OLDaily

Fixing Mathematical Notation with Computing, and “Proving” It with Education
Mark Guzdial, Computing Education Research Blog, 2018/11/13

This article is a few days old but I want to make sure I don't miss it, as it makes a point that (to my mind) challenges the idea that there is one set of basic 'foundational' principles in mathematics. Mark Guzdial introduces us to the work of Kenneth E. Iverson on a computing language called J (more here). "The attempt to 'fix' mathematical notation (“suggestions for improvement,” to be exact) is bold and interesting," writes Guzdial, as is attempt to prove the utility of the notation by using it to teach mathematics. His introductory textbook introduces counting as succession, talks about inverses and domains, and then into nouns and verbs. His proposal for Mathematical Notation (MN) is an equally non-standard approach to the subject. So when people say that mathematics, as taught, is foundational, you have license to raise an eyebrow and say, "Is it? Really?" 

Web: [Direct Link] [This Post]

Edji - A Great Tool for Literacy and Critical Thinking
Eric Hills, Free Technology for Teachers, 2018/11/13

Richard Byrne is accepting some guest blogs this week and one of those is from Edji. It's a lot like hypothes.is in that students can comment on articles. A need feature is a a teacher view where the highlighted buts change colour depending on how many students highlighted them. (Was there guest blog money? - nope, just "tickers and magnets from Edji (and) two Edji Hero licenses" - disclosure is so cool when it's done right, and this was done right.)

Web: [Direct Link] [This Post]

Meet the AI-Chatbot Bandwagon Which Shows no Sign of Slowing Down
Vikash Kumar, ReadWrite, 2018/11/13

Wikipedia tells us that "The concept of the uncanny valley suggests humanoid objects which appear almost, but not exactly, like real human beings elicit uncanny, or strangely familiar, feelings of eeriness and revulsion in observers." That's where we are with chatbots now, and why it still seems reasonable to suppose we'll want to interact with a human for things that require that personal connection, including learning and education. But chatbots are not going away, and they go with AI "like chocolate and peanut butter", which suggests they'll get better, and maybe good enough to get past the uncanny valley. What then? This article (like so mnay others) suggests "that doesn’t mean they can replace human employees." But why not?

Web: [Direct Link] [This Post]