In addition to displaying RSS feeds, we offer this OPML file which lists all RSS feeds collected here.
In addition to displaying RSS feeds, we offer this OPML file which lists all RSS feeds collected here.
Registered Users & Guests Online
There are currently 0 users and 0 guests online.
Recognizing personal learning styles and using learning strategies while learning english in an electronic environment
I'll admit, I'm posting this item mostly to tweak the people who say there are no learning styles. Like here and here. Because if learning styles are so definitively refuted, why do they keep appearing in peer reviewed papers? This item discusses the use of learning styles (the traditional set - visual, auditory, kinesthetic) through the use of recommendations in language learning. Note that in language learning you have to do more than simply parrot back answers on a test in order to pass. In this case, the use of learning styles is linked to motivation. "All possible activities need to be done frequently or as often as possible. Therefore we stress that self-motivation and self-discipline are essential for achieving any possible success in learning a second language."[Link] [Comment]
I found this via Doug Belshaw's weekly newsletter. It identifies the similarities between cooking and coding. According to Brett Terpstra, "There are algorithms that cross all boundaries in cooking. Understanding things such as glucose breakdown, deglazing, and ordering ingredient combination to allow the optimal heating time for different cellular structures are all valuable skills across any genre of cooking." Quite so. But the importance isn't just, as Belshaw suggests, "the ways of thinking it encourages." Rather (and importantly): the ways coding and cooking are the same is an expression of the critical literacies underlying all thought. These algorithms fall under the heading of pattern and syntax. The differences between Italian and Thai are reflections of context.[Link] [Comment]
According to this article, " we can borrow from Sir Isaac and posit that in terms of student outcomes, Achievement equals Quality Instruction times Innovation (A = QI x I)." The point the author is trying to make here is that "Both of these variables— good teachers and good technology— can transform a student’ s learning experience. Each of them are also compromised by the absence of the other." Why is this important? They argue, "Providing just-in-time support while also assessing growth over time and providing appropriate supervision and evaluation are key to ensure that continual growth is underway."
Both this item and the next one is a result of a confusion and obfuscation between the language and logic of is and ought. I discuss this briefly here. But with that in mind, we ask, why does the author of this article take such pains to represent what is surely a statement of values and expectations about achievement in the form of a scientific formula? It's obviously to represent it as a fact. And why do this? Because that fact becomes the beginning point for an action plan (even though it is not a fact!). I hate stuff like this. It seems so transparent, and so deliberately misleading.[Link] [Comment]
This review basically shreds the recent Center for American Progress (CAP) report outlining a vision for elevating and modernizing the teaching profession. According to the review, the CAP recommendations "include policy changes that would increase surveillance of teachers, reduce teachers’ job security, evaluate teachers by students’ test scores, and create merit pay systems that would likely have the opposite effect." Additionally, "the report relies too heavily on popular rhetoric, sound bites, opinion articles, and advocacy publications."[Link] [Comment]
This will be my first and last article featuring psychics in OLDaily. But I have to admit Joseph Volpe's article in Engadget held me spellbound. It's actually two psychics making predictions and one psychic trying to scam him, but it is Las Vegas, after all. But what was most interesting is that is I didn't know the predictions were coming from psychics, it would be hard to distinguish them from actual pundits (although actual pundits would be able to remember and pronounce 'Oculus'). So why would these readings be so convincing? Well, for one thing, we're reading this through the interpretation of a tech writer who prompted the psychics. And the psychics are good at understanding human nature and in reading and mirroring their clients. Put this all togetjher and yoiu get pretty reasonable tech predictions. No spirit world required.[Link] [Comment]
We could probably substitutre the word 'education' for 'nutrition' in this headline and still have the same article. I read (and you probably do too) a lot of articles relating this or that think to educational outcomes. The more data we get, the more we are seeing these (along with the scatter plots educational economists love so much). But “ Big data sets just confer spurious precision status to noise,” wrote John Ioannidis in his 2013 analysis. Sure, this article is about foods and nutrition. But it also 'cites' data to show potato chips are linked to higher scores on SAT math vs. verbal. As if. But how many educational studies are reporting noise as if it were fact? A preacher who advised parishioners to avoid trimming the fat from their meat, lest they lose their religion, might be ridiculed, yet nutrition epidemiologists often make recommendations based on similarly flimsy evidence."[Link] [Comment]
I had a long and interesting conversation with someone from a technology company on Thursday and he asked me for examples of connectivist-style learning networks in practice. The closest think I could think of was the cMOOC, but on reflection I was able to think of two really good examples: the telephone network, and email. Why? Well, consider how these differ from traditional learning management systems or social networks: each person has their own identify (a number, or email address) and manages their own client (phone, or email reader). They have connections (in a rolodex or contact list). It's mostly peer-to-peer. But a lot of other services have been built around these networks (phone-in shows, mailing lists). And that - if I may be so bold - is what explains the success (and persistence) of email.[Link] [Comment]
The solution is a technology called ORCID - Open Researcher and Contributor ID. "The letter published today is signed by the American Geophysical Union, eLife, EMBO, Hindawi, the Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers, the Public Library of Science, and the Royal Society— the latter began mandating used of ORCID IDs as of 1 January but the rest have just pledged to reach that stage by year’ s end." My ORCID IS is http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6797-9012 (for what it's worth).[Link] [Comment]
This article is worth reading for the opening quote alone:The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist.”
― John Maynard Keynes
As Larry Cuiban says, "Economists Krugman, Robert Reich, and others see the prevailing ideas of new technologies powering economic growth and productivity– the theories that have fueled the 'human capital' thrust to school reform for over thirty years– as flawed." All very good, but what replaces it? The prevailing alternatives seem very shallow.[Link] [Comment]
The annual Consumer Electronics Show (CES) is on in Las Vegas, and this article (as the title suggests) highlights some of the innovations with an impact on education. Because I like to play spoiler with listicles, here's the list:
To me this list is a mixture of meh and wow, mostly meh. But the Klaxoon looks like a big step forward ("Based on your content, you can propose simple, playful and effective activities: quizzes, surveys, challenges, brainstorming activities, live messaging..."), and the DAORI smart helmet might catch on as well.[Link] [Comment]
Given that OLDaily and pretty much everything else I produce is powered by coffee, this is very good news for me.[Link] [Comment]
On the Dell Foundation blog: "Cortex is a secure, dynamic, web-based platform that brings together instructional tools, digital content through playlists, student goal-setting and feedback, formative assessments, and administration applications... Our Personalized Math program exemplifies this approach." The idea is to promote a type of mastery-learning using student data and analytics to enable students to self-manage their learning. It's based on the the MyWays Framework, which codifies the key competencies to postsecondary success: habits of success, content knowledge, creative know-how, and wayfinding activities. These in turn are reflected in a set of 20 competencies in core areas. Via EdSurge. (As an aside, I find it odd that Cortex is using the depreciated hashbang style link).[Link] [Comment]
There are three levels to this article. On the surface is the entirely reasonable argument that 140 characters is just too short to be useful, and that Twitter's public nature makes sending a stream of messages to a large number of followers makes you a 'bad person'. I get that. Then there is the level making the case that this wouldn't help. "Twitter’ s main problem is that it offers nothing in the way of user experience, provides no valuable way to isolate yourself from goons and has done nothing to ensure the safety of vulnerable users from harassers and creep campaigns." And ultimately, the third level of the post is found later in the article, where we learn that long posts would rapidly expand to just more "blah blah blah blah blah blah blah and that the brevity." Twitter's 140 character limit was originally derived from the length limits of SMSs (160 characters, minus 20 for the name of the person positing). The company should explore why it thought that model was important, and ask itself why people are still using SMSs (or their competition) to send text messages today.[Link] [Comment]
This is a bit of a mea culpa but it's important to be responsible for the things one says. And so, on September 20, 2012, as Apple stocks nudged over the 100 mark for the first time, I boldly predicted that Apple stocks "will never be higher than they are right now. Never." I reiterated it a month later. In this case, 'never' turned out to be about two years, as the stock climbed back to the 100 mark August 22, 2014. And they've mostly been above the 100 mark ever since. Though I find it interesting that they're back to the 100 mark they were sitting at back in 2012 when I made my bold prediction. Would I make the same prediction today? Well, no, that would be too rash. But I don't think I'm wrong in my overall sentiment.[Link] [Comment]
My take on this is that universities are realizing that if MOOC credit transfer and recognition doesn't happen with them, it will most certainly happen without them, so if they don't want to be left behind, they had better jump on board. They're being cautious, though. As the article notes, "This will require the consortium to develop a system of reliable testing for Moocs and to develop coding systems to measure the level and weight of each course, as well as to examine the entry requirements for each module." But the end result would be like the airline alliances. "An individual airline 'may not fly somewhere, but this alliance means someone can book a ticket with you to almost any destination in the world.'" That may sound like a good thing, but it's not. It freezes out competitors and acts as a disincentive for cooperation outside the alliance.[Link] [Comment]
Do 'brain trainers' work? There's no evidence they do, and that's what landed Lumosity in hot water. "The developer, Lumos Labs, agreed to a $2 million settlement with the Federal Trade Commission over misleading ads that its games can improve performance in schools, athletics, and even in the workplace. The settlement (PDF) also found that testimonials were 'not spontaneously generated by consumers'". Last year the Stanford Center on Longevity and the Max Planck Institute for Human Development published a 'consensus paper' expressing doubt about brain trainers. Here's the FTC Blog making the case: "there isn’ t solid science showing that Lumosity’ s 'brain training' games work the way they say they would."[Link] [Comment]
This article first lists and describes seven key trends in education, and then even more usefully, goes through the list again offering links to examples of each. You could have an afternoon of reading and exploring here! Here are the trends:
These have all been themes over the years (except blended learning, which will be a fact in traditional institutions, but isn't really a long-term thing). Of course, what we've described here isn't a new pedagogy as such. It's a context in which the new pedagogy will emerge. This new pedagogy (which we've been calling 'connectivism') is what ties the latter six trends together. But see more (probably by the same author) here.
Useful article. In addition to the two pseudo-VR systems available (Google Cardboard and the Samsung Gear VR) actual Virtual Reality systems like HTC’ s Vive (see more) and Facebook’ s Oculus Rift will be available soon, along with the PlayStation VR from Sony and maybe Microsoft's HoloLens AR (augmented-reality) project. What will you need to run them? In a nutshell: a good computer with lots of memory, and a graphics accelerator card (yes, folks, you'll need a desktop) computer to put all this in. You'll also need space to play - anywhere from 8x8 feet to as much as 15x15 feet (5x5 metres). It will also be pricey. For now.[Link] [Comment]
Presumably there is a part 2 but it's not out yet. No matter; part 1 attracted enough attention to warrant posting. The premise is essentially that we are at the inflection point where we no longer 'store knowledge' by becoming educated, but rather we 'stream knowledge' where our tools provide us with knowledge on an as-needed basis. I hate to be the one who says define your terms but it seems to me that the definition of knowledge is crucial to the argument. Heather McGowan is working with a definition along the lines of 'knowledge as facts and instructions'. But that's naive understanding of knowledge. So, yeah, we have to get beyond our conception of knowledge as 'transfer and storage of facts and instructions'. But we knew that; it didn't take driverless cars to tell us that.[Link] [Comment]
Bookmark iBerry !