details of our lives with marketers and cloud databases. It convinces us that we should never delete any information ever, that we should always post under our real name, that we should spend our time online defining for platform capitalism the things we like and the things we don’t so that we can be more effectively manipulated by advertising. source
Caulfield provides a partial list for users to identify if they have the parasite.
Do you retweet headlines you agree with to help Facebook build a profile of you, while not reading the articles?
Do you take pictures of your food, helpfully labelling your dietary habits, consumption patterns, and common meal ingredients?
Have you become an email hoarder, never bulk deleting old email on fear “you might need it someday”, thereby preserving the vast library of documents Google needs to model your affinities, desires, and personal secrets?
When something happens to you of note, do you feel compelled to log it on the web?
Do you join Facebook groups that best express who you are?
Do you use Amazon Alexa’s much touted “Shopping List” feature to build a list of things you intend to buy locally, so that Amazon now has a list of things you buy locally?
Do you wince at the thought of taking old tweets offline, because of all the “old memories” stored in tweets you haven’t looked at for five years?
Do you authenticate into third-party services using Twitter, Facebook, and Google identity so that they can better track your online behavior?
Do you never use aliases or pseudonyms online, and are you convinced that this “transparency” somehow makes you a “more honest person”?
Do you find yourself posting lists of bands you’ve seen, or asking friends to share “one memory they have about you”?
While game-based learning and simulation environments make it possible to assess students’ interaction with complex systems (Frezzo, Behrens, & Mislevy, 2009), a concern remains that they will drift into performativity. That is, away from truth, justice and beauty, and into a performance maze where what is considered as performance is determined by computer programmers, and what is considered good performance is determined by input/output ratios. Performativity par excellence (Lyotard, 1984; Lyotard & Thébaud, 1985/2008). It evokes the dystopia of the films The Hunger Games and The Matrix (I haven’t seen either though). source