Stephen Downes

As reported here, "The University of Michigan's College of Literature, Science and the Arts is trying out something new this coming term: a dual grading system in which professors give students ordinary letter grades based on the quality of their work, but what shows up on the student's transcript is either a 'pass' or 'no credit'." The argument is that this will reduce stress for first-year students, but "according to The Hill, the university will maintain final grades internally for athletic eligibility, compliance reporting, and students' eligibility for financial aid, among other purposes, (so) there is a question of just how liberated from grading some students will feel."

I enjoyed this interview with Craig Newmark, the man who developed Craigslist, effectively replacing the newspaper classified advertising market. The headline says he is a billionaire, though he responds "I am not, and never have been, a billionaire." But it's close, and he may end up giving more than a billion to various charities (including, most notably, journalism education). While interesting, his self-limiting talk can be frustrating, as he frequently says things like "I will then focus my limited attention on areas where I can do something about." I mean, it's better than billionaires pretending to be experts in everything, but understating what he can do serves no one well.

Just for the record, the Studio Habits of Mind (SHoM), an eight-habit framework from Harvard Project Zero: - Develop Craft: Students refine skills and techniques
- Engage & Persist: Students stay focused and work through challenges
- Envision: Students imagine possibilities and plan next steps
- Express: Students convey ideas and meaning
- Observe: Students notice details and see in new ways
- Reflect: Students evaluate their work and revise
- Stretch & Explore: Students experiment, take risks, and embrace mistakes
- Understand Art Worlds: Students connect to and understand art in the world around them 

I wrote about understanding a few weeks ago to address arguments such as the one here. It should be clear that a hand-wave like "understanding as 'remembering in disguise'" is far from an adequate summation. I liked the use of the Helen Keller story to try to get at what we mean when by understanding, but clearly it's a special case, and does not show that 'understanding' equates to 'knowing the meaning of words'. And none of this goes to show that "understanding entails a certain level of abstraction, what cognitive scientists call schema." And all this is even further from showing that 'humans understand what AI cannot' - indeed, if understanding does reduce to meanings of words, then all an AI needs to 'understand' is a second, non-textual sensory modality. A sense of touch, say, in addition to a set of words.

In this post Ben Williamson argues that the introduction of AI in schools is being accompanied with a redefinition of what counts as evidence of impact. "Specific kinds of design experiments such as AI prototype tests, implementation R&D, and evaluation measurements conducted by technology vendors themselves have been centred as authoritative evidence practices, challenging or replacing independent evaluation methodologies based on wider and multi-dimensional measures of educational impact." The sort of evidence he feels is being challenged or replaced is found in this paper (14 page PDF), published only last January, called the the Multiple EdTech Impact Index (MEII), which "includes fifteen indicators of impact... across five domains: efficacy, effectiveness, ethics, equity, and environment." I can understand the concern about what counts as evidence, but I wouldn't consider either set of indicators to be "authoritative", despite the positioning of one as such in this article.

This is a remarkable letter, not the least because it comes from Mark Zuckerberg. The premise is that we should put AI into people's hands and have people make their own decisions about how to use it. The most important point is that "everyone will have an exceptionally capable personal agent that understands you, your goals, and everything you care about...  the key to a positive future for everyone is achieving a balance of power that favors individuals. The solution is to ensure that superintelligence is broadly distributed to empower people." I am in agreement with this basic proposition, however, I don't trust the author to implement it. The history of Meta has always been consolidation and control, not free and open commerce and communication. I don't see that changing any time soon. See also: Carlo Iacono, The Future Is for Everyone Who Wins the Auction.