RE: [xmca] Evolving personalized instructional construct?

From: Cunningham, Donald James (cunningh@indiana.edu)
Date: Thu Dec 21 2006 - 10:41:01 PST


Dewey as blogger. I think you are right Michael, although I hope he would not use the term "dude".

 

Don Cunningham

Indiana University

 

"Whatever you are, be a good one" - A. Lincoln

 

From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Glassman
Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 9:45 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: RE: [xmca] Evolving personalized instructional construct?

 

Don,

 

It's interesting, because I watched 2014 a while ago, and just watched 2015 - and I got a very specific view of its motivation - based on my personal experience with the web. I sort of got the idea they were trying to make the argument that the more specific the input of information is tailored to the individual the less learning goes on - that it sort of becomes narcissistic and dangerous. Part of my view is really paying attention to the blog issues and the war that is occurring now between the "new media" (the blogs, especially the more democratic ones where people not only determine the importance of a story, but are able to post their own stories) and the "old media" (the traditional media outlets). Actually contra to what was suggested on Epic, both the old media is already engaged in pitched battle with the new media. The general argument the old media makes is that there are no journalistic ethics and all information is superficial - meaning new media becomes sort of a feedback loop for what people already think. Old media is saying that in order for there to be development in thinking that goes beyond narcicism - there must be gate keepers, experts, who sift through information to make sure that is has objective value. The new media argues back (very well by the way, some of the best minds and best writers of our times are currently working in new media - just a personal observation) - that old media has an elitist, aristocratic agenda that is most concerned with the maintaining the privilege of old media. How can information that is democratic be bad. Just because people make information democratic does not mean they will make it narcicistic.

 

What strikes me about this whole argument, and what EPIC is saying is that we have had this discussion before. It is almost exactly the same discussion about media (in a very different context) between Walter Lippman and John Dewey - with Walter Lippman saying that there must be gate keepers for information or else it becomes just superficial, self-involved information based on the needs of the individuals - and Dewey saying that the only information that leads to true social development is democratically based information that bubbles up from the public - that they are capable of handling their own information.

 

This leads me to ask some questions about Zoped and its meaning. Is Zoped making the argument that we need a gate keeper to deliver us information that will help us realize our learning/development - or is Zoped a democratic atmosphere where information is in constant negotiation based on the needs and the problems of the participants? I have seen both ideas, even on this list in the past few days. Another question - is Zoped part of the individual - for instance, do I have a Zoped? Or is it some type of learning atmosphere that fosters new insights through communication? If it's the latter then we can test it empirically, but we can't quantify or objectify it (or maybe we can - I just wanted to say it is not in my Zoped - but do I want to say it is not in the Zoped I am in?). I guess the big question EPIC asks is "Does information need to be controlled by somebody who (claims to have?) has more experience with it to have worth - or is that a recipe for authoritarianism rather than democracy?

 

Michael

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________

From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Cunningham, Donald James
Sent: Thu 12/21/2006 9:13 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity
Subject: RE: [xmca] Evolving personalized instructional construct?

Yes, I was thinking of the computer versions of the SAT and GRE where the question you are asked next depends upon your prior answers rather than a set linear order. As I understand it, the procedure is supposed to allow the test taker to show better their "true" that might be over or underestimated on the basis of any given question. But certainly Ann Brown's notion of dynamic assessment is another example.

The EPIC algorithms would operate on a massive processing premise. By comparing results across countless learners, it would presumably have the capability of providing learners with just what they need, when they need it. Is that good teaching?

Don Cunningham
Indiana University

"Whatever you are, be a good one" - A. Lincoln

-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Mike Cole
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 10:44 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Evolving personalized instructional construct?

Don-- I am, like many, overwhelmed, but where did this come from:
Adaptive testing is another
example of an artificial intelligence that tries to move people into a
zone of maximum response.

"Adaptive testing" is restricted to computer based testing??

mike

On 12/20/06, David Preiss <davidpreiss@uc.cl> wrote:
>
> Don
> Could we reframe your thoughts as the question whether is it really
> relevant than the more competent partner in a ZOPED be a human person?
> David
>
> On Dec 20, 2006, at 10:31 PM, Cunningham, Donald James wrote:
>
> > No one picked up on this and I should probably just drop it but the
> > continued discussion on ZOPED prompts me to ask, could a computer
> > algorithm be a "more knowledgeable" partner? Adaptive testing is
> > another
> > example of an artificial intelligence that tries to move people into a
> > zone of maximum response. If the vision in EPIC 2015 were actualized,
> > might not the algorithm be a sensei, showing us the way forward? I
> > understand that the notion of _forward_ is problematic, but is that
> > not
> > also true of a human sensei......or any teacher? And why should the
> > goal
> > in a zoped be the ability to act independently? Most of the things
> > in my
> > life that have expanded my capabilities are things I have come to rely
> > on and are now a part of me. I can't imagine how I ever wrote anything
> > of value when I wrote in long hand, had a poor (now nearly blind
> > thanks
> > to me) secretary type it up, correct, edit, repeat, and so forth.
> > Here I
> > link with Donna's contribution where she mentions natural born
> > cyborgs.
> > Can anyone doubt that within my lifetime (and I'm OLD) that things
> > like
> > MP3's and cell phones will be available as surgical implants?
> >
> > Mind you, this all scares the beejeezes out of me..........djc
> >
> > Don Cunningham
> > Indiana University
> >
> > "Whatever you are, be a good one" - A. Lincoln
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
> > On Behalf Of Cunningham, Donald James
> > Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2006 10:05 PM
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: [xmca] Evolving personalized instructional construct?
> >
> > I sometimes wonder if the future of education is parallel to the
> > future
> > proposed for the news media in the flash movie EPIC 2005 (there is
> > also
> > an earlier version EPIC 2004). Available here:
> >
> >
> >
> > http://epic.makingithappen.co.uk/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Don Cunningham
> >
> > Indiana University
> >
> >
> >
> > "Whatever you are, be a good one" - A. Lincoln
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
>
> David Preiss, Ph.D.
> Profesor Auxiliar / Assistant Professor
>
> Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile
> Escuela de PsicologÝa
> Av Vicu˝a Mackenna 4860
> Macul, Santiago
> Chile
>
> Fono: 3544605
> Fax: 3544844
> e-mail: davidpreiss@uc.cl
> web personal: http://web.mac.com/ddpreiss/
> web institucional: http://www.uc.cl/psicologia
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 03 2007 - 07:06:19 PST