Here is an interesting point I only just realized:  In the movie The Day The Earth Stood Still, Klaatu made a reference to a Supreme Being.  Remember, the film tells the story of an alien from another world who comes to warn the Earth that if humans move their violent tendencies into space, and threaten other worlds, the Earth would be destroyed by a race of robots Klaatu and his people had created to maintain galactic peace.

In the process of all this, Klaatu was killed by humans, and his body recovered by the robot Gort.  Through the use of some mysterious machine, Klaatu’s fatal injuries were healed and he regained his life.  The human woman with whom he had formed a friendship wondered what power he had over life and death.  Klaatu simply said the Supreme Being made those decisions, not he or his people.

This caught by interest as it addresses, albeit inadequately, the issue of human progression into posthumanism.  Humans can integrate human and machine, but is there still a superior power, a “Supreme Being” we still must answer to?  this question was not answered in this film, but the issue itself was acknowledged.  Today, we still grapple with the question of how far is far enough when it comes to human-cyborg relations.  When does our exploration of making better human become over-reaching into spiritual realms better left to whatever we define as our Supreme Being?  Or is there a limit?  Who answers the question of what is too much?  What has gone too far?  When is it time to stop?

#mscedc

http://bit.ly/2oaYmPs

(This post is a re-post of a comment I previously posted)

Of the many interpretations of “2001: A Space Odyssey” that have been presented, one that is intriguing to me is the movement of humanoids from being at the mercy of nature to a position of self-determination. At the beginning of the film we see pre-humans simply existing as nature provides. Subsequently, bones are found to be useful as tools and weapons, allowing one group to exert dominance over another. The film then moves into the future where humans have evolved and created machines that aid them in just about every area of life. As we progress through the story line, HAL attempts to block human efforts to continue or alter the prescribed space mission to Jupiter, ultimately failing to stop Dave from Dave’s own personal mission. The end of the film seems to provide the demonstration of the evolution of humans to a post-human existence as the “Space Child” appears, hovering over the planets.

The question I presented in my previous post looks at how pre-humans moved from being nature-driven to self-driven. Humans became active participants in their own development and at least partially determinative of their own destinies and futures. As we move into an era where machines are allowed, as HAL was allowed, to control our lives and be integral in whatever decision we make, at what point do humans move back into the position of being “nature driven” and lose any control over ourselves and our future? At some level this question gives new meaning to the concept of “The Circle of Life.”

James, you are right in stressing algorithms are not static but change as the focus of the inquiry changes. Perhaps I would have been more accurate by emphasizing that algorithms are not necessarily capable of initiating changes but only react to external changes as expressed by a change in search terms or other forms of original inquiry.

“. . . even if all five of your high schools shared a curriculum and even the same assessment exercise, as long we ask students to ‘work digitally’ in the preparation of the work, the experience will be different.”

James, your sentiments on this are correct and I think reflect the ongoing battle educators have in standardized testing. We seek to established norms, or algorithms, that will indicate the level of proficiency students achieve in a certain content area, or as predictors of future success in university or a chosen vocational field. Where the real frustration lies is the unknown quantities and qualities of experience, motivation and innate drive. As our algorithms this past couple of weeks have shown, searches may be made “easier” when Google or Facebook as two examples, can predict what or who we are looking for, but the algorithms cannot predict, or perhaps even decipher, internal motivation to even begin the search and how the search may turn given the results, or lack of, received.

As with algorithms, standardized testing should be used with caution. It is good to have established learning objectives as we do in EDC17, for example. Those objectives however, are achieved not by everyone in class creating uniform essays or blogs or Tweets. As has been displayed over the course of the last few weeks, we each approach the ultimate objectives of the course in a different way, but do manage to end up in reletively the same place at the end. With testing, it is wise to have specific goals and standards that need to be met. What is not usually accounted for is the fact that learners, even with the ultimate objective goal in mind, will reach it by diverse paths, and some perhapds not at all. In my opinion there is no algorithm that can adequately, or even fairly, account for the subjective nature.

I see Google is now going to use “direct teams” to flag what may be considered offensive search terms.  What is determined to be “offensive” will be determined by Google.  Searches that contain offensive language will then be flagged and although the search results will not be affected in any way, the searches will be listed with less offensive results being listed higher in the order.  This will, in effect, be a change or revision in the existing algorithm that could impede individual research of offensive content for legitimate reasons.

http://bit.ly/2n3ZRij

#mscedc

In the readings and discussion so far this week I have found some interesting information about learning analytics.  The basic concepts seem to be very familiar as they are something I use every day in trying to determine student success, predict failure, and what I may be able to do in my own lesson planning to influence either objective.  In my readings, I found this interesting exchange between two of our reading’s authors, George Siemens and Mike Sharkey.  Very generally, the discussion forum was focused on the variable definition of learning analytics and how whatever your chosen definition could be applied.  I have included almost all of the discussion between Sharkey and Siemen, only editing out what I determined (if I am allowed to do so for this exercise) to be irrelevant at this point.

The reason I have used a large part of their discussion was that I wanted a record in the same place of the context of what Sharkey and Siemen were talking about.  I found it so applicable to how myself and others in my field approach academics and how we define success or failure in the classroom.  This is a struggle I deal with throughout each school year as I move with the ebb and flow of students’ accomplishments during their assignments and assessments.

The following discussion took place in Learning Analytics Google Group Discussion, in August of 2010 (the exchange below is conveyed verbatim and has not been edited in terms of grammar, syntax or emoticon use):

Mike Sharkey:

I wanted to add a dimension to the discussion, specifically around 
defining success.  In the descriptions of learning analytics we talk 
about using data to “predict success”.  I’ve struggled with that as I 
pore over our databases.  I’ve come to realize there are different 
views/levels of success:

Academic: 
In its simplest form, academic success means getting a good/passing 
grade.  That works for a 15-week course since you can use the first 
few weeks of data to predict the remainder of the course.  However, I 
work in an environment where courses are 5, 6, or 9 weeks long (we 
teach courses one- or two-at-a-time in serial).  That prevents me from 
using data within a course to predict the outcome for that student. 
There’s a second part to this argument about whether good grades = 
success.  That’s a discussion we need to have over a beer so I’ll pass 
for now. 😉 

Another academic metric is learning outcomes.  Look at assessment 
data and use mastery of outcomes as a gauge of success.  If the 
institution does a good job measuring learning outcomes, this is a 
possibility. 

Progression: 
If we can’t measure success within a course, we might look at it 
across the student’s program.  From an academic standpoint, that means 
GPA.  That will just lead us to the same discussion about whether or 
not grades are a good measure of success.  From a practical 
standpoint, success may mean “is the student still attending”.  Are 
they progressing through the program in a timely fashion?  This isn’t 
a good qualitative measure, but the argument can be made that if the 
student is still attending, there’s a better chance they will succeed 
in the program (especially when you compare that to students who have 
stopped attending and have zero chance of graduating). 

“Are they attending” is aligned with engagement.  Is the student 
actively engaged in the course?  We can measure this by attendance 
(did they show up) or by some alternate engagement metric (e.g. number 
of actions in the course LMS).  We can even get more detailed on the 
progression metric and look at two dimensions: 
– Persistence (when is the last time we heard from the student) 
– Density (over the last x weeks, what percent of the time has the 
student been engaged) 

I have started to model metrics and I haven’t come to any solid 
conclusions yet.  It really boils down to who you are and how you 
define success.  Different parts of the institution will have 
different definitions. 
I hope to chat more with you at the conference in February. 

Mike 
Director of Academic Analytics 
University of Phoenix 

 George Siemens:

Hi Mike – thanks for contribution. Last year, I met someone from U of Phoenix (can’t remember how it was!) and they mentioned some of the current – and planned future – use of analytics at UoP. It was quite advanced from what I’ve seen at other institutions. Analytics require explication. Online courses, programs, and institutions are uniquely placed to be early trail-blazers of analytics.

Good question about success. Success has come up a few times already and, as you note, will be different in different situations and institutions. Or learners, for that matter. For some learners, simply passing a course could be defined as success. For others, only top grades would be seen as success. 

Your points about persistence and density form part of the research that needs to be done around analytics. What learners characteristics contribute to success (however it is defined)? Which signals or deviation from those characteristics can we observe early enough through analytics to intervene to ensure success? Some great areas of research and exploration!

Mike (and others from the perspective of their institutions) – would you mind sharing a bit more about how you use analytics at UoP? What is working well? How are learners responding? What technology are you using for data collection and analytics? What role does visualization play?

George

In conclusion, sort of, when Siemens mentioned the types of analytics being discussed would work well for online course, etc., it reminded me of the evaluations we completed in the Course Design for Digital Environments course at the University of Edinburgh just last Fall.  We had to consider various analytical frameworks to create operable and meaningful learning outcomes for the courses we designed.  Of course, these outcomes were both dependent and determinant of the curriculum and activities we included in the course structure.  It is very easy to see, from my perspective, how difficult it is to create and implement a solid strand of outcomes yet try to address as many of the different facets of learning and teaching that each teacher and student face each day.

#mscedc

I recenly sent an email to Professor Jared Leising, at Cascadia College, telling him I had participated in his Innovative Poetery of Cascadia MOOC, and that I had completed an ethnography on his course.  I included a poem I wrote for the course as well.  I have attached below a copy of my letter as well as the response I received from Professor Leising.  It is not much a reply in length but he does express more than nominal appreciate for my participation in his group; enough to share my contat with his colleagues.  I thought it quite nice and a solid capstone for my effort.

Professor Leising:

I am a student at the University of Edinburgh, and am completing requirements for the Master of Science in Digital Education program.  I am also a Social Studies and Life Science teacher at a high school in Southern California.

As part of the coursework for my Education and Digital Culture course, we had to find a MOOC, enroll, and complete an Ethnographical study of the course.  I chose The Innovative Poetry of Cascadia, as I used to live in Oregon and the topic was, honestly, outside my field of expertise.

​I must say I thoroughly enjoyed working through the modules although I was not able to participate in the course during real-time.  What I did do was read many of the poems and thoughts of the other participants as well as exploring information about the Cascadia Poetry Festivals.

I have included with this email a link to the study I completed.  It is not presented in a typical research format but on a platform I believe allowed me to more fully express the color and spirit of the course and themes.  Lastly, I thought I would try my hand at poetry as if I was an active participant in the course.  I hope you enjoy what I have included.

Please feel free to repond if you like, and if so, I look forward to hearing from you.  Thank you.

​http://bit.ly/2nb1l7i

Philip Downey

(From Professor Leising):

Thank you, Philip.

I shared this with my co-teachers.  It was a lovely surprise!

Really thoughtful and interesting to see it presented in this way.

Jared

#mscedc

This week we are looking at a vast variety of algorithms and how they determine, or reflect (or both) our past behavior patterns and future predicators of behavior.  We see algorithms choose what shows or movies to watch on Netflix and YouTube, make recommendations for reading on Amazon and Kindle.  The attached article is an interesting treatise on how algorithms, based upon personal interactions, can predict or determine how well we socialize and what constitutes effective social interaction between people.  The “smart environment” project had as one of its primary goals the gathering of data to determine how people can remain more independent especially as they grow older, as well as to provide information as to how employees can improve production with increased socialization at work.

http://bit.ly/2nn9Xrn

#mscedc

In Humanizing Education’s Algorithms, Mubeen (2016) begins by relating an instance where he analyzed a student’s academic performance patterns, based upon a computer program (algorithm) designed for just that purpose.  What the algorithm did not take into account was the human element.  This caused the analysis to be way off mark.  The student’s excellent marks, especially in math, belied the fact he was homeless and had access to a computer at the local library only twice a week.

Further, what has technology relegated teachers to become?  Are we lecturers and dispensers of information only, or do we still have the mandate to give our students the human touch, that element of community not created by machines or apps?  Mubeen goes on the say, “An algorithmic approach is not sufficient to serve our students. Joshua has met with success because his teachers are active agents in his learning journey.” (Mubeen 2016).  The article’s impetus is that while programs and such are fine and perhaps necessary, they alone are not enough to create and maintain an environment of learning whereby students may become, and remain, successful.  The teacher is there and must be aware of contingencies that computers and programs are not able to handle from a purely subjective point of view.

Basically, and to be guilty of re-stating, the thrust of this article is that we can only really make sense of the learning process if we take into consideration the human element.  Algorithms are wonderful tools for what they do, but can an algorithm insert the human quality?  We have discussed this before during our time studying AI and robots, etc.  The process, or the machine, can mimic performance, but can it mimic intent? Apathy? Motivation?  this are questions that educators must address beyond the technological tools available.

Mubeen, J. (2016) Humanizing Education’s Algorithms. EdsurgeNews, June 10, 2016

#mscedc

I just read an interesting quote in the book, “The Posthuman,” by Rosi Braidotti (2013).  On page 58, Donna Haraway is quoted as saying,”…the machines are so alive, whereas the humans are so inert!” (Haraway 1985). Based upon our discussions to date in this course, I wonder yet again about the purpose and intent of AI, and how that evolutionary emergence will replace basic human endeavors like simple work, complex calculations, etc., etc.  Visions of “The Jetsons” come to mind where the entire household is run by robots; or “The Forbidden Planet” where a machine eventually learns to bring into reality the base desires and fears of organic beings.  What came to mind first was Klaatu’s remarks (“When The Earth Stood Still”) to the inhabitants of Earth as to why he and his fellow “aliens” created robots to begin with:  so they (humanoids) might pursue more profitable pursuits.  In doing so, they left the basic operations of law enforcement and police services to robots.  Klaatu also left open what exactly he meant by “more profitable” pursuits.  (An interesting side note here is that later in the film, Klaatu makes mention of a supreme being that has the ultimate say in matters of life and death, thereby limiting the influence of humanist dogma in deciding the fate of the universe.  Of course, this may have been more of a bone thrown to the censors of the day rather than a covert political/spiritual statement by the makers of the film.)

Nevertheless moving along . . .throughout film and written media, robots/cyborgs have been viewed as human or humanoid creations that serve the humanoid purpose or have eventually run amok and tried to destroy their own creators.  I suppose my query here is by injecting AI into our society, or community, are we trying to enhance our community, transform it, or create a new community with what we view as a new, and revitalized purpose?  Further, does the answer to any of those queries reaffirm we ares till struggling with what “community” is supposed to be?  Or, what we think it ought to be?

If community includes in its description the subjective and emotional interaction of beings that live within that community, how would an artificial form fit into it?  We have discussed the lack of emotions inherent within robots and cyborgs, unless those emotions are pre-programmed into it.  In that case then, is the robot or cyborg really feeling those  emotions or simply reacting to what the data chip has scripted for it?  And if, or when, robots/cyborgs develop true sentience, like Sonny in “I, Robot,” then how will those new lifeforms be integrated into the existing human community?

I am not convinced the deeper, moral questions have been adequately addressed simply because it is clear to me that technology has far outpaced humans.  We can create these wonderful machines that look and act and even talk and feel, like humans.  But, what happens when we thy break out the pre-scripted environments they have been placed in and start making independent decisions; especially decisions that may run contrary to human interests and intent?

How then will “community” be defined?  And perhaps more poignant who, or what, will define it?

Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman. Polity Press, Cambridge.

Haraway, Donna. 1985. “A Manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, Technology, and Socialist Feminism in the 1980s”, Socialist Review 15:2 (1985)

https://www.pinterest.com/philip_downey/edc17-philips-trial-visual-micro-ethnography/

In an interesting article I read just today, I was reminded of the old saying, “You can’t see the forest for the trees.”  But it is in the reverse that I mention I mention it here, “You can’t see the trees for the forest.”  The following quote is from the article I read:

“When we treat data as a “given” (which is, in fact, the etymology of the word), we see it in the abstract, as an urban fixture like traffic or crowds. We need to shift our gaze and look at data in context, at the lifecycle of urban information, distributed within a varied ecology of urban sites and subjects who interact with it in multiple ways. We need to see data’s human, institutional, and technological creators, its curators, its preservers, its owners and brokers, its “users,” its hackers and critics” (Mattern 2017).

To me, in relation to what we have been looking at this block in terms of community, I think people have a tendency to overlook the essentials of the individual in favor of the overall community.  what do we learn from Twitter, Facebook and other social media outlets?  We keep up with daily news.  We are reminded of birthdays for people who are not only our friends (which is important) but the birthdays of friends of my friends, and their friends, and so on ad nauseum.  We are reminded of dates and events that we may never have been associated with other than we “know” someone in our feed who may have been.  This is the community in which we find ourselves today.  A community of data and information that likely has little or no meaning to us personally.  We use “data” to connect via platforms of all kinds.  In this course alone some of the “connections we have made with classmates and instructors have been Twitter, Facebook, WordPress, Google Hangouts, and a myriad of others.  And, we try to tie them all together using IFTTT to one degree of success or another.

I wonder sometimes as just how deep our connection with others really is.  I know I have had some meaningful exchanges with others in the class over one channel or another.  And honestly, for most I have had little or no contact depending on if I happen to comment on their blog posts or not.  I have been too consumed negotiating the forest that I have failed to stop and consider the trees.  Interstingly, the participants in the MOOC in which I am enrolled seem to want to stop and not touch and feel each tree, but every bush as well, smell every flower, watch the birds and listen to the wind whistle as it moves among it all.

The question that presents itself is who is more a part of a community, me or them?  It is a hard question and of course the answer is determoned by what kind of community is sought by each individual or group.  So, I suppose the answer ultimately is academic, or at least rhetorical.  But I digress, I think.  The quotation above, and the article overall, speaks of looking deeper and considering the individual, of seeing how this community is built and who built it and why.  I find myself falling into this trap on many occasions: looking so hard at the forest but not seeing the individual and unique trees that make the forest what it is supposed to be.

Mattern, Shannon.  “A City Is Not A Computer.”  Places, February 2017.

http://linoit.com/users/Philip57/canvases/Philip%27s%20Visual%20Ethnography

I have been experimenting with a couple of platforms to present my Ethnography: Pinterest and Lino.  I have chosen to do the ethnography in a visual, or virtual, manner, as an alternative to the more traditional written style.  My goal basically is to hit on some of the themes of the MOOC in which I am enrolled, Innovative Poetry of Cascadia, and then use pictures to exhibit those themes.  Captions are to be used to explain or further expound on what each picture is supposed to represent.  I hit this idea off James this morning and he seemed fairly enthusiastic about the idea.  I am not sure however, how much enthusiasm he will retain when he sees my final product(s).  And I say “products” because I am my just put a link in my Lifestream to both of them and just see what happens.

One thing I will say now is that the MOOC has been quite interesting. I have mentioned this before but it bears repeating I think.  The readings I have had to do and the comments submitted by other participants show a real interest in the culture and environment of the Cascadia region.  I find this attitude very satisfying.  Having lived in Oregon for several years, although I am not a native of the area, the thoughts and feelings expressed are very familiar.  People in the Cascadia region develop a very strong attachment to the region and are keen to express that attachment in a variety of ways. I realize other people groups do this as well, for example those from the Southern United States, or from regions in Europe and Asia.  I also saw this to a degree when I lived in East Africa for several months.  Cascadia is no different:  the inhabitants see the land and animals and the entire ecosystem as a way of life.  Everything is connected and there seems to be a communication between fauna and flora that is almost spiritual in nature, delving deep into one’s soul and creating a permanent link between man and other beings, and even non-living things.  I mentioned this in an earlier post that the attitude is almost like The Force in Star Wars:  every creature, every non-living thing, is connected in some way, and in a way that cannot be broken.

Well, as I am waxing somewhat poetic or even romantic, I find I am trying to put myself in the place of someone still roaming the rain forest of Olympic Nation Park in Washington, or scaling the sides of Mt. Hood, or fishing the rivers and waterfalls of Oregon and Washington.  There is very little of a digital nature involved here, which goes against the idea of EDC.  However, the theme for this Block is, in part, the theme of Community.  In the writings and musings of the participants of this MOOC, I find they have created a “community” not built from WordPress or Twitter, but from an internal connection to the tangential spirituality of the Earth, and the creatures and features that inhabit the space around us.  Indeed, the folks in this MOOC create and experience the presence of community in their common fondness of Cascadia.

#mscedc

The following is a copy of my conversation with James regarding the format of the Ethnography.  I had an idea that due to the abstract nature of my MOOC, I would try and present it in a way that was more reflective of the feelings and viewpoints of the participants.  (As a note to avoid the appearance of revealing any confidentiality, I have copied our conversation here per James’ encouragement.)

From Me:

James, I may have missed something but in what form does the ethnography take? I have posted a trial visual ethnography more to display what I am doing on my Lifestream rather than meet the assignment requirement; but I am wondering if this is the type of format we can use?

If so, then my plan is to add text to each photo as a descriptor of how the picture relates to what the purpose of the MOOC is designed for. This course is so abstract I am not sure a more formal write-up would really fit.

From James:

This is really great. A request: paste these ideas and questions into a blog post as it will look really good in your lifestream and I think the whole group will benefit from our conversation: if you’re ok with that? But yes, agree entirely about presenting ethnography in ‘alternative’ form: I fully encourage that. Excellent stuff, Philip.

#mscedc

I have been going though the lessons in the MOOC I chose, “Innovative Poetry of Cascadia”.  It has been very interesting and really has turned out to be what I was hoping for.  I am not necessarily a poetry aficionado, but the personal comments on the boards by many of the participants in class have been revealing. Primarily what I have seen are postings expressing a deep connection to the geographical region.  This connection is more than simple geography or occupying space; some of these people have seemed to immerse themselves into the mystery of Cascadia, developing an identity almost that transcends just physical locale. It is as if they have opened themselves up in a spiritual fashion to what they see and feel is the Spirit of the mountains, the rivers, and the ocean.  It reminds me very much of the stories I heard as a child of my own Native American heritage, and even the feeling of myself and others who engaged in the surfing sub-culture on the Southern California beaches.

Very interesting.

Note:  The photograph on the left is a view of part of the Cascadia Region of Western Canada and Northwestern US.  The photograph on the right is a simple house built of natural materials for birds or small animals.  It represents the desire of the inhabitants of this region to care for all forms of life in as unobtrusive a manner as possible.

#mscedc

This posting seems to put in somewhat more eloquent terms than I have been able to, what I have been expressing about AI these past 3 weeks.

This week has been slow going.  I am trying . . .trying . . .to get through the readings.  On top of it all we are re-writing an assessment for my History class and that is taking way too much of my time, although necessary.  And I am trying to make an attempt at meaningful comments on some of my classmates blogs and posts.

But I still feel as if my feet are mired in some kind of sludge that won’t let me move forward in any perceptible way.  Here is hoping this weekend brings a bit more energy and gumption to my efforts.

I have poked a couple of teasers at Linzi this morning about “HAL” and “Alien”.  And something just occurred to me regarding the concepts of space and presence.  i posted a comment on Twitter that one of the teaser lines for the movie “Alien” was “In space, no one can hear you scream.”  And it hit me:  Space is a void that we can occupy.  In the context of that movie line, it is true, in space no one can hear anything.  However, when space is filled with something, e.g. oxygen, the presence of a being can be detected.  Space is no longer simply occupied but is occupied with a discernible presence.  I just thought I would throw that idea into my Lifestream and let it swim around for a while.

I have been looking through the expansive MOOC list and to be honest, there are many that pique my interest.  I am sure there is a vast array of information and resources I could use in my own classes.  The problem I am having is that I have completed two MOOCs in the past and neither really did much for me.  I realize this is not the focus of the exercise for EDC, but I would still like to be involved in something that is interesting over the long haul.

In any case, I am still searching; but I am chiding myself because I think I am making this harder than it should be.  Come on, Philip, pick one already!