Aztecs honor a god

Honor the dead in Mexico

different day for a different religion with a different reason.

To me, the most interesting about this program is that it sounds like it’s targeting post-secondary institutions. There are multiple programs to “teach kids to code”. Compulsory education (primary and secondary) can provide a great context for these, in part because the type of learning involved is so broad and pedagogical skills are so recognized. In post-secondary contexts, however, there’s a strong tendency to limit coding to very specific contexts, including Computer Science or individual programs. We probably take for granted that people who need broad coding skills can develop them outside of their college and university programs. In a way, this isn’t that surprising if we’re to compare coding to very basic skills, like typing. Though there are probably many universities and colleges where students can get trained in typing, it’s very separate from the curriculum. It might be “college prep”, but it’s not really a college prerequisite. And there isn’t that much support in post-secondary education. Of course, there are many programs, in any discipline, giving a lot of weight to coding skills. For instance, learners in Digital Humanities probably hone in their ability to code, at some point in their career. And it’s probably hard for most digital arts programs to avoid at least some training in programming languages. It’s just that these “general” programs in coding tend to focus almost exclusively on so-called “K–12 Education”. That this program focuses on diversity is also interesting. Not surprising, as many such initiatives have to do with inequalities, real or perceived. But it might be where something so general can have an impact in Higher Education. It’s also interesting to notice that there isn’t much in terms of branding or otherwise which explicitly connects this initiative with colleges and universities. Pictures on the site show (diverse) adults, presumably registered students at universities and colleges where “education partners” are to be found. But it sounds like the idea of a “school” is purposefully left quite broad or even ambiguous. Of course, these programs might also benefit adult learners who aren’t registered at a formal institution of higher learning. Which would make it closer to “para-educational” programs. In fact, there might something of a lesson for the future of universities and colleges.

To me, the most interesting about this program is that it sounds like it’s targeting post-secondary institutions. There are multiple programs to “teach kids to code”. Compulsory education (primary and secondary) can provide a great context for these, in part because the type of learning involved is so broad and pedagogical skills are so recognized. In post-secondary contexts, however, there’s a strong tendency to limit coding to very specific contexts, including Computer Science or individual programs. We probably take for granted that people who need broad coding skills can develop them outside of their college and university programs. In a way, this isn’t that surprising if we’re to compare coding to very basic skills, like typing. Though there are probably many universities and colleges where students can get trained in typing, it’s very separate from the curriculum. It might be “college prep”, but it’s not really a college prerequisite. And there isn’t that much support in post-secondary education. Of course, there are many programs, in any discipline, giving a lot of weight to coding skills. For instance, learners in Digital Humanities probably hone in their ability to code, at some point in their career. And it’s probably hard for most digital arts programs to avoid at least some training in programming languages. It’s just that these “general” programs in coding tend to focus almost exclusively on so-called “K–12 Education”. That this program focuses on diversity is also interesting. Not surprising, as many such initiatives have to do with inequalities, real or perceived. But it might be where something so general can have an impact in Higher Education. It’s also interesting to notice that there isn’t much in terms of branding or otherwise which explicitly connects this initiative with colleges and universities. Pictures on the site show (diverse) adults, presumably registered students at universities and colleges where “education partners” are to be found. But it sounds like the idea of a “school” is purposefully left quite broad or even ambiguous. Of course, these programs might also benefit adult learners who aren’t registered at a formal institution of higher learning. Which would make it closer to “para-educational” programs. In fact, there might something of a lesson for the future of universities and colleges.

Though he’s been associated with a very strange idea he never had, Edward Sapir was quite explicit about this loss over a hundred years ago. Thinking specifically about a later passage warning people about the glossocide English language. But it’s been clear in his work from long before that excerpt that we’re missing out when we focus on a single language.

In this case, it can apply to quite a few academics who are native speakers of one of the aforementioned “world languages”. Difficult to be a monolingual academic in an exclusively local language. Much easier as a French- or Mandarin-speaker to become an academic without learning much English. And speaking of monolinguals, there is a clear bias in tech towards monolingualism.

One might think that those other languages are well-represented. People connected with the Open Knowledge Foundation are currently tackling this very issue. Here, Open Education isn’t just about content.

Timely. Sent it to a few people, already, as it connects with several discussions we’ve been having on neocolonialism in EdTech, including the content side of Open Education (OER). Some of it reminds me of Crissinger’s critical take on OER, based on her experience with Open Access.

Speaking of the diversity embedded in divides…

Really wish people were to consider the multiple divides which affect digital inclusion. That notion has been a significant part of the subtext in our Cyberspace sociology course. Explicitly discussed here: doi:10.1111/jcom.12045 It’s a bit like Belshaw’s use of the plural to discuss literacies. Makes it more difficult to claim that we’ve completely solved the issue if we acknowledge its diversity and complexity.

Did not expect this line of thinking, from the headline.

The Man is Californian.

Self-reported open-mindedness is a bit like bragging about being “cool”.

Apart from the political context for such statements, it’s interesting to note that a link between innovation and diversity is made more frequently in technology than in education (where diversity is taken as a challenge).

1100% is a lot of percent.

At the same time, this is partly a loaded question. From another perspective (say, in anthro), diversity is richness. It’s part of a broader context. Teachers do need to vent about new challenges. Some may even think that diversity is what makes their lives more difficult. And they may wish for that time when all students were exactly alike.

Lots of difficult things with this text, including the title. The obsession on measurable “smarts” is an important topic and the possible measures to prevent this obsession from impacting (US) society make sense. But it’s really tricky to discuss intelligence in such ways. Part of the text reads as further essentialisation of measured intelligence. Yet it sounds clear from the possible measures described that this form of intelligence takes at least part of its meaning in a given social context.

Maybe the deep issue with a text like this is that it’s hard to get people to shift from one consistent mindframe (paradigm, episteme) to another. More specifically, it’s hard to discuss intelligence in a context where the concept has become so loaded.

Would have lots more to say about this from my parents’ experiences (an occupational therapist who spent a career with people labelled as having “intellectual disabilities” and a psychopedagogue who worked in “special education” with students from a low-income neighbourhood who had “learning disabilities”). Maybe later.

Though it’s probably a simple mistake, the notion that Google is “broadening … stereotypes of CS” might have some truth to it.

Glad Anglophone prescriptivists aren’t having their way. If they did, chances are that the language would have a similar fate to German as a colonial language. Chances are that a predilection for normative language has greatly impacted language insecurity among Francophones.

Can we embrace diversity?

Again, the “Myth of the average student”.

http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/The-Myth-of-Average-Todd-Rose-a

Not really what we tend to mean by “open access” in academia, but closer to “open education” than one might assume. It can be less about the cost of textbooks than about inclusion. And diversity.

Actions, not words.

Language is formed on complex interactions and has many histories, especially English. It cannot be classified as our language and other language because these so often overlap