Monthly Archives: January 2015

lifestream

Comment: Comment on On ‘what’s the matter with TEL?’ by mkiseloski

Leave a comment

Very interesting read, Nick!

I agree that whenever a critical research is undertaken we need to stay aware of the underlying and often implicit ideological values of the author doing the critique (and critically engage with those as well). I too got the sense that Sian was favouring an anti-consumerist view of education in her critique – a view that I personally share.

However, as the critique does not put forward an explicit counter proposal, we have to try and focus on the critique at hand and not its implicit assumptions for we might fall into the trap of thinking within false dichotomies. Being against something does not automatically equate to favouring its opposite, even if it is likely. In politics, for example, criticising the Obama administration does not necessarily make one a Republican.

You are right that we need to think of the implications of alternative models, but such a discussion should in my opinion be made explicit. The value I see in Sian’s paper is that it simply draws to attention the problematic fact that the term TEL is implicitly promoting a certain ideology. Whether said ideology is problematic in itself can (and should) be debated in a more explicit form. What I am wondering is whether there can be such a thing as a neutral expression devoid of ideology or whether the terms we use will always be (ab-)used by ideologues pushing for a certain narrative.

from Comments for Nick’s EDC blog http://ift.tt/15xb1iV
via IFTTT

lifestream

Comment: Comment on Week 1 Summary (Halfway through week 2!) by mkiseloski

Leave a comment

Nice post, Martyn!

In my opinion the algorithms used by Google, Amazon or Netflix – most of which are based on machine learning – are ushering in a new era of personalisation. I see two main problems with this – on the one hand, as you mention, one gets easily creeped out by the feeling that the machines are able to know an awful lot about your preferences by analysing and connecting different datasets. It can become a scary thought, but then again in the end I don’t necessarily have a problem with that (as long as I am aware of what it is I am sharing). Netflix just wants to make money and by better knowing my viewing habits, I am getting to view things I like and they keep me as a customer – a fair tradeoff. The more problematic issue I believe is when my environment on the net is personalised in a way that I remain in my own bubble of preferences. Google already skews search results based on your views. The problem with this is that what you think is the objective reality out there is actually a representation of reality Google thinks you would like. Differing political views might get pushed into the background potentially prohibiting debate and broadening one’s horizon.

The biggest advantages I see in this increasing personalisation, however, is in the field of education. The more we know about a student’s learning progress and mental state the better we can tailor education to their specific learning needs. Perhaps one day every person will have their own personal digital tutor optimising the learning experience in a way that might even surpass the pedagogic ability of even the best personal human tutors out there giving you their undivided attention.

from Comments for Martyn’s EDC blog http://ift.tt/1B473Hd
via IFTTT

lifestream

Recap: Week 2

2 Comments

The second week of our EDC 15 course has ended and we further delved into cyberculture and how it relates to education.

A very interesting video I found this week was “This Will Revolutionize Education” by Veritasium, a popular educational channel on YouTube. It explores reasons for why despite the hype surrounding Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) the revolution in education simply has not happened yet. Thinking about Sian Bayne’s article on the problematic nature of the term TEL I proposed a term I find more appropriate – Digitally Facilitated Education.

The theme of transhumanism and cyborgs continued to follow me this week. If things turn out to be as they are envisioned in Dr Michio Kaku’s interview humans will be able to telepathically communicate with each other on the brainnet – the successor to the internet. I cannot even begin to fathom the drastic implications such technologies might have for human education.

Continuing to explore last week’s theme of biohacking I found incredibly fascinating documentaries about the current state of biohacking, both within the DIY movement as well as in the corporate world. If we are all cyborgs now, as the article suggests, what is the distinction between cyborgs and humans? Perhaps cyborgs are simply the next step in human evolution and drawing a line would be an arbitrary act, the same way as someone cannot pinpoint exactly when the early hominids became humans.

The future is definitely exciting, however, as demonstrated this week by Microsoft’s HoloLens technology. Augmenting reality with holograms will allow us to learn and teach in much more immersive ways. Their promotional video shows someone getting instructions on where to tighten a new trap under a sink by seeing a virtual pair of arrows projected onto the real trap. I am curious about the many innovative use cases for education that will surely be developed for this technology.