Alas, Bill Gates too is absorbed by The Blob

0 comments

Posted on 28th February 2011 by Judy Breck in Mobiles | Next | Schools we now have

, , ,

Bill Gates proposes another decade or two detour for public USA education in his Washington Post opinion piece today titled: How teacher development could revolutionize our schools. Good grief Gates, as we are so wont to say these days: You don’t get it.

Aaron Sorkin, in accepting an Oscar last night for his Social Network screenplay, thanked his agents, “who,” said Sorkin, “never blow my cover and reveal that I would happily do this for free”. A deeply inherent operative in human nature is that teaching is a gift, and those individuals so gifted have to be driven away from teaching with very powerful forces to get rid of them. Sadly, Bill Gates is throwing his considerable weight to just such forces.

“Teacher development” is a concept promoted by what is known in education circles as “The Blob,” described here and here. As the latter link says: “Not really a wall — they always talk about change — but rather more like quicksand, or a tar pit where ideas slowly sink out of sight leaving everything just as it had been. ”

Because teachers are born with their gift, we need to wonder what is meant by “teacher development.” We know that whatever this activity is, it supports schools of education, teacher unions, textbook and standards producers, and layers of education administrators. For all of these folks and factions, the news that the United States’ richest man has bought into the idea that teachers need to be developed is promising indeed. Gates has thrown his support to all of these, and more, “experts” who are paid to tell natural teachers how to ply their gifts.

Most natural teachers do not last long in US public school teaching. How to keep those we have, and how to win back the ones who have left in sad disgust (or much stronger disbelief)? The answer: Cut them loose from The Blob and give them access to the tools their students use in other aspects of their lives, but seldom are allowed to use in education.

Imagine a great natural teacher trekking with a couple of dozen science students through an urban, rural, or wilderness habitat. The teacher and each of his students has a personal eTablet. They are studying the life cycle of city rats, field mice, or forest shrews, respective to the habitat where they are. Or imagine a gifted math teacher in a room full kids, ages 7-14, whose interest in and aptitude for math are high. The teacher would be responding with her own knowledge and telling a kid where to go on his eTablet –  to the level of each student’s mathematical competence — not forcing upon them all some textbook writer’s idea of what math is right for ten-year-olds.

The great Gates error in his Washington Post piece is that teachers need to be “developed” to function in the system in which The Blob has entrapped our kids. Instead, the system needs to be reconfigured to welcome great teaching and engage students in knowledge networks.

Bill Gates has enough clout to help weaken The Blob so reconfiguring becomes more possible. Sadly, he seems to have abandoned this clout by being absorbed into The Blob — where he joins legion company of well intentioned would be education reformers.

Watson’s win heavily human reliant

0 comments

Posted on 17th February 2011 by Judy Breck in Crowd review | Findability | Next

, , ,

I think my sister put it best, writing to me in an email: “I’ve watched the 1st 2 and am unimpressed by Watson…  AND I wonder if they gave “him” a 1/6 th of a second disadvantage to compensate for the humans.  :)    looks like an ibm ad to me… “

It was clear that Ken and Brad both knew more answers than Watson did, but could not ring in as fast. I knew several of the answers Watson “won” before Alex finished reading them. And I am no Ken or Brad! I think my sister is right, that Watson had a way to ring in faster. More important: Without the time factor on ringing in, Watson would have been left in the dust!

Perhaps Watson-like technology will become a useful way to save the tedium for humans of scanning vast data, but that data is initially created, and kept up-to-date, by humans. Even the dustiest regions of the deep web are storehouses of human data. Whatever resources Watson drew upon in the contest were assembled by humans. If something in the knowledge Watson uses changes — Chicago might rename an airport — a human-reliant device is going to have to fix Watson’s resources or he is going to give the wrong answer.

Probably artificial intelligence will one day be created, but the keys still elude us. In the meantime, I wish IBM would take on a Grand Challenge based on network science.

IBM’s Watson is very 20th century

0 comments

Posted on 15th February 2011 by Judy Breck in Crowd review | Next

,

As you have likely heard, the competition began last night between IBM’s Watson computer and Jeopardy’s 2 greatest champions. The competition is described in a Chronicle of Higher Education story yesterday. Today the New York times is offering a game where you can test your Jeopardy skills against Watson.

I think that at least for the foreseeable future, the best way to use computers for arriving at correct answers is what Google captured that revolutionized search engines by placing human knowledge into an open network where the crowd reviews it. I will bet that a Google search will correctly answer any question asked in this contest, and do so faster than either Watson or the past champions. If that is not true, I think it will be true in the future as algorithms continue to be perfected for using networks to capture the wisdom of the crowd.

You may think me daft, but I poo-poo Watson knowing that network science is not yet in the mainstream and has a lot of enlightenment to bring to the sciences. This is a course now being taught by Barabasi, who discovered scale-free networks and is one of the handful of seminal network scientists. The lectures do not have audio (I hope that is coming!) but the PowerPoints are worth downloading to review the images if you are interested in this topic. The first lecture has a slide quoting Stephen Hawking saying: “I think the next century will be the century of complexity.” Two slides later this simple statement sums things up: “Behind each complex system there is a network that defines the interactions between the components.” Crowd wisdom is a product of the mammoth open internet.

For example: Mobile phones and internet access have provided in Egypt (65% have the devices) a network that allows the citizenry a role in defining things.

I think the Jeopardy competition will be fun to watch, but that Watson amounts to IBM spending a whole lot of money on something very 20th century.

Yes, I realize the artificial intelligence and natural language folks believe they are working on the future. Perhaps they have enough appreciation for the roles of complexity and network science — but that I doubt.

Digital natives have a greater understanding of Wikipedia

0 comments

Posted on 11th February 2011 by Judy Breck in Crowd review | Findability | Next

,

There is good reason students trust how Wikipedia is edited: two levels of crowd review.

Did pre-digital students dig into heuristics-related issues before quoting encyclopedias Britannica? or Americana? or Newsweek? or Life? or their textbook? I was there. I know they did not. As a student at Northwestern University in the 1950s, I was expected to trust mainstream media, my textbooks assigned by a professor, and the books in Deering Library. Checking into how these sources were edited never came up.

Against that background, assumptions need to be questioned in a Wired Campus story today titled Wikipedia’s Editing Process Is Still a Mystery to Students. The Wired story is about the work of a Ph.D candidate now active at Northwestern University. A section from the Wired story follows:

Ms. Menchen-Trevino found it surprising that members of the “digital native” generation—defined by Wikipedia itself as “a young person, who — through interacting with digital technology from an early age, has a greater understanding of its concepts” — remain unaware of the way in which the online encyclopedia functions.

“People need to update their heuristics,” she says.

Wikipedia remains a valuable resource for students, she acknowledges, but they need to be aware of who is editing content and of the conversations surrounding certain topics, especially those that may be controversial or are ever-changing.

Of the students in the study, 77 percent had used Wikipedia at some point in their research, 47 percent went through a search engine to reach Wikipedia, 19 percent went to the site directly, and 36 percent used both direct access and a search engine to reach the site.

Many students increasingly “approach Wikipedia as a search engine,” says Ms. Hargittai.

Digital natives are relying on crowd review. Wikipedia contents they access have been reviewed in ways unimaginable in the 1950s: Anyone can jump into Wikipedia content to fix errors and add knowledge. Those who have assumed the crowd reviewers would corrupt knowledge have been proven largely wrong by the experience of Wikipedia. Back in the 1950s we had more reasons to have questioned our sources — which often had limited input from biased authors. For sure, digital natives are getting far more diverse sources of knowledge and opinion than we ever did.

By using Wikipedia as a search engine, the students — who are digital natives — demonstrate their greater understanding of Wikipedia than researchers quoted in the Wired story seem to have. When a student jumps into a Wikipedia article from a search engine results page, the ranking of that page by the search engine has provided a first level of crowd review from the open internet. If that same student then uses Wikipedia as a search engine, she is taking advantage of the review of her subject by the crowd of Wikipedians. Nothing close to this broad and multiple review ever happened at Deering Library in the 1950s.

Virtually any student anywhere can (soon) read virtually all books

0 comments

Posted on 9th February 2011 by Judy Breck in Findability | Mobiles | Next

, , ,

The iPhone pictures above are from a video by Lexcycle, the makers of the iPhone reader called Stanza. Anyone who cares about doing right by students should watch this video — or in some other way get a real idea of the ease and power with which books can be placed in the hands of learners by letting them read books on their handheld devices. Mashable described Stanza and four similar readers in an article last April titled 5 Fantastic Free iPhone E-book Reader Apps.

Reading on phones is not all that new. As far back as four years ago, reading novels on phones was making headlines: Big Books Hit Japan’s Tiny Phones.

In recent months, digital publishing has been maturing. It is revolutionizing the publishing industry.

Availability of books is proliferating. Venerable, wonderful Project Gutenberg remains true to its original philosophy by now offering free ebooks:

Project Gutenberg is the place where you can download over 33,000 free ebooks to read on your PC, iPad, Kindle, Sony Reader, iPhone, Android or other portable device…. Over 100,000 free ebooks are available through our Partners, Affiliates and Resources.

Today the Chronicle of Higher Education describes how ebooks are reconfiguring citations. The conclusion of the article quotes an expert who “. . . looks forward to a time when most reading is done digitally, and electronic links replace long descriptions of how to find each reference.”

If someone had predicted in that past that all students anywhere could hold virtually any book in their hands and read it there, that person would have been dismissed as a cockeyed optimist.

Yet we now know that virtually any student anywhere can read virtually all books on his/her phone — as soon as we get it done. What are we waiting for?