A very important discussion. I've cited the same show in a post I'm writing (if I find the time, should be on the Landing today or tomorrow but, if not, quite soon) in part because I devoutly share the authors' concerns about the corporatization of higher education and I really like their expression of universities' value, but also because I deeply disagree with one of their careless throwaway comments, about 15:23 in, about online learning being concerned with knowledge, not understanding, and (by implication) that it does not support connection. Such ignorant stereotypes are very harmful, especially when dropped so casually into a conversation as though this were common shared knowledge. As this group and your contributions to it amply demonstrate, done well, online learning can be far richer than those big face-to-face classes they describe (and often better than smaller tutorials and study groups) as means for sharing tacit knowledge, building learning communities, connecting with professors, expanding intellectual horizons, and modelling ways of being.
Jon Dron February 20, 2017 - 10:31am
Hi Jon. I completely agree with you.
Meaghan Peuramaki-Brown February 20, 2017 - 10:38am
Such a beautiful area. I miss my home!
Meaghan Peuramaki-Brown February 16, 2017 - 10:53am
Thanks for sharing the book. I look forward to reading it.
Thanks also for sharing your stand about readings not being required. I have been trying to communicate same to my students and they both like and fear the freedom.
Gerald Ardito February 13, 2017 - 7:06pm
Hi Dr. Dron,
Interesting topic. Your comment about having reserve if this was automated reminds me of Linus Torvald's concerns when his lieutenants wanted to use automated code merges. He resisted for a while and then wrote Git. It's become common place to just trust code merges now with high degree of confidence.
What concerns you with an automated system for detecting and responding to attacks when there are known patterns? Assume of course that there these changes still hit the Wiki history and there is some way to appeal. (I'm not enticing you to write this tool though ;-) )
Daryl Campbell February 15, 2017 - 12:57pm
Machines might be very good at *identifying* problems, and that's great, but humans are needed to react to and deal with them: there are infinite possible ways to do that, and there are always vastly many opportunities to heal rifts, and make things positive again. It's about humans socializing with humans and the smartest AI in the world does not yet (and likely never will) know what it is like to be a human, so will not be able to respond creatively or appropriately to that unique social context.
Jon Dron February 15, 2017 - 1:54pm
Thanks Marc, yes I have a lot to still think about!
Renate Bradley February 18, 2017 - 1:40pm