Joh,

I really appreciated your detailed response to this paper,especially your comments on this study employing a behaviorist model, as well your discussion the experiences connected with mindfulness.

Thanks.

Gerald

>>...because it is very rare for two people to be at the same point and working at the same pace. 

Ah that makes sense with my experience so far as well as it's not just students having different start times, but also some may do five courses a semester taking 4-6 months whereas some may try to complete one course every month or two.

>>If students are doing things that interest them and are not being too overtly manipulated, rewarded or punished (which is death to intrinsic motivation)...

So agreed. I really enjoyed Daniel Pink's talks years ago on the limits of carrot and stick motivation as well as a couple of his books I read during a post grad certificate in Career Development.

And likewise, I've especially been enjoying project-based courses such as COMP444 and your COMP266. Being able to choose a project and focus of research/learning (providing we map to the learning objectives) is much more satisfying and engaging than, for example, courses where the exams are 100% multiple choice requiring regurgitating facts rather than applying knowledge or doing any real thinking.

Also, thank you for the links. I have bookmarked them for now, but will surely read them once I've made more progress on COMP266. :)

Thanks Jennifer. Daniel Pink uses self-determination theory a lot in his writing. My personal favourite writer and speaker on the topic is Alfie Kohn. His book 'Punished by Rewards' should be required reading for all parents, teachers and educational administrators, I think, but virtually all his work is brilliant.

Nice. I recognize some of those book titles/topics, but don't believe I've read any of them as of yet. Thank you for the suggestion -- it's really thoughtful of you. :)

And now I'm trying to decide whether next to take COMP306 (as I'm currently doing a Lynda.com course on C++) or get Punished by Rewards and take EDPY200 Educational Psych for my Learning Tech minor.

(C++ will probably win out due to timing...unless I go with a 3rd option and work on some core CIS courses. hehe)

Edit: I'm going to sign up for that C++ course now. As I'm already working on the Lynda.com course, it will be nice to have the assignments for COMP306 to work on at the same time. :)

Hi Jon,

I am having the same problem with the file.

Terrible network problems, sorry - if this fails, try https://t.co/lPcC8U73Qq - works for me.

Jon,

I was able to access thepresentation at last.

I really enjoyed it and appreciated the informal nature of the presentation, which seemed really appropriate to talking about a learning environment that learns.

I found this piece  earlier this week. I was struck by (and related to) the description of teachers has typically very little autonomy. 

Thank you for sharing the article, Jon.

I agree on your points on Facebook.  Though I still use Facebook, it is more of a observational standpoint now.  It is interesting to see the developments of news and opinions through the lens of Facebook.  For example, I find it interesting how certain population of my friends on Facebook have specific viewpoints that strongly go against other segments of my friends (i.e. left vs. right wing political viewpoints).  There doesn't seem to be any middle ground for the most part; you are either on one side or the other.  Moderates are drowned out.  Its the formation of social media bubbles.

I find Reddit running into this issue now too, as people seem to only congregate into their favourite subreddits.  Subreddits are like specific factions now in a sense, as sometimes these subreddits 'brigade' other subreddits.  There is more polarization, too.

Interesting times we are in.

Cheers,

Viet

One thing that bothers me a bit about TBL's stance is that such clustering will occur no matter how open and distributed the network - it's built into the very nature of the web that he designed. Subreddits are functionally equivalent to websites or, for that matter, newsgroups of old in that regard. When we get to choose what we see and who we interact with, echo chambers are inevitable. Nothing new here apart from scale and the length of the long tail.

Filter bubbles, on the other hand, are far from inevitable. Where I think he is right to be worried is that the perspective you see on Facebook and, in principle, might see via Google, depending on the degree of 'personalization' (I greatly dislike use of the term to mean something done to somebody rather than by somebody) you let it get away with, is determined not by individuals but by secret algorithms. This means that, especially in the case of Facebook (that knows and ruthlessly exploits the value of polarization in driving engagement) your view of what your 'friends' are saying is not necessarily determined by the natural spread of opinion among them but by the system's deliberate manipulation of what you see which, thanks to FB's largely repulsive algorithms, represents a tiny fraction of the whole.

One part of the answer might lie in making those algorithms scrutable. This opens up a can of worms inasmuch as it makes it easier for evil-doers to exploit them but, much as open source can be more secure than closed source because people can spot and fix the bugs (only works when there is much ongoing active development), it would certainly encourage the perpetrators to tread more carefully. Another part lies in making them not just scrutable but personalizable (in the true sense of the word). Unfortunately, as Judy Kay (and I, for that matter, in a slightly different way) found a decade or two ago, the chances of people even understanding the effects of changes to weightings, let alone actually applying them, are slim. Most will simply accept defaults. The more you force it on them, the more sophisticated the filtering you enable, the less usable (and used) the system will be. There is almost certainly at least a partial answer to this problem - it's a design problem that can in principle be solved by a sufficiently inventive technology  - but I've yet to find it.

Another part of the solution - which speaks more to echo chambers than filter bubbles - lies in culture and literacy. It is natural to be drawn to others that share interests or other commonalities with you, and for those that are not part of your sets to be considered as other, with all the bad things that entails. Escaping these traps means making an active decision to do so. If we, as individuals, put greater value on diversity - for instance, we actively seek things that conflict with our views, that are not in our comfort zones, that are not among our self-decided interests, that are randomly chosen, or serendipitous - and try to understand them, then there's a much better chance that the world will become a better place. One of the big reasons that Canada is a better place to live than most others in the world is that, as a culture, we celebrate and embrace such diversity. The same can and should be true of our online lives.

This is actually the best way to explain algorithms. I was thinking about it this week. I was wondering why don’t text books include as much models and figures or these kind of drawings to explain a problem solving method. I do find images helpful to understand a new concept, maybe because I learn this way better than reading boring paragraphs.

The best we can do is offering and promoting alternatives. It's not easy and it's time consuming, but it's rewarding and for a good cause.