Some ideas about protecting your privacy.

Intro comment – this is a very long post. If you are not interested in the background I provide about the online collection of personal information, skip about halfway through this post and you will find a list of specific things I describe that allow you some control over the collection of your information.

Information is becoming the currency of the future

I have been reading the book “21 lessons for the 21st century” by Yuval Harari. The book comes highly recommended by many. I find the picture of the future based on the trends of today as fairly disturbing. One of the issues that comes up again and again in this book is the topic of equality and the related concept of opportunity. It is not so much that folks in the future will not have their minimum needs met, but the likelihood that many will find themselves in situations allowing little meaningful contribution to society and in situations with factors over which individuals will have little control. In so many ways, the rich and privileged will get richer and the rest of humanity will be increasingly left behind.

Harari’s book offers a view of the future impacted by many factors, but he consistently singles out two – AI and biotechnology. The equity issue comes into play because all will not be able to use and benefit from these factors equally. And, over the years, those with greater access (families, groups, maybe countries) will separate themselves from everyone else. AI and biotechnology use data as the essential input and Harari’s reasoning leading to Harari’s conclusion that:

“If we want to prevent the concentration of all wealth and power in the hands of a small elite, the key is to regulate the ownership of data.”

I will likely write about Harari’s book again, but this post specifically addresses the topic of personal data and options for personal control of who is allowed access.

It is not so much that each of us should deny access to our personal data. So many innovations now and in the future will be dependent on access. Rather, it is that we understand the importance of the data we make available and understand and control who we allow to have access. Just to be clear, while I am concentrating on the data potentially generated by our online behavior, data are collected in many ways (e.g., credit card activity) and integrated across many sources for many uses.

Data based on your online behavior

You provide online data in many different ways. When you complete a Facebook survey about your personality or your likes and dislikes, you provide data. When you conduct a Google search, what you search for and how you respond to the results generated, you provides data. When you conduct pretty much any online activity that loads pages that involve “cookies”, you provide data. When you conduct any online activity that goes through your local ISP provider, you provide data. What you do and the frequency with which you do it probably is useful to someone who wants to know about you or at least people generically like you.

Let me start with this. I am not against the collection of personal data. The most likely reason for others to collect data based on your online behavior is to tailor the future information you are shown. Google uses data about you to offer you search results you are more likely to want to see. Many companies collect information about you to deliver ads and other information you will be interested in seeing. More generally, the benefit of providing you information likely to influence you also has value to you because it has value to those who value this information. This information has value to those “others” and they end up funding valuable services so you don’t have to. It is important to recognize that you do not pay for Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. by sending money to the companies providing you access, content, and services. You pay with your attention and your information

Ads, transparency, and control

The online situation is complicated. You want to use these services and you likely find it beneficial that you pay nothing for most. The services need to make money and selling ads is a way to generate income. Note that it is not just the intermediaries (Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) who benefit because many content creators also get a cut sometimes when ads appear, but most likely when ads are pursued for additional information. The companies paying to have ads appear and now most importantly paying to have ads appear to those most likely to respond are the final party in this group of players.

I am not against ads and I doubt that blocking ads would allow the positive components of this model to continue. No ads, no free services or free content. What I find objectionable with ads is when information is shared between sites. In other words, I assume it is acceptable when the provider of a site collects information directly (this is the compensation for the service and in some cases the content provider), but not when information collected from the use of one service is shared with another service. It is the lack of transparency when information is shared across services that I think violates the assumption a user makes or at least should make when visiting a given site.

Here are all of the strategies I can think of that would allow you a greater degree of control over who sees your data and what is done with it.

Don’t send all of your data to the same providers

Use options

There are multiple search engines. You are not bound to Google. DuckDuckGo works well.

Limit your dependence on a given company for multiple services. If you use Google for search, there are other email services available. For example, those who use Apple hardware can use the Apple email system.

I also think it would be great if groups of individuals who want to communicate would consider using different services. The network effect is the challenge. This label means people use a service because the people they want to interact with use the same service. The network effect limits exploration and even the consideration of better services. Facebook and Twitter represent great examples. There are alternatives to each – e.g.. Mastodon for Twitter and Diaspora for Facebook. You don’t have to use alternatives continuously. However, those wanting to both explore technology and have a specific purpose for interacting could easily use an alternative service for this specific purpose. For example, educators wanting to engage in an EduChat could easily use Mastodon instead of Twitter for this specific activity.

Become more aware of how you are being tracked

If you use the chrome browser, consider adding the Ghostery extension. Ghostery is a powerful privacy extension. It blocks ads and stops trackers. The extension identifies the cookies that are associated with a given site and allow users to decide whether to block or allow in future visits to a given site.

Block ads that share information among providers

Again, if you are a Chrome browser user, consider the extension Disconnect Facebook™ pixel & FB™ tracking. This extension prevents Facebook from following you when you are not on Facebook.

Limit the information your ISP can collect about you (you already pay the ISP)

1.1.1.1 – This service takes a little more effort to install. 1.1.1.1 is an alternate DNS to that provided by your ISP. A DNS translates web addresses you request into the four number identifier used by servers. An ISP can use the information gleaned from DNS traffic to figure out which websites you’ve been visiting, even if you use HTTPS. By replacing the DNS of your provider with the DNS of a service that does not collect your information, you limit the information you share with your IP.

Consider a system that allows you to pay providers directly rather than pay providers with the information you allow to be collected.

Brave is a new browser now based on Chrome (this recent update is important because it allows users to install Chrome extensions). Brave blocks cookies and scripts unless a user acts to override this extension.

Brave allows a user to make a monthly contribution that is used to compensate the authors of visited sites as a way to replace potential ad revenue.

Loading

Argument analysis

An essential component of the critical thinking involved in issue-based disputes is the capacity to understand the logic and evidence offered in different sides of an argument/debate. Of the skills now deemed essential to 21st-century functioning, engaging in and understanding arguments may be among the most important. The openness of the online world and cable TV channels with specialized political foci would be examples of why the capacity to analyze positions has increased in importance. So, to compete with those who prioritize coding and STEM initiatives, I have been making the case for this overlooked, but critical skill.

I have tried to offer some suggestions for how argumentation/debate could be taught. One example would be the structured approach provided by Kialo. This is a tool that structures an argument for participants and increases participant awareness of the components of an argument as it is being advanced. This post focuses on a template for MindMup which is intended to be used to analyze an argument already made. The core goal in each approach is to increase the awareness of positions taken and related reasons and evidence for these positions. The capacity to step back and consider pro and con reasons and evidence is what is missing in so many naturally occurring debates.

MindMup (you probably note the similarity to MindMap) is a general purpose tool for organizing ideas. The argumentation analysis approach described in the link I provide above is a specialized template for this online tool. The advantage over a more general purpose “mind mapping” tool is the relabeling of common mind mapping tools (e.g., add reason, add objection). As an example, I have reworked a small section of a debate I hosted in Kialo as a MindMup visualization.

Loading

Something new in research on note taking

Others often put down the lecture approach, but it is an efficient way to get information to large numbers of learners. Adopting this method is not intended as a comment on what is necessary for students to understand and learn this content any more than those of us who write are making a statement about what learners should do once they have received written information. Some of us think very seriously about what learning is and what the learner must do to learn. Presenters and writers should see their role as providing an input to one of many processes learners must apply to learn.

During a written or oral presentation learners can simply take in information and think about what they have received or they can apply external activities such as note taking (or highlighting) to actively work with this information. Such external activities have been investigated by researchers to determine how use of a process like note taking varies with differences in learner background and aptitude and if learners who take notes can be shown ways to improve the effectiveness of the process. This post deals specifically with note taking.

The traditional method of analyzing note taking involved recognizing two interrelated processes – note taking and note using. Researchers proposed that taking notes even without review could be beneficial. Taking notes maintained attention and it could involve what might be called paraphrasing as a way to require active interpretation. Some learners were better at note taking than others. For example, the notes taken differed in whether they contained important ideas from the presentation and whether these ideas appeared in notes predicted later performance. Some effort has been devoted to why these initial differences in what was recorded existed. Of course, if key ideas are not present in notes it is difficult to review/study these notes at a later point in time.

I don’t intend to spend a lot more time reviewing some of the research on note taking as the point of this post is to examine an updated model I just read. If you are interested in the research on note taking, I would propose that you read the paper outlining this newer model as it does a good job of outlining previous thinking about the subject. A citation for this article is included at the conclusion of this post.

What the new model proposes is that the use of notes might be better understood as having three components – note taking, note revision, and note review/study. The authors propose a couple of ways in which learners might revize notes – being allowed to look over their notes during planned pauses during the presentation and after examining. The study did demonstrate that these inserted opportunities for revision were beneficial to the learners.

I have doubts concerning whether those of us who lectured to large groups would cut out presentation time by say 15 minutes out of a standard 50 minute presentation. However, there may be other ways to implement a productive revision process. One technique not mentioned by the authors in their review was the use of technology to simultaneously record the lecture while taking notes. There are apps for that. The app I have used for several years is SoundNote – https://soundnote.com/. The automatic time stamping of the notes to the audio allows a convenient way to review the audio when the notes are confusing or even when a message inserted into the notes indicate that the learner knew he/she missed something. A learner might simply use some like a double question mark (??) when he or she knows an important, but poorly understood idea had been presented. This app may offer a more practical way to offer review and may be a more practical way to implement a revision process as a precise link to the original content is possible.

If the topic of note-taking is of interest, this paper does a nice job of reviewing the literature. They also cited me so, of course, I am a fan. I often write about how technology allows practical ways to actually implement ideas surfaced in research years ago and I think an argument can be made that this is the case with note taking and studying from notes.

So here is what I think is a basic question. Who informs college students using tools of this type can be very helpful?

Luo, L., Kiewra, K. A., & Samuelson, L. (2016). Revising lecture notes: how revision, pauses, and partners affect note taking and achievement. Instructional Science, 44(1), 45-67.

Loading

Reading is but one of several interrelated processes

The reading from paper versus device controversy is interesting, but at one level I think it misses the point. Reading is often but one of multiple, interrelated processes and a digital approach allows these processes to work together far more efficiently because information is easier to pass among processes. In many cases, we read to do something. We read as part of learning and studying. We read to be able to do something immediately or at a latter point in time. We read several things because we want to put together ideas to write or speak about a topic. Reading works best in these situations when it can be easily integrated into other activities.

I have tried to offer an example of how this works for me. What I describe is how I often write. I read multiple things – web pages, Kindle books, etc. – in preparation to write something. I cannot bridge reading into this process of information collection and authoring from memory and working within a digital environment sometimes relying on multiple technology devices because this approach offers me great efficiency.

I have created a video to describe how this process can work. In this video, I reference several resources you may want to use yourself. I will list these online resources here in case you might want to follow up after viewing the video.

Chrome extension for Diigo – this extension serves multiple purposes allowing the highlighting and annotation of web content and the storage within Diigo. Use this link to search for Diigo and add the extension to the chrome browser. 

Amazon stores highlights and annotations online. Those who read Kindle books often are not aware they can locate these additions to Kindle book text online – https://read.amazon.com/kp/notebook

Loading

Layering with Diigo

Among the things I sometimes complain about is feature bloat. This is the expansion of the capabilities of a specific application often with a price increase beyond the point at which most users will benefit. However, once in a while, there are capabilities that end up unexplored in these expanded applications.

Diigo has long been my social bookmarking app. Perhaps others have gone on to other ways of understanding this category, but to me it is a way to organize online resources I have found in a way that is searchable AND to share my resource collection with others. Pinterest is probably a more popular way of doing this type of thing.

Diigo has a free and a pro version, but also offers a free expanded capabilities version for educators. The version for educators allows a teacher to establish classes and to share resources with an individual class. I had forgotten about this function when I was writing reviews of online services allowing a teacher to layer instructional components on online content.

Diigo allows highlighting and annotating of bookmarked pages.

These capabilities would allow for “expert highlighting” to bring student attention to key content and comments directing students to consider specific things or perhaps to answer questions.

Layered content created in this way can then be shared with class or using email with anyone.

Here is a sample annotated page shared from Diigo.

Loading

Personalization for mastery

So, again, and without providing references to the large literature on the topic, I will try to make the case and identify the historical model I think is most relevant to individualization via technology.

My model of instruction (I think it is important to be aware of both models of instruction and models of learning) is most easily communicated using a four-step process identified by scholars Steve Alessi and Stan Trollip. The four steps involve (I have included a couple of additional discriptors I think help with description:

  1. Exposure to information or experiences
  2. Guidance
  3. Extended practice / study
  4. Evaluation / feedback

Following these steps does not guarantee learning, but the steps do identify the various external activities that instructional designers believe offer the most logical and productive approach.

In my thinking, an understanding of these steps must also acknowledge the reality of class and teacher time both of which are limited. For example, one use of technology – the flipped classroom – is an attempt to free up time for steps 2-4 by providing exposure to information through the assignment of instructional video to be viewed outside of class time. Of course, what is assumed is that students will make the commitment to prepare for their interactive time with peers and the teacher.

The mastery model I believe offers the best historical structure for the use of technology is Keller’s PSI (yes, 1968). PSI stands for the personalized system of instruction. Please note Keller focused on how to offer a practical approach to personalization. Keller proposed that presentations were not the most effective or efficient way to expose learners to content (again, the similarity should be obvious). He argued that exposure to information should be based on reading which is a way to describe behavior associated with a technology – the book. He argued that reading provided two advantages over educator presentations. It was personalized in the readers could control the speed at which they would engage with new information. They could reread if they knew they did not understand and this was not really what happened with face to face presentations. In addition, he argued that all readers did not have to be reading the same content at the same time. Why select a common assignment for all when some would understand quickly and some more slowly as a function of background knowledge and aptitude.

Rather than use the technology to avoid human contact, Keller argued that human contact should be provided in a way that concentrated on other aspects of the instructional process. He focused on the use of tutors who would respond to individual questions, administer the assessments, and provide feedback and what some might call remediation. Learners had more and not less time working directly with a more knowledgeable individual.

Mastery strategies as proposed by Keller and Bloom (a more group-based approach to mastery) did kind of fade away. This was not because the research did not demonstrate the value of these strategies, but I believe because it was too complicated for most educators to implement. This is what I think technology changes. Approaches such as the Kahn Academy and I think the approach criticized in the Post article personalize the presentation and the assessment phases of the instructional model. The key is not to eliminate the involvement of the teacher and other more knowledgeable individuals. Use their time to focus on direct involvement with students. In comparison to a textbook, new technologies also provide a specific record of the issues that individual students are struggling with allowing a more efficient focus for teacher assistance.

Should this approach be used in all areas? This would not make sense to me. I think personalization of time to learn offers value on a sliding scale. It is most important when the skills/knowledge being taught are most essential and sequential. Greater existing knowledge is always a benefit to learning, but specific existing knowledge is essential in some areas. Math probably makes the best example. Other skills might be better served by approaches that involve more peer interaction because learning to interact is part of what is to be learned.

Instruction does not have to be inflexible.

Loading

NPR on personalization in Education

NPR just published a post on personalization in education. I encourage your reading of this presentation as it covers some territory I have not seen examined in most current coverage of this topic. The piece begins with a focus on mastery learning which has long been a topic that has interested me. I first published on mastery learning in 1978. The NPR post focuses on the technology-enabled forms of mastery learning using the Kahn Academy as an example and does a reasonable job of explaining what the Kahn Academy makes available to K12 students and the support for this effort by wealthy technology donors.

The article then turns to the critics of Kahn and the idea of understanding personalization as attempting to adjust to differences in the time required to learn. The alternative view of personalization as I would describe what is presented in this article is “learning what you want”. I say “alternative view” as I see these goals on different dimensions rather than as education should be one way or the other. Some might describe my perspective as that of blended learning – educational models exist that personalize both opportunities to learn at different rates (mastery learning) and to explore topics of personal interest (20% time project).

Anyway, in the either/or presentation of the NPR piece, there are several perspectives offered by educational thinkers and classroom educators. Here is a statement provided by one of the educators.

“It works really well, like, the first month,” Finn says. Then, students started to progress at different speeds.

“So I have the kids who are on pace, and I have the kids who are perpetually, always behind. And it got to the point where I had 20 kids in 20 spots.”

This point offered as the source of difficulty in using a mastery approach by a classroom teacher captures the challenge, but also the opportunity of a mastery approach. I would suggest that these 20 kids would be at 20 different spots whether exposed to a mastery approach or not. It is the teacher who would be at one spot in a traditional approach. Student achievement varies greatly and this variability increases year by year. To treat everyone as if they were at the same point limits the opportunities of those who could go faster and frustrates the students who can’t keep up. Worse, moving on when many do not understand or are unable to perform the expected skills often increases the difficulty of these students going forward. The way human motivation works, we tend to give up at some point.

The Kahn approach might come across in the NPR description as 20 kids working in a computer lab for hour after hour. One might ask where is the teacher and what is he/she doing. I have read most things available on Kahn Academy and I would suggest that this is hardly the approach that is encouraged. This environment allows the educator to monitor where different students are at and to recognize precisely which students are stuck trying to deal with a given concept or skill. I suppose the teacher could ignore the student’s plight, but I would think this situation would also allow the teacher to work 1:1 as a tutor. The reality of the 20 student classroom the anti-Kahn educator describes provides limited opportunity for tutoring as educators would be spending their time presenting and assessing.

What I am proposing is that ideas such as mastery learning not be understood in some unnecessarily extreme form. There are variants of mastery approaches applied in many settings and several have been investigated multiple times by researchers. Technology offers opportunities to address several of the challenges that limited the practicality of these previous humans-only implementations. Understanding the role of technology and educator should be the goal not painting a picture that pits one against the other.

I provide a more detailed explanation of mastery learning as part of a different source.

Loading