General – Page 2 – Learning Aloud

Solving the three party online content problem: Party rights and responsibilities

I want to offer an analysis of what I think the rights and responsibilities of the parties involved in producing, sharing, and consuming online content should be. The parties that make up this system seem obvious. What I propose is that we consider the rights and responsibilities of these three parties more carefully.

Content creators: Whether it is text, images, or videos delivered as part of a blog or social media site, content is present because someone created it. I suppose I now have to amend this claim to add “unless it was created by AI”. I created this post. I assume you have created content as well.

Content consumers: Those who view or listen to online content are consumers of that content.

Infrastructure Providers: Infrastructure providers provide the bridge between content creators and content consumers. Providers offer hosting services that accept input from creators and provide it to consumers. Infrastructure providers would include companies such as Google (Blogger), Facebook, X, Medium, Substack, companies that rent hosting services to creators (I use Bluehost), etc.

The identification of these three interconnected parties seems straightforward. Now, what about rights and responsibilities? I think of rights and responsibilities as related to the flow of information. A party either accepts the conditions established earlier in the flow or refuses to participate. A lack of participation may encourage the parties already involved to modify their expectations. When describing the rights and responsibilities among these parties, what I propose here is what I consider ethical rather than what is possible. There are ways around nonparticipation as the only option. I regard these approaches as unethical.

Content creators and infrastructure providers have early roles in this flow. At this point, what are the expectations of the infrastructure provider? What are the conditions to be assumed by the content creator? Does the infrastructure provider assume content presentation is their exclusive opportunity or can the content creator offer the same content under other conditions by other providers? Does the provider assume any editorial control beyond the rejection of obvious inappropriate material? Does the infrastructure provider pick and choose what they will accept? Revenue opportunities must be clearly understood. Are decisions made independently (e.g., ads can be added, subscription fees charged) or are such decisions collaborative and are the parties subject to a specified method for sharing any income generated?

As for the infrastructure provider and the consumer, the flow of content must be based on transparency. The ethical options for the consumer are to use the content as provided or not, but this must be an informed decision. In situations in which personal information is being collected to compensate the provider and the content creator, the consumer must understand what information is being collected and for what purpose. An important distinction here is between the use of information to target ads that directly support the infrastructure provider and content creator and the collection of information for a secondary purpose (e.g., third party ads that collect information that is used by or sold to other parties not associated with the exchange between the consumer and the infrastructure provider). Consumers should have a way to determine if either or both methods for collecting their information are being used.

The content creator and the consumer have a similar relationship. If the content requires a subscription, it is obvious what the consumer is expected to provide in compensation for the content. Including ads to generate revenue is murkier. I don’t accept that the consumer has a right to block an ad as both the infrastructure provider and the content creator have a right to compensation for content that is being consumed.

Are arrangements that work available?

The only arrangements that work in satisfying what I consider the rights and responsibilities of all parties are subscription services (e.g., Substack, Medium). It is clear what all parties contribute and get with subscription services.

I do think ad-supported system can work unless purposefully misused. Ad revenue used to work in other industries (television), but cable successfully challenged this approach by offering subscription content. In that case, consumers wanted more than a system that worked at one level. but did not provide enough.

The example I would offer to support a better ad-based approach is Brave. Brave allows content creators to sign up to receive compensation when content consumers using Brave view ad-supported content from these providers. When consumers make this commitment, they can receive compensation from companies using Brave to display ads. Yes, I said consumers receive compensation for viewing ads. Brave then provides a way those receiving this revenue can compensate the content creators. Brave takes a cut when users make this commitment.

The Brave system works when content creators are paying to share their content. Then, if consumers accept ads (they can use the system to just block ads) and if these consumers then share revenue generated with content creators, the system works. So, I pay Bluehost to provide infrastructure for sharing my blog. I have enrolled my blog with Brave. If consumers make use of Brave and use the revenue they receive for viewing ads to compensate content creators, then I should receive compensation based on how frequently my content is viewed.

I like this system as an example of what is possible. I am also realistic and will indicate that I spend far more to rent the infrastructure I use to share content than I receive from the Brave system. Part of my deficit is my responsibility. Whether readers visit my content or not is not the responsibility of the infrastructure I rent or Brave. However, I also cannot control whether a content consumer uses the Brave browser and that part of the system is not my responsibility. This is what I mean by a system that potentially address what all contribute and receive from a system.

Those readers not using Brave see Google ads rather than Brave ads on my blog.

Here is an earlier post I wrote about the Brave environment

Summary

I think there are long-term realities that will control the online experience related to how the parties involved are compensated. There are legitimate concerns related to the collection of personal information to target ads and there are legitimate concerns for how costs of operation and the compensation of content creators will be covered. Subscription-based services are one solution. This seems to be what is happening with television and more and more with online content. I think a different ad-based approach is also possible. This post attempted to offer an analysis of the factors that are responsible for the pressures for change.

Tutoring and the Big Picture

The period since the end of the COVID lockdown has been difficult for K-12 schools. Students have struggled to attain traditional rates of academic progress. Student absenteeism has reached alarming levels. Where we live some districts have struggled to find teachers to fill vacant positions and other districts are now cutting staff because of massive budget overruns. Educators feel a lack of support from politicians and groups of parents complaining about various issues and sometimes pulling their children out of one school to enroll them in another.

I certainly have no answer to this collection of challenges as it seems a proposed solution to one problem only leads to complaints due to consequences from that recommendation for a different issue. I look to educational research for potential solutions and there are certainly strategies with proven positive consequences in specific areas, but this is as far as it seems practical to go.

Tutoring has been one of the recent areas I have been investigating. My specific interest has been in the potential of AI as a substitute for human tutors, but the ample research on the effectiveness of human tutors has also been a fruitful ground for considering what proven experiences and roles AI might be applied to approximate. I have continued to review what we know about the effectiveness of human tutors and what it is tutors provide that students do not receive from their traditional classroom experiences.

For those wanting to review this research themselves, I recommend a fairly recent working paper by Nickow and colleagues (2020). This paper is both a general descriptive review of how tutoring is practiced and a meta-analysis of a large number of quality studies (96) of the effectiveness of this addition to K12 instruction. The meta-analysis considers only the impact of adult tutors, but the descriptive review does include some comments on both peer tutoring and technology-based tutoring. The technology comments were written before recent advances in AI. My summary of this paper follows.

Key Findings

I will begin with the overall conclusion. While there are more and less effective implementations and situations, adult tutoring consistently results in positive outcomes. The authors concluded that tutoring was responsible for substantial and consistent positive effects on learning outcomes, with an overall effect size of 0.37 standard deviations. The results are the strongest for teacher-led and paraprofessional tutoring programs, with diminished but still positive effects for nonprofessional and parent-led tutoring. Notably, tutoring is most effective in the earlier grades and shows comparable impacts across both reading and mathematics interventions, although reading tends to benefit more in earlier grades and math in later ones. A large proportion of the studies and tutoring activity appears focused in the first couple of years of school and in the subject area of reading. There are also far more studies of tutoring in the early grades than in secondary school. Only 7% of the studies included students above 6th grade.

Categories of tutors

The study by Nickow, Oreopoulos, and Quan (2020) identifies four categories of tutors:

Teachers: These are certified professionals who have undergone formal training in education. They are typically employed by schools and likely have a deeper understanding of the curriculum, teaching strategies, and student assessment.
Paraprofessionals: These individuals are not certified teachers, but they often work in educational settings. Paraprofessionals may include teaching assistants, educational aides, or other support staff in schools. They often work under the supervision of certified teachers.
Nonprofessionals: This category typically includes volunteers who may not have formal training in education. They could be community members, older students, or others who offer tutoring services. Their level of expertise can vary widely.
Parents: Parents often play a tutoring role, especially in the early years of a child’s education. Parental involvement in a child’s education can have a significant impact, but the level of expertise and the ability to provide effective tutoring can vary greatly among parents.

The study found that paraprofessionals are the largest provider of tutoring services, followed by nonprofessionals. The effectiveness of tutoring was found to be higher when provided by teachers and paraprofessionals compared to nonprofessionals and parents. Tutors who have teaching certificates and classroom experience were rare, but most effective in the research studies. As mentioned in the introduction to this post, the question of how schools must apply their budgets appears highly influential in whether known sources of impact can be applied.

Mechanisms of Tutoring Effectiveness

This paper reviewed mechanisms potentially responsible for the effectiveness of tutoring. While these hypothesized mechanisms were not evaluated in the meta-analysis, I find such lists useful in considering other approaches such as AI. Which of these mechanisms could AI tutoring address and which would not be possible?

The paper discusses several mechanisms through which tutoring enhances student learning:

Increased Instruction Time: Tutoring provides additional instructional time, crucial for students who are behind.
Customization of Learning: The one-on-one or small group settings of tutoring allow for tailored instruction that addresses the individual needs of students, a significant advantage over standard classroom settings where diverse learning needs can be challenging to meet. The authors propose that tutoring might be thought of as an extreme manipulation of class size. I know that studies of class size have produced inconsistent results extremely small class sizes are not investigated in such research.
Enhanced Engagement and Feedback: Tutoring facilitates a more interactive learning environment where students receive immediate feedback, enhancing learning efficiency and correction of misunderstandings in real time.
Relationship Building: The mentorship that develops between tutors and students can motivate students, fostering a positive attitude toward learning and educational engagement.

Program Characteristics

The document evaluates the variation in the effectiveness of tutoring programs based on several characteristics:

Tutor Type: Teacher and paraprofessional tutors are found to be more effective than nonprofessionals and parents, suggesting that the training and expertise of the tutor play a critical role in the success of tutoring interventions.
Intervention Context: Tutoring programs integrated within the school day are generally more effective than those conducted after school, possibly due to higher levels of student engagement and less fatigue.
Grade Level: There is a trend of diminishing returns as students age, with the most substantial effects seen in the earliest grades. This finding emphasizes the importance of early intervention.

Summary

This research and analysis paper might be summarized by proposing that schools cannot go wrong with tutoring. The paper suggests several policy implications based on its findings. Given the strong evidence supporting the effectiveness of tutoring, especially when conducted by trained professionals, the authors advocate for increased investment in such programs. They suggest that education policymakers and practitioners should consider tutoring as a key strategy for improving student outcomes, particularly in early grades and for subjects like reading and mathematics

Reference

Nickow, A., Oreopoulos, P., & Quan, V. (2020). The impressive effects of tutoring on prek-12 learning: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. https://www.nber.org/papers/w27476.

Improving peer editing

Clearly, the teacher is likely to be the most important source of guidance in developing the processes necessary for effective writing. However, peers are also an important resource. The generation of individual feedback is time-consuming and providing such feedback to a class of students multiple times would be extremely demanding. Our comments here reflect the proposal of writing experts who argue that peers as a group can likely respond more quickly than the teacher who would be working alone and the comments of peers can augment the feedback provided by the teacher. There is one more argument for involving peers (Bruning, Schraw & Norby, 2011, p. 300). Better writers at all ages appear to be better editors with poor writers often seeing little of substance that can be changed in their original first drafts. The learning of editing skills to provide a useful service to peers develops the same skills that can be applied to the student’s own work.

Peer editing has gained increased attention among researchers with the research offering greater insight as more specific issues are investigated. For example, Wu and Shunn (2021) note that most previous research has focused on the value of peer feedback in improving the document for which feedback was provided. This is a different issue than whether giving and receiving feedback results in improved performance on future writing tasks. In their research, which involved secondary students enrolled in an AP composition course, across multiple writing tasks, the researchers investigated both the impact of peer editing on the present and a future writing task. The study supported the positive impact of giving and receiving feedback on both document quality and future performance.

The proposed benefits of peer editing include (Pritchard & Honeycutt, 2007);

1 A non-threatening audience,

2 Increased opportunities to write and revise, and

3 Immediate feedback – to write and revise a lot, the teacher cannot do it all.

Note the use of the qualifier “proposed”. You might argue that some students can be quite insensitive in interacting with peers and so wonder about proposing peers offer a “non-threatening audience”. Proposed here implies that skills can be developed and offer advantages when a reasonable level of competence is present.

One should not assume that effective peer editing is a simple manner of having students exchange papers and offer the comments that come to mind. Without guidance and experience, student comments may be socially awkward and focused on the most shallow of writing skills (e.g., spelling errors).

Peers, by definition, are at approximately the same level of proficiency as those they are attempting to assist. In addition, they often lack the social skills and sensitivity to have their suggestions interpreted as helpful rather than mean. However, given some preparation, spending time responding to the written products of peers can be helpful to the peer writer and a way to develop the writing skills of the writer. (Pritchard & Honeycutt, 2007)

Here is a brief summary of a series of activities proposed by Simmons (2003) as a process for developing the skills of peer editors.

1) Teacher models editing. If possible, offer a document you (teacher) have written. Think aloud about what improvements might be made. Make the revisions and then compare the original and the revised documents.

2) Model how feedback should be communicated. Model praise. Model questioning – what was the author trying to do? Model how to offer suggestions.

3) Use peer pairs to initiate peer feedback experience.

4) Use examples from student work and student feedback with the class.

Those who have studied the development of peer editing skills want it to be understood that this is far from a one or two-lesson process. Often early efforts are a struggle. Student editors develop skills gradually and typically begin with superficial recommendations (spelling, grammar), unmerited praise (not to be confused with encouragement), or insensitive criticism. Regarding teacher expectations, it makes sense that the priorities of review applied to the work of others would be similar to changes, if any, developing writers would make with experience in their own work. Attention paid to the metacognitive processes of considering the audience and communication effectiveness of a document as a whole is more abstract than the recognition of grammatical rule violations. Hence, purposeful demonstration, discussion, and practice are important in developing editing skills whether applied to a document developed by the student or a document developed by a peer.

Peer comments should include and begin with positive comments. What did you like? The targeted writing skills will change as the goals of writing change either with experience or purpose.

A computer and classroom whiteboard or projector combination is a great way for the teacher to model and provide examples. Writing tools that save comments and recommendations and writing tools that allow a comparison of drafts offer the teacher an external representation of author or peer editor thinking and provide the teacher something tangible to address. What challenges were recognized and what changes were actually implemented? We provide some examples of such capabilities in our online resources.

One interesting model for upper-elementary developed by Sarah Dennis-Shaw appears on the ReadWriteThink site. This model suggests that students offer peers comments, suggestions, and corrections.

Compliments

e.g., My favorite part was ___ because ___

Suggestions

e.g., If you gave more details, I would be certain I can understand what you mean.

Corrections

e.g., I found this misspelled word – mispell

It is worth the effort to review Dennis-Shaw lessons no matter what grade level you work at as the online resources are quite specific in outlining the steps in the instructional process and also provide sample instructional materials. For example, what might a writing sample used in the training phase look like? We also recommend that you do an Internet search for rubrics or checklists that might be suited to your own instructional circumstances (e.g., Simon Williams rubric)

References

Bruning, R.H., Schraw, G.J., Norby, M.M. (2011). Cognitive psychology and instruction (5th ed). Boston: Pearson.

Pritchard, R. J., & Honeycutt, R. L. (2007). Best practices in implementing a process approach to teaching writing. Best practices in writing instruction, 28-49.

Simmons, J. (2003). Responders are taught, not born. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 46(8), 684-693.

Wu, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2021). The Effects of Providing and Receiving Peer Feedback on Writing Performance and Learning of Secondary School Students. American Educational Research Journal, 58(3), 492-526.

Flashcards – I

Giving Flashcards a New Look

I thought you might appreciate a different example from the type of thing I tend to focus on explaining how a study technique used by students at all levels might be improved through the use of digital technology. When I taught educational psychology I included presentations on what I considered the classic recommended techniques – e.g., SQ3R, Cornell Notes. As I have explained in other things I have written on this general topic I would also ask how many of the students were aware of these strategies and then how many were using them in our class. Most were familiar with at least these two, but I can’t remember anyone ever saying they were using these approaches. Most took notes, but not Cornell notes and then they studied these notes. They tended to highlight the assigned reading content.

A topic I mentioned because I knew the strategy, but did not spent a lot of time on was flashcards. I have thought about why the use of flashcards was not a topic I discussed more since. I think at the time this was because there seemed a stigma associated with learning methods that were considered rote and not the way to develop understanding and a long term benefit. I kind of see a similar attitude surfacing from time to time now and it is often in the context of “why would you expect someone to store that in memory when they can just look it up with Google”?

I have changed my mind about flashcards. I think the students had a more realistic perspective than I did. They knew flashcards worked for them. I also think my perspective on effective learning has also changed some as I have read more about how humans learn. I have to decided to generate at least two posts on digital flashcards. I will being with what is mostly a tutorial describing a digital flashcard system I like. Eventually, I will provide additional content explaining what research has to say about study strategies that can be implemented with flashcards.

Elementary students have used flashcards to drill on math facts for decades and I commonly see university students studying for anatomy or geology examinations using nearly the same procedure. Flashcards provide individuals or individuals within small groups a way to systematically practice retrieval and evaluate understanding both of which are important and documented ways to improve performance and retention (Rohrer, & Pashler, 2010). I assume you understand how flashcards are traditionally used from observation if not from personal experience. In a typical approach a student has a stack of cards with a question on one side of each card and a response on the other side. Elementary math fact cards may have been purchased commercially, but the review material used by college students was probably generated by the learner. When a few minutes are available, a student brings out the cards and begins going through the stack. Do you know the answer to the math problem? Do you remember the origin and insertion for the muscle listed? You flip the card over to see if you were correct. Perhaps you developed a variant of this approach you thought improved the process. You may have discarded each card after initial consideration into a “I know that” pile or a “I don’t know that pile” and then spend more time with the “I don’t know that pile” instead of going through the entire stack a second time.

Researchers have considered how the use of review techniques of this type might be optimized. These techniques might involve how frequently you view cards with information you do not know versus cards with information you do know or on how many different days you review material. Some of these findings and other inherent advantages of digital media are now incorporated in free or low-cost software or services you can find and use online or download to your personal device.

So, I might begin by asking the question, How might flashcards on the computer, a smartphone, or tablet offer advantages in comparison to the standard paper variety? I don’t think this is another version of the paper versus screen debates that now seem common, but some could see it that way.

What follows is an example of a flashcard application and then a consideration of the unique opportunities this and similar applications offer. These examples makes use of Flashcards Deluxe (information about this application and a few other flashcard options appears at the end of this segment); an app for the iPad or iPhone.

Flaschards Deluxe. A classroom example I sometimes use to explain that technology is not confined to the classroom we call the Turtle River Water Quality Project. One aspect of this project involved the collection and identification of macroinvertebrates. The prevalence of different macroinvertebrates (organisms without a backbone that can be viewed without aid of a microscope) can be used to evaluate water quality. Some macroinvertebrates can tolerate poor quality water and some cannot. So the collection and identification of macroinvertebrates allows a way to evaluate the “health” of a body of water.

Before making the trip to collect specimens, a teacher might want to prepare students by familiarizing them with the set of organisms they might encounter. This task involves learning to associate the name and whether an organism is tolerant of pollution with an image of the organism. Imagine a three-sided flash card – if there was such a thing. One side might contain an image of the organism, the second side would contain the name of the organism, and the third side would indicate whether the organism was pollution tolerant. If this were possible to create as a physical, paper card, the student would look at a picture, attempt to remember the name and tolerance of the organism, and then flip the card to check the information recalled or view the correct information. The student would then move to the next card and repeat the process.

The digital equivalent, created with Flashcards Deluxe, would work like this. The student would view the image appearing on the first card trying to remember the name of the organism and whether or not the organism is an indicator of healthy water (see Figure Front View). The student would then “tap” the image to flip the card and reveal the name of the organism and would tap the card a second time to reveal whether or not the organism is associated with healthy water (see Figure Composite Feedback). Selecting the “check mark” or “X” appearing at the bottom of the card would indicate whether the student had judged performance to be adequate or not and would move the student to the next image. When the student reached the end of the deck, all cards associated with a judgment of inadequate recall would automatically be repeated.

Front view of Flashcard Deluxe Card

Back views of Flashcards Deluxe Card

Individual flashcards are created using the following template. Text, images, and sound are added to the slots on this template representing the three sides of a card.

This video provides more details on this tool.

Digital Advantage

What case can be made for the digital version of flashcards? Here are some thoughts on potential advantages. All of these characteristics are available in some products or services, but not necessarily in all so you would want to review the capabilities of a given product before investing a lot of time.

A) Multiple media – Some digital flashcards can incorporate images and sounds (e.g., our example). If the value in multimedia flashcards is not obvious, consider situations in which the study task involves identification of orchestra instruments by the sound the instruments produce, recognition of vocabulary in a foreign language class based on listening rather than reading, or the identification of molecular structures in biochemistry. These would be study situations that would be difficult or impossible to address with paper index cards. You can create multimedia resources yourself. For example, you can collect images with your phone and use these images to create study materials. Would this be useful in preparing for biology or anatomy lab practicals?

B) Existing and shareable review materials – There are massive collections of existing review materials already available for a wide variety of academic areas. There appear to be basic standards or at least common formats for exporting sets of cards so that many of the resources developed through one service can be used on the software provided by other vendors. These collections can be downloaded, combined, and edited by individual students to best address personal study goals. It will often be more efficient to take a large existing collection and delete the cards not appropriate for your class than to create a new stack from scratch. A teacher can do the same thing and then share a set of cards optimized for a specific class with students. We include links to several vendors who store and share collections at the end of this section.

C) Data and suggested review strategies – It might be best to consider what we are describing here as study systems rather than just study materials. In addition to the information to be learned, these systems can keep track of performance on individual items and data such as the last date a given card was reviewed. If the student is so inclined, some systems can present items that cause the student difficulty more frequently or even schedule which content should be reviewed on a particular day within a designated time period. This is where our previous reference to what research can tell us about optimized review and rehearsal comes into play. Computers are good at keeping track of and applying numerical performance data. So, it turns out that free or low-cost digital resources offer more than the option of thumbing through the stack of cards you carry in your backpack. If you presently make use of “flashcards” or see such resources as having a use in classrooms that are or will be your responsibility, we encourage you to explore the following resources. I have included some resources that can be used from a computer and some from a tablet.

Resources:

Sites providing repositories of flash cards:

Flashcard Exchange

Quizlet

Flashcard products:

Quizlet is an online system you can use with your browser. Study existing stacks or create your own.

Flashcards Deluxe – This application is available for the iPad and iPhone from the Apple App Store. The application was created by OrangeOrApple.

Attacks on Higher Education

My own story includes a career working in higher education so I suppose that is mostly responsible for my reactions to what now seem to be the attacks on my occupation. I always want to point out one fact. The state through the legislature and the budget controlled by the legislature fund less than a third of the cost of state institutions. Yet, legislatures can pass laws that dictate how these institutions function. Most revenue necessary to run institutions must be generated by the institutions through tuition, grants, and donations and institutions must compete for these resources.

Two of the issues that some states want to control are the curriculum (what is taught) and tenure. These two issues are interrelated in this way. Tenure protects faculty members against even their own institutions. Since tenure gives a professor job security for decades, undercutting it is one way conservatives can more easily change campus culture, experts say, as well as fight against the liberal values they claim have taken over schools. For example, In Indiana, legislation is being proposed to review tenured professors every five years based on “free inquiry, free expression, and intellectual diversity.” Tenure is intended to be based on productivity and teaching quality, but the practice is being challenged because of what is being taught rather than issues of quality performance.

The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) released data showing that in the fall of 2021, only 24 percent of faculty in U.S. colleges held full-time tenured appointments, compared to 39 percent in the fall of 1987. Rather than hire for tenure-track “lines”, more and more institutions are hiring adjunct faculty and more and more instruction is being delivered by adjunct faculty members. I saw this happen in the department for which I once served as chairperson and I thought this approach created a divisive class system. Tenure is already a probationary period with no commitment to the long term and all of us know profs who simply were let go because there was a financial challenge rather than a performance issue.

Anyway, this post is really about the motivation for eliminating tenure which despite other issues seems most basically about political control of institutions. The core complaint seems to be that college faculty are too liberal (or progressive whichever you prefer) which is proposed to be relevant because these values are being passed on (indoctrination is a common description) to unwary or cowed students. Efforts have been made to determine the accuracy of the first claim and seem to show few students actually claim they feel pressured. The second issue is more difficult and I think really breaks down into two underlying claims; a) liberal values are taught beyond what would be the appropriate information for a course, and b) students are afraid to voice opposition when issues of opinion as opposed to facts are discussed or are penalized in some way when they do challenge opinions or facts.

Party affiliation versus values:

Complaints when it comes to what is being taught seem to come primarily from one party. Why? Party labels seem far less helpful when reacting to accusations than specific values. I doubt many educators focus on party when teaching their content, but values and facts related to values could sometimes be the focus of instruction. I am not so naive to argue that party affiliation and values are not at least moderately correlated, but even knowing this I think a lot about why this is the case. Shouldn’t values be more important and what are the specific values taught that Conservatives reject?

I think people hide behind general labels. I assume that values determine party affiliation and not the other way around. Declared party affiliation could also be associated with combinations of values. Owning up to specific values and beliefs is what is really important. Owning up to the beliefs professed by your party is also at least important to consider. It seems cowardly to say there are too many Democrats on college faculties rather than to claim you object to the discussion of the causes of prejudice, inequity, and privilege or whatever other values you find objectionable.

PEW has done a lot of data collection on values and party affiliation in trying to provide data about education and other issues. They have a simple questionnaire about specific values allowing anyone to compare their specific values to political categories from extreme progressive to extreme conservative. I encourage you to take it for two reasons: a) see where you fall on the political continuum and b) consider the issues raised in assigning you to a given category and why they could be interrelated.

Pew Survey

I fell toward the end of political spectrum PEW classified as embellishment liberal (13% fall into this category).

PEW summarizes folks like me in the following way.

“They hold liberal positions on nearly all issues and support an expanded role for government and a larger social safety net. They also hold liberal attitudes on issues of racial and ethnic equality. Establishment Liberals are more likely than any other group to say that compromise is how things get done in politics. About half say they are satisfied with the way things are going in the country today, and an overwhelming majority say they approve of the job Joe Biden is doing as president.”

However, what I think is more important is what I think about specific items PEW used to arrive at these generalities.

The PEW survey presents items as a forced choice. See the following example:

Once, you have completed the survey, the system reviews your responses and compares your answer to the probability of others in your assigned group and to all respondents. So. in the following example, 61% of all those responding and 80% of the others assigned to the Establishment Liberals category agreed with my choice.

I recommend the PEW survey as it could recommend a level on which discussions could occur. I can explain why there are specific areas in which I think the country could benefit from government oversight and a safety net. You might disagree, but at least that would offer something concrete to talk about. Isn’t the level that a discussion should occur in a political science classroom.

Party affiliation among higher education educators.

Efforts to get academics to claim their party orientation do indicate that there is a general progressive orientation. Such data sources also show that political orientation varies significantly with discipline.

Perhaps the concern of the Republicans is more driven by the increasingly progressive leanings over time. This time difference is consistent by discipline (see above) and quite abrupt in recent years. Notice the shift beginning in 1997 or so. Initially, this shift seemed to be marked by fewer Conservatives toward more Liberals with a later shift from Moderate toward Liberals. The makeup of higher ed faculties changes gradually so it seems unlikely this rapid shift was the result of hiring alone.

Analysis

There is an expression sometimes applied when commenting on software applications – Is it a feature or a bug? Does the system contain an error or is the system doing what it is doing by design? Perhaps my rephrasing gets to the real issue here. What is the purpose of higher education and education in general? You have a sense of this issue when you hear some politicians complaining higher education does not focus enough on employment and has too many majors that are not directly tied to specific jobs. Why are there so many liberal arts requirements and so few STEM requirements? Do K12 and college students really need to learn about the history of slavery and continuing inequities related to race, gender, and generational differences in wealth? I happen to think so and these facts are relevant to the content I taught. Maybe those in math, physics, and coding don’t, but an important argument can be made relevant to these areas of study as well. Consider the present questions and reflection raised by the movie Oppenheimer. There is even the question of bias that keeps popping up because AI ends up statistically replicating the existing biases in the mathematics and algorithms generating the responses to AI prompts based on the corpus of content used to construct large language models (LLMs). Instead consider the old CS saying – garbage in, garbage out. Perhaps we need to recognize that it is now skewed values in, skewed values out. Values cannot be isolated by job category and why need to be concerned with the development of values in everyone.

Ranked imperfect actions to fix big tech

I recently listened to part of the Senate hearing focused on Big Tech and online child abuse. While recognizing multiple complaints, many legitimate, focused on Big Tech, I am beginning to have a small level of annoyance with the political committees. My reaction to the committee attitude is often – OK, you have identified a problem. You don’t seem to have a solution you want to put forward in legislation beyond complaining about Big Tech and expecting them to come up with a solution. I am not a fan of large technology companies but the situation always seems complicated to me with conflicting values generating complaints and accusations. Since I assume Congress can impose regulations, I want to see the specific solutions they threaten to impose and give everyone a chance to react.

The following is a challenge I sometimes give myself. Here is the problem. I understand some of the issues and ask myself what would I have Congress require. Then, I try to consider what the consequences would be and what complaints would be advanced. I have come up with an ordered list of my recommendations, but first I want to identify some of the common counter-arguments I have considered.

Challenges that are barriers to many potential solutions:

Big is necessary for many services. The most obvious example I can think of would be AI. I know that even major universities cannot independently develop and evaluate the powerful models of big tech companies because of the cost. University researchers do have a more independent view I would like to see in important conversations but doing research and development is difficult. Mandated regulations are easier for big companies to satisfy limiting important competition. Added responsibilities are easier for existing companies with a large user base and solid revenue to address added requirements. Fear of legal action is also more threatening to a company without the cash flow to hire legal counsel and the funds to pay penalties.
I see anonymity as a problem because it allows big tech to be blamed for the behavior of bad actors. Rather than going directly after bad actors demands are made of the platforms the bad actors use. This is the issue addressed by Section 230, but 230 is under attack. Anonymity is defended because it is argued some users need to have their identities protected – children with personal concerns that their parents reject, women hiding from abusive partners, citizens living under oppressive rulers, etc.
Free speech and who gets to interpret what free speech allows is a concern. Given how some politicians use the free speech argument to defend their own behavior trying to regulate harassment and bullying among citizens seems to be problematic. If teens call a peer fat is that free speech?
What would actually change? dana boyd (Microsoft researcher and expert on online adolescent behavior) makes the following argument concerning how politicians see many problems. She contends that most problems have multiple causes with online behavior being one. She argues that the nature of our culture creates an environment such that whatever would be done about Big Tech would result in very little change in the challenges of adolescence.
We as a society become locked into a model we mistakenly understand to be free. We are wrong because we pay for many online services by our assumed attention to ads, but it is the perception of free that is the problem.
Equity – those able to pay for services are less vulnerable in that we can exercise greater control over known threats.

I do not claim that my ordered list of possible actions resolves what I think of as conflicting challenges, but I wanted to recognize these challenges that must be recognized. You may have others you would add to the list.

What I mean by an ordered list is that unless items at the top of the list are addressed, items lower on the list will either be difficult to implement or implementation will be less effective.

I am going to try to present items on my ordered list using a specific structure. In some cases, this is more challenging than in others. I first intend to present a problem, then identify a mechanism that enables the problem (flaw), and finally propose a concrete action that could be taken.

Problem One – lack of competition limiting options that could be based on what users believe to address a personal need. Flaw – the network effect locks individuals into an inferior service because that is where colleagues are. Solution – depending on the service politicians could require that interoperability and easy movement of personal data be provided.

Note: Cory Doctorow makes the argument that many of the nation’s problems will not likely be addressed without better knowledge and communication. I am simply extending his argument to suggest that until online participants have options that address their personal needs and concerns meaningful change will be far less likely. Interoperability and easy movement of data are practical ways to challenge the perception of being locked in.

Problem Two – Collection of personal information. Flaw – the revenue model of big tech is largely based on the collection of personal information to allow targeted ads and communication. Companies pay far more for personalized rather than random access and this higher revenue is what allows for the infrastructure, research and development, high salaries and return to investors necessary to maintain big tech. Solution – the best solution would be to deny or limit the collection of personal information. Making third-party cookies illegal would be helpful, but denying the use of ads and forcing a subscription-based revenue approach would be a better solution. Ad blocking at present is a gray ethical area as it provides no alternative to support work. Moving the financial model to subscriptions would be ideal. Requiring companies to provide ad-supported and ad-free options makes some sense, but presents an equity issue in that more vulnerable people would likely accept what would be an objectionable situation. BTW – my selection of my first priority was related to the equity issue and the importance of meaningful alternatives.

3. Problem – big is necessary for R&D. Flaw – the R&D function of higher education does not allow the budget to contribute to many of the issues now addressed by big tech. Solution – Fund a competitive consortium of higher ed institutions to focus on R&D issues ignored by big tech and evaluate strategies used by big tech for consequences that may be damaging.

4. Problem – holding tech companies accountable for the actions of anonymous bad actors that use tech platforms. Flaw – individuals responsible for actions cannot be identified because of anonymity. Solution – require verification of identity for use. Companies could maintain this information and release it when required by authorities. Issues – increased cost and time, distrust of those who control and access identify data.

5. Problem – online services are addictive increasing dependency even when experiences are negative. Flaw – companies are motivated to increase the amount of use to show more ads. Solution – eliminate easy sources of reward (likes, shares) in favor of more effortful reactions (comments). Note – moving to a subscription model would remove the incentive for showing more ads – see problem 2.

So this is my list. I think what I propose is concrete and that is important in comparison to blaming and failure to define actual options. I invite others to react and to generate concrete actions they think could be implemented.

*****

Like many focused on educational uses of technology, I spend some time exploring AI applications. When sharing AI-generated content, I intend to differentiate what I have written from what I have used AI to create.

I asked ChatGPT to comment on the advantages and disadvantages using moving from ad-supported content and services to a subscription model. I thought the response was worth sharing.

The shift towards subscription models over targeted advertising is a transformative approach that promises a host of benefits, albeit with some trade-offs. Here’s a balanced view on how requiring a subscription instead of relying on targeted ads could shape the future of content consumption, user privacy, and business models.

Pros:

Enhanced Privacy and Security: The most significant advantage of a subscription-based model is the protection of user privacy. Targeted advertising relies on collecting vast amounts of personal data to tailor ads, raising concerns about data misuse and privacy breaches. A subscription model eliminates the need for data harvesting for advertising purposes, thereby enhancing user privacy and reducing the risk of data breaches.
Improved User Experience: Subscriptions can lead to a cleaner, more enjoyable user experience, free from the clutter and intrusion of targeted ads. This can increase user satisfaction and engagement, as content is no longer interrupted by irrelevant or annoying advertisements.
Predictable Revenue Streams: For content creators and platforms, subscriptions provide a stable, predictable source of revenue. This can be especially beneficial for smaller creators or niche platforms, which might struggle to attract advertising dollars but have a dedicated user base willing to pay for quality content.
Encourages Quality Content: A subscription model incentivizes the creation of high-quality, valuable content. Since revenue is directly tied to user satisfaction and willingness to pay, there is a stronger focus on producing content that meets or exceeds user expectations.

Cons:

Barrier to Entry: A subscription fee can act as a barrier to entry, potentially alienating users who are unwilling or unable to pay. This could limit the audience size, particularly in markets where consumers are accustomed to free content supported by ads.
Subscription Fatigue: As more platforms adopt subscription models, users may experience subscription fatigue, feeling overwhelmed by the number of subscriptions they need to manage and pay for. This could lead to a churn rate increase as users prioritize their subscriptions based on value and budget constraints.
Reduced Reach for Advertisers: For advertisers, subscription models mean reduced access to potential customers. Targeted advertising allows brands to reach specific demographics with precision, but a subscription model limits this reach, potentially impacting sales and marketing strategies.
Financial Risk for Creators: Switching to a subscription model presents financial risks, especially if the existing audience is not willing to convert from free to paid content. This could lead to a temporary or permanent dip in revenue during the transition period.

In conclusion, while the shift towards subscription models offers promising solutions to many concerns associated with targeted advertising, it is not without its challenges. Balancing user privacy, content quality, and financial sustainability will be key to successfully implementing this model.

New Project

I am trying something different with one of my longer writing projects.. My wife and I had a 15 year run with a commercial textbook for the “technology for teachers” undergraduate teacher preparation course. Fifteen years translates as 5 editions of the book. This course does not generate the review of a large lecture course (e.g., Introduction to Psychology), but there is less competition in the area of our book and we did well financially.

As we gained a lot of experience allowing us to analyze the textbook industry and the niche in which we published, we became very aware of the backlash against textbook costs (ours sold for $140 to students) and began to identify issues a traditional textbook for this niche could not address.

We came up with a plan to publish a much shorter version we called a Primer and wanted to match this with online resources. We proposed a $29 Primer and intended to serve the online content ourselves. I still think some of our arguments for this approach make sense. For example, those intending to teach high school and early elementary have very different interests in what to do with technology. Why not provide the basics in a Primer and then a larger variety of content for specific content areas and grade levels online? Technology is a field that moves quickly and keeping content current is a tremendous challenge. Not only did we publish once every three years, but 9-12 months were set aside to generate the next edition. You see the time lag that is created. Why not write online continually to keep a given textbook current?

Textbook companies think differently about their relationship with the authors they hire. A proposal such as paying someone to write continuously does not make sense to them even though they might appreciate the issue of keeping content current. They typically have a couple of books in a niche and their field reps encourage the adoption of the most recent book in a niche. This is more because of the used book market than the issue of currency and the issue of a general approach rather than what would be best for a given book is the perspective they take. At the time (this has changed since), combining online content with a physical product was also a foreign idea that did not translate as easily into income.

Anyway, we agreed to go our separate ways and were given our copyright back so we could pursue our interests with another company or with an outlet such as Kindle.

We continue to offer a version of this textbook through Amazon. I developed a second resource (Layering for learning) which was not really a full-length textbook, but concentrated on specific online services I proposed educators could use to make more effective use of web pages and online videos. It is this second “book” that I have decided to take in a different direction.

My professional writing activities have long been mostly a hobby. We made our money on our original textbook, but now my work is mostly about exploring topics in online publishing. Instead of $140, the online textbook sells for $9. Same basic book. I think it appropriate content that takes considerable time to create be treated as having value and I have always require some payment for my professional work even if mostly symbolic. So, what other outlet and approach can I explore as an alternative to Amazon?

Here is my new project. I am updating my layering book and serializing it on Medium. If you have not used Medium directly, you may have encountered work offered on Medium through a search engine. Sometimes you could read what the search engine found and sometimes you may have found that the content was behind a paywall. There are two competitors in this space – Substack and Medium. With Substack, if an author wants to be compensated for her work, she requires readers to subscribe to her work for a price. A reader makes a specific commitment (usually $5 a month or so) to specific authors. With Medium, you pay a subscription fee ($50 a year) and then read whatever you want from as many authors as you want. Medium takes a cut and then allocates the rest to the authors based on several variables they use to define value. Like other social outlets for the vast majority of writers, you receive little money (I hope to make enough to cover my own Medium subscription fee). I think of it as a way to keep score. Do people find what I write interesting and of value? What are the options for those who generate the kind of content I create and how do different options compare?

If you are not a Medium users, I think you are allowed three free reads a month and the Introduction to my serialized book is explained in greater detail.