Go up to any adult with
a good life, no matter what his or her station, and ask if a
teacher made a difference, and you’ll always see a face light
up. The human element, a magical connection, is at the heart of
successful education, and you can’t bottle it.
38More
Does the Digital Classroom Enfeeble the Mind? - NYTimes.com - 1 views
-
My father would have been spat out by today’s test-driven educational regime.
-
Probe one of those illuminated faces further, and you can also usually elicit memories of a particularly bad teacher.
- ...17 more annotations...
-
Trusting teachers too much also has its perils. For every good teacher who is too creative to survive in the era of “no child left behind,” there’s probably another tenacious, horrid teacher who might be dethroned only because of unquestionably bad outcomes on objective tests.
-
How do we use the technologies of computation, statistics and networking to shed light — without killing the magic?
-
Nothing kills music for me as much as having some algorithm calculate what music I will want to hear. That seems to miss the whole point.
-
nventing your musical taste is the point, isn’t it?
-
Education — in the broadest sense — does what genes can’t do. It forever filters and bequeaths memories, ideas, identities, cultures and technologies. Humans compute and transfer nongenetic information between generations, creating a longitudinal intelligence that is unlike anything else on Earth. The data links that hold the structure together in time swell rhythmically to the frequency of human regeneration. This is education.
-
The future of education in the digital age will be determined by our judgment of which aspects of the information we pass between generations can be represented in computers at all. If we try to represent something digitally when we actually can’t, we kill the romance and make some aspect of the human condition newly bland and absurd.
-
The crucial choice of which intergenerational information is to be treated as computational grist is usually not made by educators or curriculum developers but by young engineers.
-
Some of the top digital designs of the moment, both in school and in the rest of life, embed the underlying message that we understand the brain and its workings. That is false. We don’t know how information is represented in the brain. We don’t know how reason is accomplished by neurons. There are some vaguely cool ideas floating around, and we might know a lot more about these things any moment now, but at this moment, we don’t.
-
We are tempted by the demons of commercial and professional ambition to pretend we know more than we do.
-
We see the embedded philosophy bloom when students assemble papers as mash-ups from online snippets instead of thinking and composing on a blank piece of screen.
-
Is this REALLY any different, at a rudementary level then what happened in the past. It is just easier to copy and paste. The stupid prompts teachers use should garner the need for thought. It is just that teachers continue to use the same dumb prompts in a world where Wikipedia and Wolfram Alpha can provide the easy answer.
-
-
What is wrong with this is not that students are any lazier now or learning less.
-
What is really lost when this happens is the self-invention of a human brain. If students don’t learn to think, then no amount of access to information will do them any good.
-
I am a technologist, and so my first impulse might be to try to fix this problem with better technology.
-
it might now lull us into hypnotic complacency.
-
Learning at its truest is a leap into the unknown.
-
Right now the first way is ubiquitous, but the virtual spaceships are being built only by tenacious oddballs in unusual circumstances. More spaceships, please.
-
I honestly was not agreeing with Lanier, by and large, until this last statement. He really is a Papert-kinda-guy just by that last statement alone. Computers should transform pedagogy and the curriculum. Computers do not have to serve our 20th century curriculums and make people believe that if a computer is involved that this is 21st century learning.
-
-
a partner architect at Microsoft Research and the innovator in residence at the Annenberg School at the University of Southern California
10More
Author Asks the Question, Is Google Evil? - FoxNews.com - 0 views
-
“They are pack rats. They keep everything, and they actually have three copies of everything that goes in there. People have no idea they literally have a mirror of the online world and three copies on Google’s computers,” says Cleland.
-
“They have no respect for other people's valuables. They are a serial scofflaw of copyright policy, of patents, of trademarks, and of confidential information.”
- ...7 more annotations...
-
"Is it possible to be quoted shrugging my shoulders?" asks Google spokesman Adam Kovacevich when Fox News requested the company's comment on Cleland's book. "Everyone knows that Mr. Cleland stopped being a neutral analyst years ago and is now paid by Microsoft and AT&T to criticize Google full-time."
-
"What happens is that Google is the company that most successfully takes advantage of the Internet," says Levy, who does caution that "there's a real concern because they do have a lot of information about us, and I think Google should be as transparent as possible. In most cases, I think they are pretty transparent about what they have on you and how it works."
-
On Tuesday, South Korean authorities reportedly raided that country's Google offices to investigate if the company "has been illegally collecting private data."
-
"I don't think there's ever been a U.S. corporation that has had so much control," says Marc Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, in Washington, D.C., who also teaches Internet privacy law at Georgetown. "It would be like a company producing automobiles, providing oil, and building the highways ... We're in a similar situation today with the Internet and Google."
-
"Any company with the power of Google has to be watched," says Levy. "But I don’t think Google is a company which is intending to take over the world in some sort of negative sense." But Cleland's version of Google argues that it does. "Google says overtly that they want to change the world," Cleland says, warning that "Google is leading us towards a collectivist society, a planned economy and one world government." "The more you learn about Google, the more troubled you will become."