Stephen Downes

I've engaged with various projects over the years that focus on building apps, not websites. I've never understood this focus; it seems to me to be wrongheaded. As Dan Q writes, "Software companies are happy to make their lives harder (and more expensive: deploying to the big app stores isn't free!), in order to deliver HTML content to fewer people and with fewer features than if they just published directly to the Web in the first place!" Anyhow, the bulk of this article describes how the author converts a tour company app back into a website - some good insights here.

I agree with this post in one paragraph and disagree just a few paragraphs later. The paragraph I agree with is this: " Schools are communities of learning, not simply delivery systems for academic content. Students learn through dialogue, debate, collaboration, disagreement, and shared intellectual experiences." Quite so. That's why a focus on instruction and a standardized body of content misconstrues learning. And that's why I disagree with this: "Students cannot think critically about subjects they know little about. Nor can they become informed citizens without a shared foundation of historical, scientific, literary, and cultural knowledge." Not so. Indeed, for society to function at all these days we need to learn how to navigate a world with multiple foundations. 

It's precisely this sort of thing that keeps me far far away from platforms such as Spotify. Many podcasts run advertisements read by the host or integrated as part of the podcast. Spotify's new button will allow listeners to skip those. Fine, you say? I would be in favour, but as the story notes, what the button won't allow you to skip are ads inserted by Spotify. So basically the company is eliminating the competition and trying to monopolize revenue generation for itself. And that is what makes the plan so pernicious. The long term plan, of course, is to eliminate free podcasts altogether, moving all control from the podcaster to the platform. Just like cable TV.

I don't really agree with the argument in this post. The proposal is that better leadership will counter the tech backlash in schools, where this amounts to: first, better pedagogy focused on high-level cognitive work; second, transparent multi-channel communications with parents and students; and third, high-touch leadership "to stay present in classrooms, mentor teachers, and support students." While I understand that 'leadership' is no longer viewed as 'telling people what to do', this approach feels pushy to me. It treats people as though they don't really understand technology and that the leader's touch will solve this problem. And that's where I don't agree. If I were a teacher I wouldn't want the principal pushing pedagogy on me, short-cutting interactions with parents, and hovering in the classroom. I'd want to room and the space to explore technology on my own terms, with my colleagues, and making my own decisions. Students, too, would probably prefer this approach.

This is a fun scan looking at the emerging world of robots (with half an eye to their impact on education). As Bryan Alexander notes, robots haven't evoked the hatred that AI has, "possibly because the domains where robots succeed (manufacturing, security, companionship) are not as media-friendly as the threat AI poses to white collar jobs." Give it time, though, I think. "Some readers might recall the dark vision of the Slaughterbots video from 2017," notes Alexander. Anyhow, giving AI robot bodies and senses represents the next great influx of AI training data. "Google Deepmind announced an upgrade to its Gemini Robotics software system, designed to run 'truly adaptable robots.' This includes a 'vision-language-action model (VLA) that converts vision and language input into motor control, enabling a robot to take action.'"

Tom Worthington points to Kelly Linden's report Is the problem us? Helping part-time students succeed in a full-time world (90 page PDF) which asserts (probably correctly) that "part-time students on average have lower rates of success and retention, and are more likely to belong to an equity group than full-time students." While Linden makes a number of progressive recommendations making exceptions for part-time students, Worthington argues this misses the point. "Programs should be designed for this mode of learning. This is not difficult or expensive to do, and ultimately simpler than designing for full time face to face students, then have to make special arrangements when it turns out most students are not." It's hard to imagine universities moving away from the full-time residential (or commuter) student model, but if they want to be more central and responsive to the needs of the community, they should be thinking this way.