Loading...

(Click to hide this.)
Collection:  all  editorial  education  personal  technology  Go To:  1 


Why Luddites shouldn't handle policy decisions.

March 23, 2008
    I couldn't let this one pass by without comment.

    A first-year student at Ryerson University faced an academic misconduct hearing this month for alleged 'cheating' over Facebook. Chris Avenir was 'caught' moderating a study group for students enrolled in a chemistry course.

    When did this become a crime? Students at most universities (including Ryerson, I know for a fact), have department-endorsed study rooms where students come and go at will, swapping notes and exchanging solutions. This is virtually the same thing.

    Thankfully, Avenir wasn't expelled, but in what I view to be a gross injustice, he was given an F on an assignment and a note in his permanent record, stating he was disciplined. And they're touting this as a huge victory for students at Ryerson, because he could have faced 147 counts of academic misconduct instead.

    There is a huge problem here, and it doesn't have to do with cheating online. The problem is that Avenir's chemistry professor insisted that students work independently.

    The expectation that students work on their own, in a vacuum, to solve problems and complete assignments belongs to a model of learning that became obsolete in the 19th century. No student is an island anymore, and nobody gets anywhere meaningful in complete isolation.

    The professor, and likely the entire Faculty Appeals Committee at Ryerson, belong to an era where independent work was still valued. They also belong to an era where talking pictures were all the rage, computers were giant machines that filled entire rooms and took 5 hours to perform calculations on punchcards, and people still paid typists by the page to run off copies of their theses.

    See a problem here? These people have no business shaping educational policy at a 21st century post-secondary institution. Their values are out of place, and so are their conceptions about education.

    If anything, the 21st century will be all about collaborative learning and problem solving. It will be about groups of students working together, pooling all their resources, to tackle problems an entire order of complexity higher than any of them could solve alone. Good educational policy should reflect this. It should encourage students to ask each other for solutions, not penalize them with draconian policies when they're caught doing what they've been doing for at least 2 decades already.

    In an era where one of our world's foremost minds has no qualms about posting his life's work online, and calling on mathematicians, physicists and particle theorists to read, refine and augment it, you would think that a few stodgy professors at a university claiming to be at the cutting-edge of applied sciences might want to rethink their stance on collaboration.

    They're probably too busy trying to open an email attachment in WordPerfect format.

(By the way, thanks, CBC, for the wonderful site re-design, that offers no formatting-stripped print option. I guess I missed the memo when this became acceptable practice for reputable online news sources...)

[ permalink ]  


Dear iCal team,

March 12, 2008
    Let me preface my remarks by commenting (like many Mac users) on how much the platform and its software have enhanced my productivity. I have a deep appreciation for the consistently good software that Apple releases, and I miss no opportunity to evangelize on your behalf.

    Leopard has been a huge step forward in a lot of ways for me - it's made me an even more efficient and effective computer user. But something has been bothering me consistently ever since I upgraded months ago, and it concerns the usability of iCal version 3.

    I use iCal on a regular basis, both as a schoolteacher and a university student. On Tiger it was extremely easy to create events and access / edit information related to them. I'd often have to make changes to the time of an event, or its recursion settings, or its notes. If the event drawer was visible, changing any of these things involved at most two clicks.

    In Leopard, however, not only do I need to double click on an event after it's been created to view it, I next have to click on the 'Edit' button, and then click once more on the element I wanted to change. In addition to all these clicks, the event editing callout never appears in the same place twice, which means a different mouse motion is needed each time. These features violate a number of interface design principles - recognition over recall, consistency, flexibility & efficiency of use, and user freedom.

    Conversely, the events drawer seems to me to be an excellent interface design decision: it allows users to access events in the same way, in the same location, in any view; it merges viewing with editing in a convenient and intuitive way; it doesn't cover up other events in neighboring cells during viewing or editing; and it offers a much more spacious area to display event information.

    As far as interface design goes, it's obvious to me that the better event editing interface is in iCal on Tiger. I'm sure there are even better solutions out there, though I don't pretend to know what they might look like; nevertheless, I'm convinced that what replaced the event drawer in Leopard is a step backward for usability. Using iCal has become a frustrating chore, and an uncharacteristically unpleasant step in my workflow. Please bring back the event drawer and its intuitive design, or alternatively, an even more innovative interface.

    Ever since I switched to the Mac platform, working on even the most mundane tasks has become a pleasure. The only real exception is when I'm in the iCal environment.

    I hope that, in the future, I won't need to qualify this statement. Thank you for all the work you've done to make my life easier. Keep up the innovation, and thanks for reading.

    Best regards,


    Ari.

[ permalink ]  


Classrooms in the Future

March 6, 2008
    It's no secret - I don't write enough on my own. Someday I'll overcome my perfectionism and take a more relaxed, casual attitude towards writing. Hopefully soon.

    For now, here's something I wrote for my technology methods class, in response to the following discussion question:

Technology has had a tremendous impact on the educational environment in recent years. It has changed the way that teachers teach and students learn. What will a classroom look like ten years from now? What about 50 years from now?

*     *     *

    We are moving towards a society that values information and innovation over specific skills. I believe that as we move into this future, our focus in the classroom will shift from content to process. What I mean by this is, the content we teach will gradually matter less than the process whereby students learn (reflexively).

    We are at the brink of an age of unimaginable scientific and cultural self-realization. The keys to unlocking this age are innovation, creativity and forward-thinking. If we force our future students to learn at a pace slower than that of technological advancement, we will never unlock this future.

    I will be disappointed if, in fifty years, students are still learning mathematical computation skills like long division in math class, or learning orthography and grammar in language arts. I will be disappointed, because it is unnecessary. We have moved to a point in history where we can trust technology to do the grunt work, and focus on higher-order concepts at an earlier stage in our development. If every cohort of students has to re-invent the wheel (learn long division, worry about grammar and spelling), future generations will be doomed to stagnation.

    In ten years, I would hope that 3rd or 4th grade students are learning algebra and computer programming in their classrooms. With the help of technology, these students will be able to make connections that would take years to make otherwise. I would hope that, in the future, high school students learn what today's students learn in university. Imagine what higher education could yeild if students - going in - already knew first or second-year chemistry, biology and applied sciences.

    In another half-century, I hope that the keyboard and mouse are abandoned as anachronistic. I hope great strides are taken to facilitate written communication in English (or whatever language becomes the lingua franca of the future). I want to see technology facilitate the arduous process of articulating, communicating and translating a great idea across the world.

    I am convinced, as my colleagues are, that the classroom of the future will not change in the most fundamental way. It will still be an environment that provides students with the tools of discovery and innovation. And like most future-minded thinkers, I care less about the content than the process. What the classroom of the future will look like is of secondary importance to how it will function.

    If we want to solve the world's problems, we can't afford to spend a quarter of our lives learning to do what a machine can do faster and better. We need to stand on the shoulders of giants, and trust them to help us reach those heretofore unattainable heights.

[ permalink ]  


Power to the Public Schools

June 26, 2007
    This is simply an all-around good idea - probably one of the better ones I've come across. And it came from a grade 12 student, too. A year from now, 10 high schools across Toronto will be outfitted with solar panels and windmills to generate electricity, with the surplus being sold back to the province.
    When the government drops the ball with education (as it has a history of doing in Ontario), public schools generally fall to the bottom rung of the upward-mobility ladder. This encourages the affluent middle-class peons to pull their children out and stick them in private schools where wealth and entitlement run as rampant as social anxiety disorder. While these childrens' grades are being inflated, their parents' money is no longer being siphoned through fundraising drives into the holes that property-tax revenue can't fill.
    Public schools can just accept that they're on the losing end in this vicious cycle, or actively take steps to provide for their students. And I don't necessarily mean by putting MBA graduates in the principals' offices, or by requiring each school board to hire a 'Business Supervisory Officer' to oversee insidious and exploitative private-sector partnerships.
    Let the schools compete. Let school boards accrue capital. Show students the profits. Help them think like the winning class of this historical moment. Maybe they'll feel pride. Maybe they won't feel the need to send their kids to a junior rotary club.
    Oh, and helping the environment doesn't hurt either.

[ permalink ]  


North America: Where the Exploited Exploit the Exploited-er.

March 10, 2007
    This is one of the more bizarre socialist ethical issues I've come across in the media lately.     We have a development firm hiring non-union labour to increase its profits by reducing labour costs. So far, normal. In response, we have a carpenters' union organizing information pickets outside the firm's offices. Again, normal. What isn't normal is the fact that the picketers aren't union members. In fact, they aren't even gainfully employed. The union hired people on welfare to picket the developers so they wouldn't have to do it themselves.     Who are the good guys here? Who should the socialist cheer for? The developers are the typical fat-cats, pretending that the rate of profit doesn't inherently fall under advanced capitalism. The union workers are so institutionalized - so much a part of the system - that they're actually willing to pay the unemployed to act out their class struggle. And the welfare-recipients? You just can't cheer for the lumpenproletariat - they have no class consciousness, nor will they have learned anything from this exercise. Sure they're recieving wages, but there's none of that good, old-fashioned alienation of labour going on, because the union isn't renting out its capital. It has no capital. And if it does, it shouldn't!

    I could take this opportunity to go off on institutionalized unions, for fragmenting the labour force within the same industry by selectively representing labourers. I could point out the fact that we're living in such an affluent society that even the so-called working class can afford to hire someone else to do its bidding. Heck, I could even point out the similarities between what's going on here and the active recruiting of American soldiers from urban ghettos to fight on behalf of the upwardly-mobile American middle class. But I'm sure you get the point.

    You know, just out of disgust, I think I'll tip my hat to the developers here. If these carpenters are too lazy to man their own pickets, would you want to hire them to build your low quality, cookie-cutter subdivision? I sure wouldn't. Lazy carpenters.

[ permalink ]  


Reflections from a forum on post-secondary education

September 28, 2005
    I went to a forum on post-secondary education this evening, hosted by the King's Day Students' Society on my campus. The guests were Darrell Dexter, Francis Mackenzie and Jamie Muir. The structure was as such: each official gave a five-minute opening remark, followed by two minutes rebuttal, followed by 90 minutes of questions from the floor (mainly King's students). I was somewhat disappointed that Dexter didn't manage to engage the crowd, though it was ironically amusing that the Liberal premier - forbidden from speaking about his party's platform - came across as the best speaker.
    Anyway, what I found particularly interesting about the evening was the question period that followed the half-hour of embarrassing squabbling between the Tory Minister of Education and the NDP's premier. The themes ranged from hypothetical and historical tuition freezes to the feasibility of their outright abolition; from federal and provincial government funding models for universities, to known issues of deficiency in social welfare and student loan models; even to such trivial issues as taxation on textbooks and sources of funding for infrastructure maintenance. Though I learned quite a bit from the questions and answers themselves, what I found most startling was what wasn't asked.
    It seemed that both the students and the officials had an unspoken understanding of the postsecondary institution funding model as a strictly-government enterprise: universities get funding from the province, the provinces get equalization grants from Ottawa, etc. However, the federal government and provinces also run the student loan programs, and they do so with public money only. If I had the time to stand in line by a microphone, I wish I had the chance to ask this in front of a room full of students that really didn't seem to realize that nothing should be taken for granted:
    "When I graduate this year, I will have spent in excess of $35,000 on tuition and books alone. Though I'm lucky that not all of it was borrowed funding, I will have amassed a considerable debt. Now, from my perspective, it's obvious that this debt will be paid off by the money I make from my employer. What doesn't make sense to me is, if we're such a socialist democracy, and if we openly admit that our educational policies are made based on the notion of education as training for work, why don't government officials make the link between private enterprise and student funding? If private enterprise is the institution that benefits the most from our education, why don't we see more investment in students on their part? It seems to me that the most logical, practical step to take would be to have the funding for student loans come from a pot to which private enterprise is forced to contribute as a gesture of faith in its investment. I invite the three officials at the podium to tell me how this proposal is flawed, and defend the sanctity of big business in the face of the painfully-clear relationships between enterprise and education that I've just underscored."
    Of course, it wouldn't have come out so articulate. Shame.

  Show / Hide Comments (1)

Completely agree.  There's no reason why private investors should not be funding education as ultimately the rewards are reaped.  They should be, it would just complete the circle.

    By Araz on April 7, 2007 @ 1:34am.

[ permalink ]  




Collection:  all  editorial  education  personal  technology  Go To:  1 


designed and hosted by Ari Najarian | stickbyatlas.com