6 Matching Annotations
  1. Jul 2023
    1. In their article, Scientist Spotlight Homework Assignments Shift Students’ Stereotypes of Scientists and Enhance Science Identity in a Diverse Introductory Science Class,” Jeffrey Schinske, Heather Perkins, Amanda Snyder, and Mary Wyer created a “scientist spotlight” weekly homework assignment to introduce counter stereotypical examples of scientists and provide a diverse representation of contributions to science. Each week, students reviewed a resource regarding these scientists’ research and personal history in lieu of other textbook readings. Through their analysis, the scholars were able to study and detect shifts in both scientist stereotypes and the students’ ability to see their possible selves in science.

      This same sort of structure could be useful for introducing students to fellow college students and also professionals who eschew a hyper-connected, frenetic, algorithmic, hustle mindset.

      A way to normalize digital minimalism and slow productivity

  2. Feb 2023
    1. I am skeptical of the tech inevitability standpoint that ChatGPT is here

      inevitability is such an appropriate word here, because it captures a sort of techno-maximalist "any-benefit" mindset that sometimes pervades the ed-tech scene (and the position of many instructional designers and technologists)

  3. Aug 2022
    1. Meanwhile, the share of teens who say they use Facebook, a dominant social media platform among teens in the Center’s 2014-15 survey, has plummeted from 71% then to 32% today.

      This is a tremendously important shift. I can remember 5-7 years ago when the Facebook is for old people talk was starting that data still bore out the reality that teens said they did not use it but were still on it constantly.

      That is no longer true.

  4. Dec 2021
    1. She thinks the companies themselves are behind this, trying to manipulate their users into having certain opinions and points of view.

      The irony is that this is, itself, somewhat a conspiracy theory.

      Though, I think a nuanced understanding may be closer:

      • The real purpose is not to influence people to believe anything. It's money. It's ad spend and data collection to sell. We need to demonstrate to advertisers that their ads are actually getting seen. The more they get seen, the more money we make. And, the more time is spent on the service, the more data we have to sell... which is as valuable as the add spend.
      • Companies jigger algorithms to maximize time spent on the service.
      • As the Bible is clear, the heart of man is wicked, and the kinds of things that maximize time spent are themselves attitudes of evil, malice, wickedness, and hatred, and the list of things Paul repeatedly tells us to avoid. Go figure.
      • So, people feel the platforms are basically like smoking, and yet, they can't stop.
    2. About 7 in 10 Americans think their phone or other devices are listening in on them in ways they did not agree to.

      I'm enough of a tinfoil hat wearer to this this might be true. Especially since my google home talks to me entirely too much when I'm not talking to it.

    3. Only 10 percent say Facebook has a positive impact on society, while 56 percent say it has a negative impact and 33 percent say its impact is neither positive nor negative. Even among those who use Facebook daily, more than three times as many say the social network has a negative rather than a positive impact.

      Here's the rub. Only 1 out of 10 Americans surveyed think Facebook is a good idea.

      Over half of Americans surveyed actually think Facebook is bad for them and society as a whole. And yet, the general sense is now that life is impossible without it.

      How does the church respond to this? Do we tell people to get off or "use in moderation?"