Depolarization

I became interested in the work of the Polarization Lab after reading “Breaking the social media prism”. They propose that social media tools like other tech tools are potentially neutral, but do have great power for negative outcomes. It depends on how tools are used.

The lab is interested in studying social media polarization and testing ways to fight the trend toward polarization. How might more moderate positions be viewed and considered and how to fight the tendency to spiral toward extremism. One of the experiments involves the use of Twitter bots relaying tweets from moderate “opinion leaders” of different orientations toward participants identified as having an opposing perspective. The logic is that such content may moderate disagreements.

It is easy enough to follow these bots yourself. I thought that signing up for both bots and analyzing the content of what is shared could make a great student project or start a classroom conversation. The Twitter “handles” are @Polly4Liberals and @Poly4Conserv. I identify as a liberal so Polly for Liberals sends me “messages from prominent conservatives or right-leaning organizations”. The research body followed me back because I registered and I assume is attempting to see if the Twitter behavior I exhibit becomes more moderate.

Loading

Learners need to learn to read from both paper and the screen

Cohn (2021) argues that we read in different circumstances for different purposes and yet we tend to teach reading as if reading is a single skill. Learners would be better served if they were to be guided to explore the different types of reading they do and what tools and tactics would be best suited to these different circumstances.

This idea is important. We read for many different purposes. Do we think about which approach best serves a given purpose? As an adult thinking about my own reading behavior, I can see this complexity. I very seldom purchase a paper product for reading. There are still a wide variety of ways in which I read digital content. I read some online content and by that fact that are reading this post, so do you. How about books? I read digital books when I read to acquire information especially when I intend to store specific information for later use. I listen (audiobooks) when I read for pleasure. The read to learn versus read for pleasure is a common distinction many recognize, but college study skill experts suggest that students often struggle with acting upon this distinction in their efforts to learn from their textbooks.

If we are educators, do we consider factors as basic as the physical circumstances that impact how and when their students or themselves read. Do we want to read in a coffee shop, a library, or at our desk? When do we want absolute quiet and when is some music or coffee shop banter in the background welcomed? Perhaps the noise in a coffee shop distracts us from time to time and these interruptions provide the signal to reflect on what we are reading rather than continuing to plow ahead. We may ignore the physical realities of reading that some students must consider. Perhaps some must read on their phones on the bus or train because this is when they have the opportunity to work on class assignments. Perhaps their phone is the only device they have that can be applied in these circumstances. 

How we understand what reading involves matters. Cohn (2021) offers a set of reading goals that may or may not be accepted by the reader. The final purpose she describes is creativity. Her definition is a little different than the way I tend to think of the concept, but she proposes creativity involves the understanding that reading should result in the building of new knowledge. She argues that when we read we may not see the benefit of creating something after we read as if reading should be enough. My take on this expectation brings to mind distinction between reading for understanding and retention and pleasure. Extra effort is obviously involved when the goal is creating something even when this is not a written product. Do others not think in this way?

Chon argues that most readers and writers understand that reading and writing are knowledge transmission acts, but proposes that they should be understood as knowledge construction. This difference encourages additional processing and the utilization of additional tools. This is where instruction in the use of such tools comes in. Do teachers teach the application of such tools? Which teachers and in which subject areas? Note-taking is one activity that recognizes the connection of ideas across sources and with existing knowledge. Note-taking is another of those practices that can involve either paper or digital technology. The skills involved in these activities offer a great deal of overlap, but digital tools offers some unique advantages in storage, organization, and search aid retrieval. 

Chon proposes that educators make inaccurate assumptions about learning skills such as highlighting, annotation, and note preparation and use. She offers an example in which she  began asking her students if they had experience using pdf tools to highlight and annotate assigned content. She had been assigning pdfs and had begun to wonder how students processed these resources. She reports that 30% responded that they were highlighting and annotating the assigned material and many were unaware such tactics were possible. Her point was that educators (she teaches at a university) should not assume that computer experienced students have skills appropriate to making use of digital tools with such assignments. It struck me that this question should be asked for more educators assigning digital content.

After reviewing several sources proposing how educators might help students develop annotation/note-taking skills (also sometimes labelled as deep reading), I have begun interpreting the instructional tactics as a variant of reciprocal teaching. As instructional strategy, reciprocal teaching begins with the teacher modeling a specific skill accompanied by “thinking aloud”.  Individual components or subskils are then assigned to individual students and applied to a common reading assignment. Student experiences and any products produced are shared and discussed. Finally, students move on to the application of the combination of practiced skills and seek assistance when necessary.

With highlighting and note-taking, the skills are a bit different from those emphasized in the original focus on reading comprehension. However, the general process of teaching/learning is very similar. For example, with note-taking, the components might include the identification of essential information, the summarization of these key ideas, and efforts to cross-reference these ideas to existing knowledge and other inputs (ideas presented in class, other reading assignments). When learning these skills, some educators recommend the use of printed material before moving to digital content. Sharing individual student efforts perhaps as displayed on a classroom white board allows for discussion and analysis. 

The sources I provide below provide multiple examples of how this generalized strategy can be implemented. I understand that many may not want to purchase this material. I was able to find an alternate source for “Beyond the Yellow Highlighter”. Searching for this title should also reveal discussion and examples of implementation shared by other educators. 

Cohn, J. (2021). _Skim, dive, surface: Teaching digital reading_. West Virginia University Press.

McIntosh, J. (2019). Clip, Tag, Annotate: Active Reading Practices for Digital Texts. In _Digital Reading and Writing in Composition Studies_ (pp. 176-188). Routledge

Porter-O’Donnell, C. (2004). Beyond the yellow highlighter: Teaching annotation skills to improve reading comprehension. _English Journal_, 82-89.

Loading

The advantages of digital reading

In the past year or so, I am guessing educators have become aware of a controversy related to whether learners are best able to learn from content presented on paper or a screen.  I am certain some researchers will continue to compare the comprehension of content appearing in a book versus on a screen, but whether or not such research reaches a conclusion one way or the other (see reference from recent meta-analysis), we have already switched to heavily relying on information we can access from our devices. It makes more sense to accept that learning with a phone, tablet, or computer will be involved in a significant proportion of our learning experience and consider how best to use the unique capabilities of these devices. What does digital reading look like and what presently neglected skills are being ignored that educators can help learners acquire? 

I do many different kinds of reading and I think this is true of many learners. I read for pleasure and I read to learn. Those who study reading probably can come up with many more meaningful categories, but these two are sufficient for my argument. I like to describe these reading activities as associated with shallow and deep goals. Some who study different reading activities seem to describe deep reading a little differently than I do. My use of the term implies the intent to learn, retain, and apply information gleaned from reading. I also see an opportunity for digital reading when retention and application follow initial exposure to text by longer periods of time than would be involved in the delay until the next examination. A unique advantage of digital reading is the opportunity to externalize immediate insights and personal interpretations in ways that take advantage of storage, organization, and search capabilities of technology. Some describe this as using technology as a second brain. Accept that human memory is far from perfect. If we think about reading a little differently and consider that reading could also involve efforts at external storage, the time invested in reading to learn may have a bigger return on investment in the future.

What follows are four books (linked to the Kindle version from Amazon) that take on the notion of digital reading. Yes, I have included one of my books among them although this book is focused more on how educators can take advantage of technology to facilitate how students learn when they read. All of these sources explain what I mean by the externalization opportunities technology make available. If you want a single recommendation, it would be “How to Take Smart Notes: One Simple Technique to Boost Writing, Learning and Thinking”. I find the title a bit misleading as the text is concerned with far more than taking notes. The author considers learning from reading and learning more generally. I make this recommendation because offers both solid theory and concrete suggestions for practice. 

Grabe – Designing Instruction Using Layering Services: Educators and students guiding learning

Cohn – Skim, Dive, Surface: Teaching Digital Reading

Kalir & Garcia – Annotation

Ahrens – How to Take Smart Notes: One Simple Technique to Boost Writing, Learning and Thinking – for Students, Academics and Nonfiction Book Writers

My Diigo account should provide me notes on all of these books.

Reference:

Furenes, M. I., Kucirkova, N., & Bus, A. G. (2021). A comparison of children’s reading on paper versus screen: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 0034654321998074.

Loading

Online Privacy Demonstration

I have been reading a book on privacy (System Error) with a story and recommendation of a demonstration site I thought others might find interesting. The issue considered is how information we think to be shareable can still be used to identify us.

Latanya Sweeney, then an MIT graduate student, and anyone else who wanted, had access to the record of Massachusetts hospital visits by all state employees. These data contained no information assumed to identify individuals – name, address, social security, etc. The governor of Massachusetts contended that the privacy of those associated with these records was secure. Sweeney did not agree. She purchased a list of all registered voters in Cambridge that contained the names of voters as well as their birth date and gender. There were six people in Cambridge with the same birthday as the governor, three of these were male, and one lived in the same zip code as Weld. Sweeney cross referenced the medical records by birthday, zip code, and gender, located the governor’s records and sent him a copy.

Sweeney contends that 87% of Americans can be identified based on zip code, birth date and gender. These are variables we commonly provide without concern.

Sweeney now works at Harvard’s Data Privacy Lab. The lab offers an interesting demonstration. You enter your birthdate, zip code, and gender. I tried the demonstration and found that I could be identified as unique. This may seem amazing, but work through the math. There are likely at least three gender categories and 365 days in the year. I am 73 years old. Even though there are 35,375 individuals in my zip code, the combination of my age, gender, and birthdate identifies one person.

These data do not offer up my name. I suppose this could be determined from voting records as Sweeney demonstrated. For other purposes, this is demonstration of just how easily we can be targeted with ads or information.

Reich, R., Sahami, M. & Weinstein, J. (2021). System error: Where big tech went wrong and how we can reboot. HarperCollins.

Loading

Check yourself

The Polarization Lab (Duke University) has conducted some interesting research on political polarization. They have developed tools you can use to estimate the orientation of your Twitter feed and bots you can use to expose yourself to positions taken with the opposite orientation. The premise of their work is that exposure to different perspectives can reduce bias.

Check my echo is a tool that compares the orientation of the politically oriented Twitter accounts you follow to prominent politicians, journalists, and advocates to generate a score on the polarization of those you follow.

The Lab offers bots to expand your perspective. The bots pass on tweets liked by prominent liberals and conservatives. The idea being liberals should friend the bot forwarding tweets liked by conservatives to gain insight into the positions taken by those unlikely to show up in their feeds.

Loading

Checkology

Checkology is a great resource for educators or any individual interested in developing the skills of news literacy. It is a free and complete instructional resource – lms for creating classes and making assignments, instructional content, skill evaluation tasks, and open-ended resources for further exploration.

Educators can designate a class, select content, and invite students into the learning environment.

Loading

Battling Online Toxicity

We have learned that social media can be very inappropriate. While the promise of interaction for greater understanding is certainly there, the negativity of such interaction seems to have destroyed this opportunity leading to the expectations of many that political pressure must be put on social media services.

There may be an alternative. The idea of middleware proposes that a technology fix can be positioned between the user and the service. This concept is explained in this article from the Wall Street Journal. While the article describes the potential and approach in some depth, it lacks specific examples.

Work is underway on at least one approach. Jigsaw, a group associated with Google, has been working on the development of Perspective which proposes the use of AI to develop an API to screen comments before they are sent or before they are read. The link provides an explanation and an opportunity to test a comment you might send. Research has demonstrated that users will often make modifications in reaction to what are called nudges. The proposal is that such technology could be incorporated by social services, but also function as middleware.

While this technology exists and is being refined, you can already use a version of what is now available. Tune is a chrome extension you can add to screen comments you would be exposed to through several social media platforms.

Toxicity middleware may be coming to school technology equipment in the near future.

Loading