38 Matching Annotations
  1. Jul 2021
  2. Nov 2017
    1. mandate the use of "learning management systems."

      Therein lies the rub. Mandated systems are a radically different thing from “systems which are available for use”. This quote from the aforelinked IHE piece is quite telling:

      “I want somebody to fight!” Crouch said. “These things are not cheap -- 300 grand or something like that? ... I want people to want it! When you’re trying to buy something, you want them to work at it!”

      In the end, it’s about “procurement”, which is quite different from “adoption” which is itself quite different from “appropriation”.

  3. Dec 2016
  4. Nov 2016
  5. Oct 2016
    1. The best way to attract and grow an audience for political content on the world’s biggest social network is to eschew factual reporting and instead play to partisan biases using false or misleading information that simply tells people what they want to hear.
  6. Sep 2016
    1. Users not only need to be trained on the proper ways to use these tools and communicate with students, they also require meaningful incentives to take on the potentially steep learning curve.[40]
    1. Some of the other benefits include: Permits for peer review. Fulfills social responsibility of offering education to all. Increases standard of educational resources. Improves a university’s status and that of the researcher or educators.
    1. this article is particularly concerned with the ways that uncritical adoption of educational technologies adversely impacts the autonomy of students and teachers within the shared enterprise of learning
  7. Aug 2016
  8. Jul 2016
    1. ed-tech hasn’t really changed much in schools

      Been butting against this quite a bit. One part discouragement: if we haven’t succeed in 40+ years (on the “progressive” side of the spectrum), can we ever succeed? One part nostalgia: education was so radical in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Are we going back to May 1968? Is that what #BlackLivesMatter and the Occupy Movement have been about? One part pseudo-historical: isn’t there a cycle involved, with frequent ups and downs? One part cultural: which contexts are we discussing, here? Is it only about hyperindustrialised societies? Because things sure have changed quite a bit around the world, if not necessarily in the direction we wish they did… One part conceptual: isn’t Ed Tech what we make it to be? Because it sounds like a focus on ed tech solutions, not educational use of technology more generally.

    1. The military’s contributions to education technology are often overlooked

      Though that may not really be the core argument of the piece, it’s more than a passing point. Watters’s raising awareness of this other type of “military-industrial complex” could have a deep impact on many a discussion, including the whole hype about VR (and AR). It’s not just Carnegie-Mellon and Paris’s Polytechnique («l’X») which have strong ties to the military. Or (D)ARPANET. Reminds me of IU’s Dorson getting money for the Folklore Institute during the Cold War by arguing that the Soviets were funding folklore. Even the head of the NEH in 2000 talked about Sputnik and used the language of “beating Europe at culture” when discussing plans for the agency. Not that it means the funding or “innovation” would come directly from the military but it’s all part of the Cold War-era “ideology”. In education, it’s about competing with India or Finland. In other words, the military is part of a much larger plan for “world domination”.

  9. Jun 2016
  10. Dec 2015