Just another weblog

I am. Scared, I mean. Or at least so I hear. Of Twitter.

Seriously.

In the first sentence of this fine article, the author writes the following: “Do Twitter skeptics really believe the popular microblogging service offers no educational value, or are they just afraid of it?”

Why this dichotomy? I hate to place the latest fashion in the crucible of reason, but what educated person would be satisfied with this either/or question? It hardly seems worthy of any rhetorical attention. In fact, I would usually just move on.

But this little bugger seems to be pervasive, irresponsible, and infectious.

So let’s have at it and start with the writer’s first assumption, that those in education who are skeptical of Twitter’s value are concerned with its educational value. An educator does not need to be skeptical of the educational value of a television to be skeptical of the value of a television. Assuming that skeptical educators limit their skepticism to educational worthiness is nonsense. Yet it informs the entire question.

Second, the writer assumes that fear is a probable response to a communication tool. I know of no educators who feared the move from chalkboard to whiteboard. They may have hated it. Or, like me, they may have grown a romantic attachment to chalk only discovered when forced to part with it. But no fear.

Third and most noxious, the writer begs the question by assuming that to not use means to fear. This is fallacious. And yet the writer cannot see it as fallacious. This vexes me.

I am great with wonder how a rag calling itself Inside Higer Ed can claim an audience of educators with drool like this in its pages.

I’d be happy to dismiss this writer’s words as the work of education’s ever-growing crowd of fakers and idiots.

If I didn’t fear them so much.

The discussions about artificial intelligence in class this week were very intriguing. Throughout these discussions, I found myself wondering what exactly the word “intelligence” meant in this context. If intelligence merely refers to the ability to process logic and make an informed decision with a high probability of a positive outcome, then this field of computer science is doing a terrific job of creating artificial intelligence. In many situations, modern computers are able to make logical decisions faster than human beings. An example of this is an online chess game, that analyzes the possibilities of its opponent’s moves and almost instantly selects the move most likely to help it win. An average human would never be able to look at a chess game and instantly recognize the hundreds of different scenarios that could play out in that particular game. However, I’m not sure that intelligence only refers to logic. In human beings, an important part of nearly every intelligent decision is common sense, something that computers do not possess. In fact, computers do not possess many important features that humans do, features such as free will, long term memory, and base knowledge of language. These things constantly work together to assist humans in nearly everything they do, especially things such as decision making. Therefore, while a computer could certainly be programmed to be smart and logical, I’m not convinced that “intelligence,” at least in the sense that I think of it, can be programmed into a computer. At least, not yet.

Phi Theta Kappa team – Race for the Cure F09

Make plans now to join Phi Theta Kappa’s Race for the Cure team in 10/10!

The new recommendations for mammograms have stimulated many breast care conversations.  

Who do you know whose breast cancer diagnosis occurred only because it was detected through a mammogram screening? 

What was her age at the time of detection?

Just wanted to add another quick note about the robot lab.  I have to say again, I wished that when I was a kid we had these kinds of robot toys to learn and play with.  I thought it was really cool working with my group Thursday, and getting the robot to actually do the course.  Now that the assignment is technically complete, the time in Tuesday’s lab is really going to be “play” time.  We got it to work, but now we are going to try and make it do some other things.  I really can say that this is the first timeI had a class where I got to have “fun” playing in class!  This exercise actually got me to thinking why I did not understand intro to JAVA, I could not get it into my head you have to have a plan and tell each step exactly what to do.  With the robot you got the chance to see what you were programming.  It just made it easier to visualize.  Guess I’m outta here for now.  Later.

Artificial intelligence.  This topic went into many more areas than I really ever took the time to think about.  I always thought the idea was really cool, having a robot, or computer that could make decisions on its own.  Now I think that I will step back and just rethink that notion.  Some would already say that computers already do think for themselves, and to a degree, they do.  Now it looks like it is back to the old statement of just what defines intelligent life, or even life itself.  I don’t know if we as humans are ready to accept artificial intelligent machines, as something other than just a machine.  This reminded me of a movie that came out back in 2001, “A.I. Artificial Intelligence” by Steven Spielberg.  I did not really care for the movie, but loved the concept.  I do think that this movie shows that people really are not ready to evolve to consider machines to be anything but a machine.  I used to be one of those people who thought that is technology would be much farther along than it already is, but never thought of the complexity in the programming.  The exampleDr. Brown gave in class showing us the marker in one direction,  then changing the orientation of the object and we still knew what it was.  We only knew what it was due to the many years of learning what things are and what they do.  We as humans can anticipate a response, where as with a computer every rule has to be spelled out.  I was just amazed at how the robot could recognize the objects.  For me, this topic is something that I plan to do a little more research with.  I am curious about the possibility of creating an artificial neural network just like the way our brain works.  It still makes me step back and wonder will this happen?

Artificial Intelligence

This week after reading our assignment on Artificial Intelligence, there are many things I did not know about that goes on behind the scenes. I always associated the term, “Artificial Intelligence” with the military and the secrete things that might go on there. Now I can see AI in just about place where interaction takes place between a person and a computer or computer oriented objects.

People that play computer games are in contact with AI and probably don’t really know it. What would interest me the most in a computer game is one that looks challenging and one that can think (or make me think the game can) and respond to my choices on its own to create real life interaction. I could see if a game got that good, they could replace interaction with another person just like emails have. (Emails are a way for a person to talk to another with having to actually confront them while talking)

Here is something interesting that I had never gave much thought to but I know is true. How can a person perfect something such as a game or a robot? Lets look at a program for a game. Once a program is operational for an interaction game, one can began to think of something else that might make it better. So, a new and improved program is written. By building on the program before, there will become a time when that game program has become almost “real” to the one playing the game.

Just like robots, this holds true. To reach perfectionism, this is refined by trial and errors. That is the building block. But only one thing, a computer will never be flesh and bones with a spirit living inside of it. At some point in the future, I think that a program can be so good that we might mistake a computer for a real person.

Here are the slides I presented with my presentation on EduPunk at the 2009 Mid-Southeastern ACM Conference in Gatlinburg on 11/13/2009.

Jim Groom coined the term “EduPunk” in a blog entry in May 2008. The concept was covered in the Chronicle of Higher education the next month. I came across the term last summer through Twitter and have come to identify with the ethos.
The Punk movement manifested itself in a variety of ways, but the essential elements seem to me to be:

• Creativity
• Individuality
• Authenticity
• Non-conformity

These properties converged to create a “Do it Yourself” attitude which didn’t look to authority for how to do things, but instead found what worked for the individual as a vehicle of their own creative expression.

Although the “official” definition of EduPunk says that followers of the movement don’t use conventional tools of information transmission, I consider this a superficial element. The deeper issues are those that the EduPunks share with Punks.

Students and teachers need outlets for their creativity. In my CSIT1110 Introduction to Computer Science class I’ve tried to find interesting and fun ways for students to express themselves. This approach follows in the footsteps of Seymour Papert who wrote the book “Mindstorms: Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas,” who advocated games and other hands-on activities to foster interest and to make learning fun.

The CSIT1110 class creates web pages, programs robots, creates visual language programs in a 3D environment (Alice), and look at virtual worlds and games as part of their class work. Many of the assignments are open-ended so that students are “given permission” to be creative.

Too often, the educational system seems to be an attempt to crush the individuality out of students in favor of producing miniature copies of their instructors. Instructors also often ridicule and demean their students because of how they are different.

We should be trying to utilize these differences to channel energy into “productive” experience. This might be analogous to “Akido Education”. Akido is a martial art that attempts to use an attacker’s energy to the defender’s advantage. Instead of attacking students for playing video games, using cell phones and being addicted to various forms of media, we should be looking for ways to either incorporate these things or at least understand them well enough to see how they might facilitate learning.

Isn’t WikiPedia horrible? No, it isn’t. Sure, there are “bad” sources of information, but shouldn’t this just be another starting point of discussion? Another point should be the flexibility afforded by electronic media over printed material. The ability to change rapidly is a very important characteristic of electronic media.

Instead of criticizing “kids these days” or how things are so much worse than “in the old days,” instructors would seem to be better served by keeping up with what is going on in the world around them in order to be able to truly act an authority instead of just trying to pose as one

An authentic individual stands out as different. Most often they are ridiculed and misunderstood in their day, only to have their position vindicated with the test of time. In CSIT1110 we talk about great minds who have held onto their individuality in the face of adversity.

From the teaching side, there is power in being yourself (or some sincere version of yourself) with students. Many of them will respond in kind and this is an opening to learning.

Education is changing rapidly. The availability of open source software and the Web 2.0 environments that emerged as a result are just the beginning. Social media and collaborative environments are emerging that will allow distance learning to be better than face-to-face class offerings.

The day in which education is provided free to all is on the horizon. Traditional educational institutions need to be looking for different delivery and financial models if they are to survive and remain viable.

The EduPunks are at the forefront of the educational revolution. So… are you an EduPunk?

Do you miss reading the Chronicle of Higher Ed?  The Library has an online subscription, go to Library’s Databases page”s list of “C” databases and click on the Chronicle title and read from your office or your favorite coffee house.  Create a “free account” to get the latest higher ed news delivered in your email.

Sign up for The Chronicle’s popular daily e-mail report: Academe Today.  It keeps you up-to-date in a matter of minutes.   Subscribe to other e-mail newsletters reporting on technology, community colleges, late-breaking news, and other important topics.  All part of the Library’s subscription!

I am in the process of finishing off a thirty-meeting week.  Some were more interesting than others; a few more probably more important than most; one lasted six-and-one-half hours and required me to sit in a hard-back cafeteria- style chair for the duration.  I know that this time of year most faculty and staff at the college face similar wearying constraints on their time and energy.  Those at work in the classroom are pushing, pulling, and dragging students towards the December 18 finish line while advising and mentoring and meeting; those who work on the front lines of academic and student services are already looking towards the start of the next term on January 14 and trying to figure how to keep all 10,297 students in the right place at the right time.  A number of us took the opportunity to attend the Scholar-Donor Reception last night.  It is one of my favorite events because it gives students the opportunity to thank those who are supporting them in the pursuit of higher learning and because it lifts my spirits above the end-of-the-semester stress.

A current student, Rachel Christensen, used poetic language to describe how the faculty at the college had instilled a love of literature, honed her talent as a musician, and shown her the world — literally — on trips to Ireland, Greece, and Poland.   A graduate of the college, Roberto Martinez, praised the faculty and staff for preparing him to transfer to the University of Tennessee and helping him to become a banker and civil rights activist in the community.  The room was full of people who have made an investment in what we do — faculty, staff, students, family, foundation board members.  At times, it seems that we do nothing more than slog from one class or meeting or appointment to another.  For a time last night, it seemed like so much more than that.  The investment of time, talent, funds, and support paid off for the college and most importantly for Rachel and Roberto and all of the other scholars in the room.  For those that didn’t get an opportunity to speak to you last night, I just want to say — thanks for sharing.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

The following articles caught my attention between meetings over the course of the last few weeks.   I share them with you just in case you need something to do while waiting for your next advisee.

Assessment vs. Action

The Clock is Ticking

Defining Accountability

The Ever-Expanding University of Phoenix

Kindle for the Academic

PowerPoint Studies

Social Networks could help Community College Students

Tweeting in Class

Other than the dilemma of common sense, to be a true artificial intelligent (AI) robot, this is really the goal. The robot would have to understand the body it was enclosed in. It would need sensory integration.

My daughter has been diagnosed with Sensory Integration Disorder (SID). Basically her mind does not understand some of the sensations her body sends to her brain. An example is that she doesn’t like to be held upside down. When she feels a sensation she don’t like it causes actual pain to her. To correct these feelings she is introduced to many different textures or held at angles of gravitational pull.

 It seems to me that if we had a standard way robots was made then someone could teach the AI sensory integration the same way we would a child. I am sure it would take a long time to program everything but if all AI was the same we could just copy and paste the information. They would also have to have almost as many sensors as humans do nerves in the body.