Susan Greenfield and the rise of the Facebook zombies

Nice commentary on the increasingly unhinged thoughts of Baroness Greenfield.

Things we do with computers change our brains. Duh. So do things we do with books (she likes those) and, for that matter, things we do with flowers, bathtubs and paint. We need to look closely and carefully at such effects. Unfortunately, the image of drooling young people wearing onesies trumps the facts in Greenfield’s argument.

Address of the bookmark: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2013/apr/08/susan-greenfield-rise-facebook-zombies

Stanford Faculty Members Share Their Online Education Experiences | Tomorrow's Professor Blog

One of the clearer explanations of the value of MOOCs and the lessons to learn from a few of those that have been playing the game for a couple of years. The big take-aways (well –  I’m highlighting the things that I have said before and therefore agree with) are to build small and build diverse. Nothing new here: the idea of the JOLT alluded to in the article can be traced back at least as far as the (just) pre-web JITOL project in the early 90s, the suggestion that Stanford invented the MOOC is laughable, and some of those quoted do not want to lift their heads entirely out of the sand, but there are some useful hints here of where things are going and why this is a disruptive change, not just a free variant of something old.

Address of the bookmark: http://derekbruff.org/blogs/tomprof/2013/04/07/tp-msg-1244-stanford-faculty-members-share-their-online-education-experiences/

The Amazings

Almost the polar opposite of the current MOOC craze – small-scale, paid-for (but cheap) classes, mostly (but not entirely) not online, mostly highly local, mostly very personal, entirely non-formal but not informal. This is about passing on knowledge of elders to the next generation. The online site is an enabler and facilitator of local, human learning, occurring in a very traditional manner that might not be unfamiliar to someone born hundreds or even thousands of years ago, but scalable for the Internet Age.  

From the site, explaining who this is for…

Anyone who wants to learn but hates formality. We want to make learning more fun, more friendly, more social, and more personal. If you want certificates or diplomas, keep on walking. If you’re interested in learning for its own sake, we’ve probably got a class for you.”

I like this. Nothing much new, but assembled in a novel way that is anything but traditional.

Address of the bookmark: http://www.theamazings.com/

Soft is hard and hard is easy: learning technologies and social media

Published in Form@re, 2013

This paper is primarily about the nature of learning technologies, with a particular focus on social media. Drawing on W. Brian Arthur’s definition of technologies as assemblies of phenomena orchestrated to some use, the paper extends Arthur’s theory by re– specifying and extending the commonly held distinction between soft and hard technologies: soft technologies being those that require orchestration of phenomena by humans, hard technologies being those in which the orchestration is predetermined or embedded. Learning technologies are those in which pedagogies (themselves technologies) are part of the assembly. The consequences of this perspective are explored in the context of different pedagogical models and related to social learning approaches in a variety of contexts, from correspondence courses through to MOOCs.

Address of the bookmark: http://www.fupress.net/index.php/formare/article/view/12613

iAMscientist

A crowd funding site for science projects. Doesn’t look particularly active or popular (yet), but it does have some quite neat support for community building, team formation and other parts of the process as well as the funding tools. Definitely focused on traditional science projects, not the arts, social sciences or humanities. 

Address of the bookmark: http://www.iamscientist.com/

Petridish

A crowd funding site for scientific projects. This is very much in the area of traditional sciences – biology, physics, chemistry etc – so not much use for those in more social, arts or humanities areas of research. A slightly simple and traditional feel belies a slick engine behind it. Like all such things that I am aware of and despite the .org domain, this is a for-profit venture that skims some of the money from donations.

Address of the bookmark: http://www.petridish.org/

Microryza

Crowdfunding Platform for Science Research Grants. A neat way to bypass the system to get funding for scientific research projects. One of several in this area of crowd funding that may be particularly valuable for those whose work falls outside the remit of traditional area-specific funding councils.

Address of the bookmark: https://www.microryza.com/

RocketHub

A crowdfunding machine. With a slight bias towards socially conscious research, educational and artistic endeavours, RocketHub is a little different in style and purpose than the wildly popular Kickstarter. It includes, in its LaunchPad,  support for the process of working an idea up to a full-blown project through (optional) collaboration with people who know about such things like marketers etc. Or you can just go straight for the FuelPad and pitch your project. Either way, like most such ventures, the site earns money by creaming a little off the top, but it is free to start a project.

Address of the bookmark: http://www.rockethub.com/

SITE 2013 musings

I’ve just got back from an interesting week at the SITE 2013 conference in New Orleans, run by the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education. It was the first time I’d been to a SITE conference, though they have been running for 24 years and I have more than a passing interest in teacher education, as that is my ongoing role as honorary faculty fellow at the University of Brighton and one of the reasons for setting up the Landing. It was an impressively organized and lively conference supporting a very rich community of people who sustain relationships between conferences and for whom SIGs are at least as important as the papers and roundtables of the conference itself. I was presenting a paper that I and Terry Anderson wrote about the value of the Landing in supporting a community of teachers. Not one of our best, though I think there is a bit of mileage in the notion of distributed transactional distance among networks and groups of people who are simultaneously learners and teachers.

A lot of the papers were about schooling of kids, which is a little outside my main areas of interest. I sat in on a fair number, however, out of curiosity and an interest in educational systems in general. Depressingly, a great deal of school education seems concerned with conforming to restrictive legislation and standards, meeting quotas, and controlling crowds of kids and their learning. The relatively small number of papers actually concerned with learning seemed to take these horrific premises as givens, though there were some innovative solutions to the problems.

While there was quite a bit on the usual learning technology suspects – mobile, social and blended learning, MOOCs, simulations, virtual worlds, Facebook, wikis, e-portfolios, etc – by far the most dominant theme was around uses of TPACK, Punya Mishra’s framework of technology, pedagogy and content knowledge, and their overlaps and contexts. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I am delighted that teachers are enthusiastically acknowledging that it is not just about content and pedagogy, but about other technologies too, and that technological competence is being treated with the respect it deserves. I am less happy that ‘technology’ almost ubiquitously means things with microchips inside them and/or the software that runs on them. This is a naive and simplistic view that suggests technology, pedagogy and content are separate and separable, and underplays many enormously significant technologies like course schedules, curricula, techniques, legislation, rules of behaviour, classrooms, corridors and school hierarchies (though oddly includes technologies related to content like lab equipment). I don’t think this is what Mishra actually means, but it appears to be the dominant interpretation, and it is depressing to see how wholeheartedly the education community has taken to the easily applied framework to assess the ‘different’ areas of knowledge without reflecting on what any of it actually means. The basic message, that everything should be orchestrated as effectively as possible and no part of the system and its context should be ignored, is a very good one. Unfortunately the artificial schisms that are introduced as as result of its application are not always helpful. 

It once again occurred to me, as I listened to relentlessly positive reports of the effectiveness (seldom ineffectiveness) of various interventions, that educational researchers, especially those reporting on their own interventions, are almost always the worst people to do educational research. Their passion and interest almost always trumps any tools, techniques and trickery they use. Our paper for the conference was no exception. Such stories are very good as long as that is all they are portrayed as being and there is no pretence of doing science. I’ve been talking about organizing the journal/conference of failed educational research for some time and really should get around to it soon. Just once in a while, it would be really good to hear someone say that they tried something that didn’t work at all, where everyone learned less, where they screwed up the pedagogy, made a hash of the research methodology, and where the tools they used or created were just pants. We’d all learn a lot more from that than from the countless pieces of meticulously engineered statistically valid nonsense that miss all the important factors and explain nothing. 

This was also my first visit to New Orleans. I didn’t have anything like enough time to explore it as much as I’d have liked, but I saw enough of it to fall in love with it. It is a city of magic, music and ghosts, filled with gentle, generous and utterly weird people. Wonderful.