Tag: ed tech

Ethics & the Internet of Things

The ‘Internet of Things’ Faces Practical and Ethical Challenges

Opening scene, Carnegie Mellon professor asking his IoT-connected device if he has time to get coffee: example of outsourcing of knowledge, our decision-making power to a machine, reminiscent of many of the ideas put forth by Nicolas Carr in The Shallows.

Carnegie Mellon received Google seed funding to work on Internet of Things (IoT) project  putting tiny network-connected nodes in all sorts of items/devices across campus: cafes, offices (if opted in), public spaces, etc. IoTs have begun in other places like Songdo, South Korea where “street lamps adjust their brightness according to the number of pedestrians in the area”.

“Along with enthusiasm, the concept of the Internet of Things has drawn criticism from cyber­security experts and others for the privacy concerns it raises.” And potentials to abuse such a network.

Uh, yeah

Article ran 10/23 – DoS attack on Dyn DNS provider was 10/21.

In terms of privacy, “for the most part, people have to take action to ensure their privacy.” First you would need to even be aware that info was being collected at all, which most people are not. And in other instances, you cannot opt out data collection unless your device is turned off.

Why does a college campus need this level of connectivity (AKA surveillance)? Why do we need to be able to outsource knowledge and decision making about where to park or whether or not we have enough time to get coffee? Do we really need a level of control over our lives to the point that we don’t want to spend an extra 5 minutes standing in line, potentially talking to a colleague or student? #guh

Acknowledging Ed Tech

Ignore Ed Tech at Your Peril

From The Chronicle of HE by Jonathan Rees, professor of history at Colorado State University at Pueblo.

Basic idea: Must acknowledge these massive changes to life, environment, social/cultural structure and, through this acknowledge carefully consider how to use/integrate technology into our teaching.

“do your best to keep abreast of technological developments and incorporate the ones that fit your teaching style and educational objectives. You might even consider changing those things if you are intrigued by a particular technological development that would require you to make adjustments.”

“It’s not that anything you’ve done before is somehow less effective, it’s that the overall environment in which you’ve been teaching has changed…That does not mean that you must adopt virtual reality or go extinct. Instead, you should try to gradually adapt your classes to this new environment, because your students have plenty of alternatives that they didn’t have before. Your choices in light of developments in ed tech — including the choice to do nothing — have consequences”

Ed Tech: Investments without Research

Which Ed-Tech Tools Truly Work? New Project Aims to Tell Why No One Seems Eager to Find Out in The Chronicle of Higher Ed on 7/1/2016

The bottom line: Investments in Ed tech are often made without any research or evidence about the efficacy of the product and (perhaps therefore) many ed tech companies don’t see a need to conduct research about their product.

Ed tech developers and investors pay little attention to whether or not their products are effective. They “don’t see a financial payoff in spending their time or their limited financial resources on academic studies” to learn whether or not their products have the effects they claim. If research is done, it may never see the light of day if the ed tech company doesn’t like the results, “Most ed-tech studies that are now undertaken at schools of education tend to be performed as consulting projects, an approach that allows the companies that sponsor them to treat the output as proprietary information that may never get published”

UVA put together the Jefferson Education Accelerator, an ed tech incubator that brings together professors, business leaders, ed administrators, and policy makers. These individuals will spend the next year investigating the “political, financial, and structural barriers that keep companies and their customers from conducting and using efficacy research when creating or buying ed-tech products.”

After looking through the website, the outcome and goals of the Jefferson Education Accelerator project remains unclear. According to the “About Us” page, the Accelerator plans to “establish a network of educators, researchers, entrepreneurs and investors who believe in the potential of education technology, are dedicated to improving educational outcomes, and understand the rigors of testing implementations in the real-world.” How bringing these people together will improve educational outcomes is murky and raises the question: what sort of improved “educational outcomes” are we talking about? If part of the the focus is on developing a network, its important to note that the “Who We Are” section lists a group of ten individuals who range from higher ed administrators, tech investors, CEOs, former governors, and start-up founders and is notably devoid of professors or minorities (7 white men and 3 white women).

While I usually find focuses on efficacy as sign of pervading neoliberalism in higher education (which pertains here, too) it is important to understand what student’s are getting from these ed tech tools. If the tools “personalize” learning using some adaptive software,  does this lead to better student outcomes? More over what is an “improved outcome”?  A better grade? Is that the only measurement of success? Is success the ability to get “the right answer”? The ability to synthesize information? The ability to solve a real-world problem using the knowledge and skills gained in school?

Moreover, since they are the ones using it, how do students feel about the technologies that are supposed to be improving their education? Do they enjoy learning on these platforms? What affordances do student’s perceive in these educational technologies? If we are going to talk about efficacy, its equally important to talk about students’ perceptions and uses of these technologies.

Audrey Watters Interview

Interview with Audrey Watters on how “Ed Tech Is a Trojan Horse Set to ‘Dismantle’ the Academy”

Discusses: Silicon Valley Narrative, the rise of personalization in conjunction with rising individualism, issue of public funding, going college to get a job vs. engage in intellectual endeavors

On tension between job+skills vs. intellectual exploration: “no amount of technological innovation right now really gets at that prestige question.”

From The Chronicle: “She’s arguing that professors should actually do more with technology, to get more involved and be more savvy. Don’t just put photos on Facebook or put work on commercial platforms, she argues: Set up your own website. Have a domain of your own.”

More in her new podcast: Tech Gypsies

Teaching with Buzzfeed

Professors Assign Students to Post to BuzzFeed. You’ll Never Believe What Happens Next from The Chronicle of Higher Education on 8/2/2016

Professors assign students to create a post on Buzzfeed’s public publishing platform with the goal to make the post go viral. Some students and professors succeed.

Professors using Buzzfeed come from various disciplines claiming “‘It’s a fun way to learn…If you’re talking to your neighbor, or you’re talking to somebody who does not have as much education, this is just another way to still provide that information, but just in a different way — and also in a quick way.'” (Sarai E. Coba, a doctoral candidate in human development and family studies)

Brings to mind points made by Hyde et. al. in chapter, “What is Collaboration Anyway” about mechanisms of coordination and questions of knowledge transfer between participants.

(Dis)Placing Learning

Learning Spaces, learning environments and the ‘dis’placement of learning

Herbert Thomas (2009)

The physical learning environment is an integral part of the learning process. Traditional learning spaces imply a certain type of teaching and management strategies and can constrain the various possible types of learning. Traditional lecture halls do not contain affordances to promote active learning: “engaged learning is an emergent property of learning spaces and environments that are designed to provide affordances that actively encourage such engagement” (503). Learning does not occur in formally designed spaces but rather takes place informally; this notion liberates learning from its traditional boxed-in nature.

Continue reading

Engines of Inquiry: Teaching, Technology, and Learner-Centered Approaches to Culture and History

Randy Bass, (1997), American Studies Crossroads Project
Originally written for ITP Core 1

The imaginary/conceptual “game of perfect information” holds that, with the right setup computers can satisfy all our informational needs. When the language of this game enters into the conversation about technology and education, the conversation goes awry. According to Bass, when attempting to discern the impact of technology on learning we must consider: (a) how teaching/learning is a complex process that occurs and builds knowledge over time and (b) how learning contexts must be analyzed ecologically with the understanding that learning does not happen in one place, one way, via one device or method.

Continue reading

Thoughts during Pedagogy Day

Pedagogy Day hosted by GC psych and GSTA 10/30/15

Need thoughts on…

Classroom environment (lived):

  • Aspects: physical, social, cultural
  • Engagement, affordances
  • community building
  • Movement, Embodiment
  • Ecological theories

Pedagogy (lived, process, ideology)

  • Transformative activist stance, critical
    • Identity formation
    • Purpose of education
  • Aspects: Social, cultural, philosophical, physical
  • Methods, praxis

Tech (tool/object/machine/ medium)

  • Role and purpose
  • Uses and Types
  • Identity formation
  • Aspects: social, cultural, physical
  • Historical development

University/Higher Education (structure)

  • Historical development
  • Funding
  • Demographics
  • Aspects: social, cultural, economic, physical, structural

Pedagogy shapes course & classroom environment
Tech reshaping role of Higher education
Pedagogy+tech –> theory/practice/method = shapes environment of higher education

Changes in tech warrant changes in pedagogy, re-framing of “spaces of education”

Tech should be part of pedagogy because it is part of daily(physical, social, cultural) life

Ed tech needs to reflect tech used in everyday life, constantly changing, flexible, tailored

 

How does linking TAS/critical pedagogy with thoughtful tech use reshape the educational environment? (classroom, course, admin, higher ed structure)

  • 21st century Identities are hybrid, constructive, constantly interconnected with env (social/cultural physical), learning and education should be too
  • What is the role/purpose of the “university” in higher education?

– “University” associated with historically situated institution, higher education seems like a more fitting term/concept and better suited to describe 21st century education

 

© 2024

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑

 OpenCUNY » login | join | terms | activity 

 Supported by the CUNY Doctoral Students Council.  

OpenCUNY.ORGLike @OpenCUNYLike OpenCUNY