OLDaily

Solving The Algebra Problem
Tim Stahmer, Assorted Stuff, 2020/11/02

Tim Stahmer writes - and I agree - that "the larger problem with Algebra is the curriculum itself." He says algebra is "largely taught as a mechanical process" where students follow recipes and get "right answers", while in the real world, "math is used as an analytic tool, applied in a variety of fields where the problem is defined first and the necessary mathematical tools brought in as needed." Well, there's that, but like the "growth mindset", I don't think simply shifting to applied math will solve the problem. And here's the problem: algebra is the first place really where students encounter abstraction. The concept that 'x' can stand for anything is almost meaningless when it is first presented. Teaching applied math simply gives us different things for 'x' to stand for, but tells us nothing about 'x', which is the real problem (a problem which, ironically, becomes more acute the more you keep things concrete and practical). Something to think about.

Web: [Direct Link] [This Post]

Scaling the Seminar
Michael Feldstein, e-Literate, 2020/11/02

Michael Feldstein argues that "scaling the seminar is essential for equity if we want to avoid a two-track system of education—one at expensive universities and another for the rest of us." He also argues that "one major reason we haven’t arrived at this solution before now is that EdTech is stuck in something of a cul-de-sac... pursuing the solutions that have helped improve student self-study by providing machine-generated feedback on formative assessments." True, too true. Anyhow, I'm not sure I'd agree with him that the seminar is "the gold standard" but I'd agree that it's valuable (otherwise, we'd never have invented pubs and coffeehouses). But how to scale it? Feldstein writes, "I think it’s possible to scale the seminar and active learning across most disciplines. I think we should put more energy into improving the quality of peer feedback." But what's the difference between this and small groups? Maybe we'll find out as Feldstein adds more to his discussion.

Web: [Direct Link] [This Post]

Here's How Virtual Work Can Be As Good (Or Better) Than Face-to-Face
Lisa Nielsen, The Innovative Educator, 2020/11/02

We have teams distributed across the country and our meetings have never been as useful as when they've been online. Bringing everyone together cost way too much, having everyone live in Ottawa disadvantaged the rest of the country, and old-style group videoconferences were exercises in agony where there was a central group that actually met and distributed groups that listened on mute and read their email. In Zoom or (less ideally) MS Teams, everyone is equal, everyone can contribute, and just like in real life, if you're not engaged it kinda shows. All this is by way of introducing this article by Lisa Nielsen, who argues for some other ways virtual work can be just as good (or better). Like having your own office at home (and avoiding the commute). Like working with collaborative whiteboards or co-authoring shared documents. Like 'dropping by' with a quick message on Slack. And - of course - good riddance to dirty washrooms and cafeteria equipment and sharing whatever disease your co-workers' kinds had this week. I won't miss that at all.

Web: [Direct Link] [This Post]

Reflections on project-based learning
Tom Farmer, eSchool News, 2020/11/02

My favourite learning experiences when I was in school in the 1970s were my projects. Like the one I did on Ecuador, after writing the embassy, or the Danube River, after writing a whole bunch of embassies, or the closed ecosystem project, or... well, you get the idea. I enjoyed the whole process, from the original idea to realizing the finished outcome. Still enjoy it. Now as usual this eSchool News article is far too short to really appreciate, but it does have some useful commentary about transitioning from more traditional models to project-based models of learning, some discussion of the skills instructors will need, and of timelines and expectations. (p.s. I really hate the stock photo image for this article with the squeaky-clean kids that has nothing to do with project-based learning).

Web: [Direct Link] [This Post]

AI Reads Human Emotions. Should it?
Jennifer Strong, MIT Technology Review, 2020/11/02

This is a podcast and transcript, and the text is (for me at least) much faster to read than the 22 minute audio runtime. There's the main story, is about whether AI should read emotions, and then there's the subtext, which is that it's really hard for people to connect over a videoconference. As one commentator says, "I would riff off the energy of the people in the room and I can't do that online. And it's, it's really actually painful and I hate it." But here's my take: if AI can learn to do this, why can't humans? And yes, there are all those ethical issues about using AI to read emotions - but shouldn't those also apply when you're in person as well? Think about how some expressions - and entire cultures - are wrongly perceived as sullen and unfriendly.

Web: [Direct Link] [This Post]

AI in Action
Microsoft, 2020/11/02

It is of course is marketing copy, but this white paper (22 page PDF) that came out late last week is to me a model of presentation and clarity. Its main message is that "organizations that harness and scale AI quickly will have a long-term competitive advantage." This is almost certainly true, and the paper goes about mapping the overall approach, examples from specific industries, and some of the tools and technologies. It's not specifically directed toward education, but I can imagine what such a message for education would look like, and it would look a lot like this.

Web: [Direct Link] [This Post]

When Critical Evaluation Goes Too Far
W. Ian O'Byrne, 2020/11/02

I've seen this argument before: it's the idea that conspiracy theories wouldn't exist if people weren't so critically literate. After all, the theories develop as a result of people finding what they perceive to be holes or inconsistencies in mainstream news coverage. It doesn't help that any discussion of conspiracy theories gives them air; people who had never heard of them before now begin to believe them. But even if there is a grain of truth to some conspiracy theories, they are ultimately the result of poor critical thinking - jumping to conclusions, unwarranted inferences, inductive errors, and everything in between. They flourish because people are not critically literate. Educators and journalists need to adopt a stance whereby they not only tell us what is true, they are clear about how they know what is true.

Web: [Direct Link] [This Post]