If I were to really formalize such an "Audrey test," I think it would also have to involve what you know, what you think about education, about teaching, about learning, about politics and theory and practice -- its history, its present, its future.
With big data and algorithms you could extend your 'virtual self' beyond the grave. And could meeting your future self help change your current behaviour?
I am also reminded of Kin Lane’s point about storytelling:
90% of what you are being told about AI, Blockchain, and automation right now isn’t truthful. It is only meant allocate space in your imagination, so that at the right time you can be sold something, and distracted while your data, privacy, and security can be exploited, or straight up swindled out from under you.
This flows on from Audrey Watters’ argument:
The best way to invent the future is to issue a press release. The best way to resist this future is to recognize that, once you poke at the methodology and the ideology that underpins it, a press release is all that it is.
Read elaborations here: https://readwriterespond.com/2017/11/workflows/
The very teachers who read William and nod vigorously about the need to know stuff before you can understand or do stuff in the context of curriculum are unable to draw parallels between their dismissal of digital technology and their own lack of knowledge about it. Rather than finding virtuosity and pride in learning about how what technology works best and in what context—so as to be able to discern the best tool for particular tasks—we seem happy to eschew whole new toolkits on the dodgy grounds of ignorance and misconception.
Technology can be done well as well as badly. What I am arguing is twofold: firstly that the many of the reasons commonly given against the use of technology are really not very good and betray a fundamental misunderstanding about how technology works to support teaching and learning; and, secondly, that you would be a much better critic of technology if you knew more about its application and its impact, both positive and negative.
In the past I have used the Modern Learners Canvas to break down the various parts of learning and classroom.
Technology has a part to play, but it is never in isolation.
Lately, my take on educational technology has taken another twist. My focus lately has been on policy and the implication this has for technology and ‘efficency’. Whether it be reporting, timetables or attendance, what I am coming to realise is how much of this is assumed when it comes to instruction.
Would love your thoughts? I wonder if in ten years we will have more agile systems, that combine the rigour with the flexibility called for in today’s day and age?
What has changed, what remains the same, and what general patterns can be discerned from the past twenty years in the fast-changing field of edtech?
I remember at a team dinner once Mitchell Baker, Mozilla’s Chairwoman and “Chief Lizard Wrangler”, talked about the importance of…
The problem with competing on price is that you soon get into a race to the bottom and whoever has the biggest economy of scale ends up winning.
The web isn’t a world of monolithic apps with clear boundaries between them, it is an experience of surfing from one web page to another, flowing through content.
With no real constraints put on the ideation process and an insufficient process for evaluating them, people were coming up with all sorts of suggestions from smart watches to reinventing the concept of currency!
The premise of Ari’s talk was that Firefox OS had set out to compete with Android and iOS and it had failed. Firefox OS was too late to market, the app store hadn’t taken off and the smartphone war had been won. It was time to move onto the next big thing — the Internet of Things.
The flagship Firefox team and supporting platform team had been complaining about a lack of resources for a while, and with Firefox market share slipping the finger of blame was pointed at Firefox OS.
There was a general feeling that Mozilla had “bet the farm” on Firefox OS and it hadn’t paid off.
It’s possible that rather than being five years too late, Firefox OS was actually five years too early!
In your reflections I was taken by your current stance to:
- Talk less.
- Question everything.
- Utilize the right spaces for the right purposes.
This is similar to my own recent reflection to:
- Critically Reflect and Ask Questions
- Learn from and through others
- Engage in new challenges.
Social spaces have changed. They are not what they once were. However, it is disconcerting when we were warned so long ago.
I am off to find a copy of Amusing Ourselves to Death and dig into the past a little bit more.
“Moocs today…are quite different from the ones that Stephen and I developed. Our goal was to encourage the development of learners through open and transparent learning, where the process of knowledge generation was iterative – improving on the ideas of other learners and generating new knowledge through continual…improvement. Most Moocs today are more didactic ... If the big Mooc providers stay close to their learners and listen to the data, we will see future Moocs return to the early vision that Stephen and I had: open, social, networked and focused on generating new knowledge.” George Siemens
via Greg McVerry
Let’s imagine what learning can be, not how we can run it to scale with organisational and industry needs driving the agenda.Learning should be by design, not product.