EdQuotes

7.21.09 * ...Web Squared. 1990-2004 was the match being struck; 2005-2009 was the fuse; and 2010 will be the explosion. * ...we're constantly asked about "Web 3.0." Is it the semantic web? The sentient web? Is it the social web? The mobile web? Is it some form of virtual reality? It is all of those, and more. * ...successful network applications are systems for harnessing collective intelligence. * The question before us is this: Is the Web getting smarter as it grows up? * The Web is growing up, and we are all its collective parents. * Key takeaway: A key competency of the Web 2.0 era is discovering implied metadata, and then building a database to capture that metadata and/or foster an ecosystem around it. * The Net is getting smarter faster than you might think. * The increasing richness of both sensor data and machine learning will lead to new frontiers in creative expression and imaginative reconstruction of the world. * All of these breakthroughs are reflections of the fact noted by Mike Kuniavsky of ThingM, that real world objects have "information shadows" in cyberspace. * In adding value for ourselves, we are adding value to the social web as well. Our devices extend us, and we extend them. * Data analysis, visualization, and other techniques for seeing patterns in data are going to be an increasingly valuable skillset. Employers take notice. * Anyone who searches Twitter on a trending topic has to be struck by the message: "See what's happening right now" followed, a few moments later by "42 more results since you started searching. Refresh to see them." * Businesses must learn to harness real-time data as key signals that inform a far more efficient feedback loop for product development, customer service, and resource allocation. * But 2009 marks a pivot point in the history of the Web. It's time to leverage the true power of the platform we've built. The Web is no longer an industry unto itself - the Web is now the world. * ...we must take the Web to an

7.21.09 *...Web Squared. 1990-2004 was the match being struck; 2005-2009 was the fuse; and 2010 will be the explosion. *...we're constantly asked about "Web 3.0." Is it the semantic web? The sentient web? Is it the social web? The mobile web? Is it some form of virtual reality? It is all of those, and more.

7.21.09 *...Web Squared. 1990-2004 was the match being struck; 2005-2009 was the fuse; and 2010 will be the explosion. *...we're constantly asked about "Web 3.0." Is it the semantic web? The sentient web? Is it the social web? The mobile web? Is it some form of virtual reality? It is all of those, and more. *...successful network applications are systems for harnessing collective intelligence.

http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/rubrics.htm *...research shows three reliable effects when students are graded: They tend to think less deeply, avoid taking risks, and lose interest in the learning itself. *Rubrics are, above all, a tool to promote standardization, to turn teachers into grading machines or at least allow them to pretend that what they're doing is exact and objective.

http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/rubrics.htm downloaded on 7.15.09 *...research shows three reliable effects when students are graded: They tend to think less deeply, avoid taking risks, and lose interest in the learning itself. *Rubrics are, above all, a tool to promote standardization, to turn teachers into grading machines or at least allow them to pretend that what they're doing is exact and objective.

http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/rubrics.htm downloaded on 7.15.09 *...research shows three reliable effects when students are graded: They tend to think less deeply, avoid taking risks, and lose interest in the learning itself. *Rubrics are, above all, a tool to promote standardization, to turn teachers into grading machines or at least allow them to pretend that what they're doing is exact and objective. *As long as the rubric is only one of several sources, as long as it doesn't drive the instruction, it could conceivably play a constructive role.

http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/rubrics.htm downloaded on 7.15.09 *...research shows three reliable effects when students are graded: They tend to think less deeply, avoid taking risks, and lose interest in the learning itself. *Rubrics are, above all, a tool to promote standardization, to turn teachers into grading machines or at least allow them to pretend that what they're doing is exact and objective. *As long as the rubric is only one of several sources, as long as it doesn't drive the instruction, it could conceivably play a constructive role. *students whose attention is relentlessly focused on how well they're doing often become less engaged with what they're doing.

http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/rubrics.htm downloaded on 7.15.09 *...research shows three reliable effects when students are graded: They tend to think less deeply, avoid taking risks, and lose interest in the learning itself. *Rubrics are, above all, a tool to promote standardization, to turn teachers into grading machines or at least allow them to pretend that what they're doing is exact and objective. *As long as the rubric is only one of several sources, as long as it doesn't drive the instruction, it could conceivably play a constructive role. *students whose attention is relentlessly focused on how well they're doing often become less engaged with what they're doing. *What all this means is that improving the design of rubrics, or inventing our own, won't solve the problem because the problem is inherent to the very idea of rubrics and the goals they serve.

http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/rubrics.htm quoted on 7.15.09 *...research shows three reliable effects when students are graded: They tend to think less deeply, avoid taking risks, and lose interest in the learning itself. *Rubrics are, above all, a tool to promote standardization, to turn teachers into grading machines or at least allow them to pretend that what they're doing is exact and objective. *As long as the rubric is only one of several sources, as long as it doesn't drive the instruction, it could conceivably play a constructive role. *students whose attention is relentlessly focused on how well they're doing often become less engaged with what they're doing. *What all this means is that improving the design of rubrics, or inventing our own, won't solve the problem because the problem is inherent to the very idea of rubrics and the goals they serve. *Neither we nor our assessment strategies can be simultaneously devoted to helping all students improve and to sorting them into winners and losers. *We have to reassess the whole enterprise of assessment, the goal being to make sure it's consistent with the reason we decided to go into teaching in the first place.