I have been thinking about how we ended up with the situation in which our online information services feed our personal biases. As an old-timer, I remember the time when we hoped the online world would make us better informed and more aware. I think we thought this was a good thing as we would have a more accurate understanding of the world that surrounds us. We could search or explore and be accurately informed. This was before the claims that we lived within a filter bubble and were likely consuming fake news.
I found Google’s original page rank algorithm appealing. As an academic researcher, I was familiar with the use of citation frequency to service the most influential work. Of course issues bias were identified, but the approach seemed reasonable. Page rank is actually more sophisticated and attempts to weight the importance of the source of the links rather than just counting the number of links. It didn’t take long for this system to be gamed by creating links simply to falsely promote content without actually using the content in any way. The weighting of links based on the importance of the linking pages somewhat mitigated this problem, but even this would be played. Pages of meaningless links connecting to pages of meaningless links limited the value of noting the weighting of the link source. Google we not on to add other signals in an attempt to improve the weighting algorithm.
In my opinion, Google lost its way or gave in when it began to use personal history as a signal. Once you start biasing what you want to see rather than focusing on the quality of the content, the slope of decline accelerates greatly.
Other information sources came later to the game and jumped immediately to biased content. Once the user self-selects information sources (friends), biased content is pretty much assured.
Perhaps the fundamental flaw in the present information system is the conflation of social with information source. Tools such as Twitter and Facebook are used both to socialize and to learn. While it is certainly useful to discuss and debate important sources of information, but this should follow exposure to balanced information sources rather than information sources biased toward one legitimate position of another.
I think the Google News finally has a good idea. Google will provide content based on personal biases, but it also provides selected content delivered to all users. There is value in making this distinction and making the difference clear to users.
I see several bloggers have offered summer reading suggestions for teachers. I also see a less frequent message that teachers should not be shamed into working during their summer break by those making such suggestions. I come down on the side of the summer is a time to reflect and develop personal skills. Of course, there should also be time for family and recreation.
I am a big advocate of reading. This seems one of the most cost effective and deep ways to consider important topics and get ideas for application. Summer also offers the opportunity for attending a conference or two. I considered attending ISTE this coming week, but decided I could read 200 Kindle books for my estimation of the travel, lodging, and registration costs. There is simply no way ISTE could offer me anywhere close to the same quantity, depth, and variety of information.
I read a lot of different things and much of what I read is not intended to inform my vocational focus on educational technology. I have more general interests in politics, equity, the economy, and healthcare. All things considered, these topics are likely more important to the process of educations and the support of the next generation than what is covered in the educational content I consume. Just for the record, I am presently rereading the following two books mostly because I intend to assign them in my Fall grad course.
When I select books for students in my educational technology classes, I tend to look for two kinds of books. I have been searching for terms that describe these two categories of books. I have settled on textbooks and trade books. What I have in mind does not fit the typical definition of a trade book which implies the book is written for a general audience. I decided to stick with these two terms because the two terms have been used in the way I intend by others.
I have written both types of books and just updated what I would describe as my (actually our) textbook. If reading is assigned for a grad course, I would argue that the first priority should either be a textbook or primary source (research articles) content. A trade book or two might then be used to focus on a specific topic. My reasoning is related to what I think these two options are designed to accomplish.
My classification scheme is based on the assumption of the following characteristics.
A textbook covers multiple interrelated topics for readers of a given level of experience and background. For each topic. It covers any important differences of opinion with supporting evidence for alternate positions. It offers a few examples of applications so readers can develop a basic understanding of what that topic suggests and what differences of opinion associated with that topic mean for implementations.
A trade book makes an unapologetic argument for a position but typically makes little attempt to argue the strengths of competing positions. Contrasting positions might be identified but typically only to point out weaknesses. Trade books often discuss the application of the targeted position in depth and are more likely to provide specific examples suited to different environments for these applications (grade level, content area).
When making personal decisions, I suspect that practitioners gravitate toward trade books and to specific books based on what they hear from colleagues and social media. As an individual selecting required reading for these same individuals, I want to make certain that practitioners understand the strengths and weaknesses of positions they might be exposed to elsewhere. If the evidence clearly supports one position or another, I see it my obligation to say so. If there are competing positions with credible support, I assume I should be more neutral, but maintain a commitment to help practitioners understand some of the complexities that are important to acknowledge.
My own writing contains an example of each type of book.
Layering for learning explains tactics educators can use to add prompts of different types of online content to facilitate learner processing of that content. In other words, this book considers how to modify online content to become an educational resource.
Sometimes identifying a problem is, in fact, a contribution. I wish I knew how to address this challenge. If I have a concern related to the professional reading of practitioner, it would be this. Practitioners are likely to gravitate toward trade books. There is nothing that really provides a critical context. Textbooks are typically not appropriate as they are written for formal instructional circumstances that are assumed to cover multiple topics. What is typically not available is a source that takes a given topic and explores the multiple recommendations advanced for classroom actions associated with that topic. I can point to this type of review for researchers, but not for practitioners. There is a third meaningful category that seems not to exist probably because there is little interest in paying for this type of content.
The filter bubble is a tough adversary. It is seductive. You see what you want to see and what you want to see is what you like rather than what challenges you. Technology has learned how to make us feel good about what we believe. Unfortunately, this is a problem. It makes us feel certain in our own biases.
Like so many teach questions, Google uses its algorithms to learn about what we want and to deliver what we want on demand. In what I think is a bold move, it has recognized the way it pushes our own biases and has created a solution.
Google News has a new look and works in a different way. If you were a News user, you may have noticed the change and been baffled. Here is how I understand the change. Google offers us a way to follow our favorites and a way to review more independently curated important news of the day.
If you look at the left-hand column, the topmost entry is Top Stories. The stories are considered by the editors to be important to know AND in most cases allows links to multiple sources (News for all). The second entry is “For You” and is responsive to your preferences (News for you).
The core idea is that all should have a perspective on common important news and should understand this information in an unbiased way. I would suggest that this is innovative, but it might also be thought of as a return to the days of Edward R Murrow or Walter Cronkite when most saw the same stores presented from the same perspective. If one takes the time to read a couple of perspectives on the most important stories, the new model may be even better. Even if you study the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal you are subjected to consistent, but minor biases. Read both and you would have a complete picture from quality journalists.
For a time, educators have been enamored of the growth mindset. Now, it appears that the concept, like so many other educational fads, has limited value. Research show little benefit from promoting the idea with students.
It is/was an idea educators liked. For me, it was a new term applied to an old idea with a twist (the strange notion that Dweck somehow integrated an old idea with some flawed interpretation of brain plasticity). The brain plasticity thing was promoted as a way to encourage sticking with the effort focused on learning because science tells us you can change the brain through repetition. This is kind of true, but the repetition required to “rewrite” the brain is far more than an extra hour or so of studying.
As parents, coaches, and educators we like to promote the notion of “trying”. When I was a kid, the sportscaster used to sign off his daily show by saying:
A winner never quits and a quitter never wins.
For me, the fixed and growth mindset idea was a simplification of attribution theory. I liked attribution theory better as it seemed more complete. I liked to explain an attribution as an explanation for performance given to others and to the self. This is pretty clear what “to attribute” means. The four categories of attributions were luck, other, ability, and effort. Ability and effort seem similar to fixed and growth. Attribution theorists also noted we attribute success and failures to others and to luck. A considerable body of research exists with something called attribution retraining. Again, the goal was to get the individual to be changed to move toward effort attributions. Note the similarity of encouraging a growth mindset.
One of the issues with this model is that some behaviors are in fact influenced by ability (I prefer aptitude). The reality is that in many competitive life situations some goals will not be met. Some premeds will not be admitted to medical school. Some high school students will not make the 12 player varsity basketball team. Life does force us into accepting an aptitude attribution. When I teach this model, I like to suggest that dealing with accepting a lower aptitude is life’s way of suggesting we should focus on something we are good at. This can be a good thing. What happens to the premed who fails to accept the Cs in calculus and chemistry and persists? What about those of us advising such students? Knowing the odds even with retaking these courses, if a student is really giving his or her best effort, should the student be encouraged to continue to invest time and money.
I tend to think about situations like this as a function of a whether a goal is competitive or not and whether the environment can be changed or not. I don’t think it appropriate to suggest anyone can get into med school or make the varsity team. I do think it appropriate to suggest everyone can learn to read or learn important mathematical skills. This final optimism comes with the commitment to assure that the environment will accommodate the effort that will be required. Encouraging a growth mindset without assuring that sufficient time will be provided is unfair. For some students who struggle to keep up with their classmates this expectation is unfair. This is why I have always been a fan of personalization through mastery learning and why I have been interested in technology as a practical way to make mastery possible.
Without adapting the environment, the growth mindset thing is a label adults use to make themselves feel like they have done something when they have only encouraged certain learners to struggle with an impossible challenge.
Internet companies are all fighting for a niche. In doing so, they collectively represent a great example of the tragedy of the commons. The combined consequence of serving their individual personal interests may end up destroying the shared opportunity that is the Internet. This will be a long post, but I promise to try to bring all of the topics together at the end.
FireFox (and Apple Safari) have found their niches by offering users security. Taking advantage of recent legitimate user concerns related to privacy, the newest Mozilla FireFox browser offers a technique for blocking cookies and as one consequence avoiding the display of one technique for displaying targeted ads. This technique can be fine-tuned by the user, but comes with the cookie blocking feature turned on. There are several ways to tune this capability, but the easiest approach is just to use FireFox as is.
Here is a very brief tutorial that should be sufficient to use the most basic capabilities. Remember the default is to block cookies. There may be situations in which this is an issue. It is unlikely you want targeted ads, but you may be other services you want that do take advantage of cookies. To the left of the address bar, you should see a shield and an i within a circle. Selecting this area of the browser should reveal a drop-down menu. One of the options allows you to turn “tracking protection” on (or off again).
Just to be clear, ads and cookies can be related or independent “problems”. Cookies offer the mechanism allowing targeted ads. The cookies allow the collection of information about your online behavior and this information can be used to provide you ads suited to your interests. You probably recognize this method as the method by which Google sells ads (to those willing to purchase them) and provides you ads you might find useful. It is also one method by which other companies collect information about you. You could allow Google to set cookies and block others, but who wants to learn how to do this or to take the time.
Ads do not require the use of cookies to collect information. As an example likely to be familiar to my readers, the site FreeTech4Teachers displays multiple banner ads alongside the entire blog. These are not targeted ads in the way Google ads are targeted and visitors all see the same collection of ads. The ads are assumed to be of interest to educators, but are only targeted in the way specialty magazines or television programs offer ads based on their audience. Turning cookies off will not prevent the display of these ads. To explain in a simple way, these ads are simply images that serve as links to the companies promoted. You can’t really turn this off because using images as links is basic HTML and serves may other functions on other sites.
The issue I would like to point out here is related to the need for content producers (anyone who wants to use ads to support the effort to provide content) and service providers (the companies who offer a free service in return for potential ad revenue) to generate revenue. Google makes a lot of money, but also pays many individuals and has many infrastructure expenses. Google supports its need for revenue by targeted ads (which depend on cookies). Some content providers take the same approach and addition rely on users to offer free content (e.g., Facebook).
Two things could happen if everyone would block cookies:
Companies such as Google would have to attempt to develop countermeasures (not provide services to users unwilling to accept cookies), or
Go out of business.
Countermeasures are easier to implement than you might think. For example, I could add a small segment of code in the header to this site that would determine the browser requesting access and refer the user to a different page if the browser was Mozilla Firefox. This second page might ask that anyone wanting to view the content on the first page access this information using Chrome. I am certain that the Google coders could come up with techniques that are far more sophisticated.
At present, Google is not likely to do this type of thing because FireFox has such a small share of the market. If FireFox had Chrome’s share of the market, Google would have to try something to protect its business model.
I don’t know where this is all going. There is no free, only different ways to pay. My long-term predictions would be a move to micropayments. This would be a system by which users would have to set up an account and the money in this account would be drawn on depending on what they viewed. New companies would serve as intermediaries to provide this service (something like a credit card company). The cost per page would be very small (a cent or so), but this is pretty much what Google generates through its present ad model. The cost could vary from site to site and some would probably be free. Imagine reading anything you wanted from the New York Times for a few cents per article. There would be no need for a subscription to the entire information source. Sites attempting to sell you things (e.g., Amazon) would be free because that service would have another way of generating income.
Google has decided to “downgrade” “Don’t be evil” in its employee code of conduct. I always liked the Google story and the original directive to its employees. It seemed a positive message and a laudable goal. From my perspective, Google is still less evil than the others in the big four (Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google).
Citizens of the U.S. seem to be struggling with the ethics of unbridled capitalism. We live in a society that has come to question the equity of our system. It turns out that everyone does not actually have the same opportunities and our politicians are embracing the failed model of trickle-down economics moving tax dollars from the needy to large corporations. The Internet itself is no longer open with the removal of the provision preventing the companies that control our access from the opportunity to control that access often leaving citizens no opportunity to seek an alternate provider. Now, we must deal with the end of don’t be evil.
We are partly at fault. We have embraced the false promise of free. We should have known better. Most of us would seem capable of processing the impossibility of providing services and hiring employees of great talent without an obvious source of income. Yes, we saw a few small ads, but few of us ever clicked on those ads. We should have known better.
Perhaps reality has now set in. Given that “free” is an illusion, what should we expect now? Probably, the best we can hope for is transparency. Trading the record of our online behavior to Google for ads that are consistent with our interests AND free services seems a reasonable deal. Companies that collect this information and sell it to other companies is not (Facebook).
Government oversight is presently confused with socialism. People seem confused by the promotion of economic principles that are argued to be open, but are really not when examined more closely. We need regulation that actually allows for equitable competition. I am still a Google fan, but the downgrading of “Don’t be evil” is a sign of the times.
I have been waiting for some time to explore Google lens. This Google Photos capability was first available for Android devices but was supposed to be rolling out for iOS. Cindy has the capability on her iphone, but I, as yet, do not.
Anyway, I found that I can use Google Lens on my Chromebook and the larger screen offered advantages in recording a demonstration of what Lens can do.
My demonstration may paint a picture that is too positive. The service is impressive. One of the capabilities I keep searching for is related to my background in teaching biology. I am a sucker for apps that purport to identify plants and animals. Google Lens might be expected to have similar capabilities.
What I have found about this application of AI is that plant identification is very challenging. This makes sense as the images provided may or may not reveal critical features the AI needs to make an accurate identification. What I remember from classes requiring that I identify unknown species with a “key” is that even with guidance this process is challenging. I like to test the AI capability of these products by visiting a zoo or botanical garden that offers examples I do not know, but also provides labels for the exhibits. Does the identification of the technology offer a match?
What Lens does in such circumstances is make its best guess, but it also shows you images of other matches it considered. This seems a reasonable combination of AI and human intelligence. As a learning experience, the consideration of the options may offer a superior opportunity. You have to be involved. The technology scaffolds the experience by limiting the options and you end up making a decision.
Manage Consent
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
You must be logged in to post a comment.