Optimus Studio Blog

Rather than actually address this topic with the appropriate resources (first hand accounts, original source material, experience actually enrolling for a course in this manner, etc), I’m simply going to throw this idea out there since it crossed my mind and it’s (I think) worthy of a blog post.

What were to happen if students were evaluated (initially, at least) on their ability to meet a certain set of criteria (such as responsibility to independently learn, proven track record of task completion, degree of interest in topic, personal involvement in a domain, etc) and then, given their ‘accepted’ path, merely judged on their academic merits in relation to either meeting or failing to meet a certain degree of competency.

Passion for learning shouldn’t be relegated to the annals of academe.  Often, the desire to learn is heavily attached to the lust of pecuniary growth and societal elevation (though, as any nouveau riche might assume, this is not possible through the acquisition of wealth alone).

My goal is to create a school for those who want to learn in socialized settings about topics that pique their interest.  Also, I want the topics to be from all different domains - arts, humanities, science, technology, etc.

How can a system run when the one thing that it focuses on isn’t implemented? Put it another way, how can you teach if you don’t practice what you preach — and what you preach is how to teach!?! Besides being a cyclical conundrum, I have yet to figure out how this flaw is accepted, reinforced and supported in educational settings.

I present to you — Manhattan Protege. An experimental online socialized learning environment where graduate students of education become teachers and they learn how to traverse the online landscape, support learning for deeper thinking and analysis, and improve their teaching skills. Where are the courses that teach traditional teachers how to teach online? The transition is NOT transparent, and, while most online learning exists in a vacuum (that is, the institution offers the course, the student interacts with the professor and fellow students, and the material is covered and completed — all without the opportunity of conversing with those in the field or outside the institution. Hence a vacuum.), it’s not safe to assume that ‘just teaching’ covers the bases. Students in this environment work harder and create more substantive artifacts (papers, discussion posts, projects) than their f2f (face-to-face) peers. It’s unfortunate that the learning in this environment is seen as easier, but, as the old adage goes, ‘you cannot fully comprehend what you don’t understand’. I don’t think that most people understand how much and how far online learning has come over the past couple of decades and that distance learning (online, blended, virtual) is in it’s infancy and will only grow as technology diffuses into different socio-economic environments.

That being said, go to my web-site (http://www.manhattanprotege.com) and sign up to join the revolution (or atleast the insurgency).

Humbly, Cameron

Not too long ago I sought out the prospect of examining remedial math instruction and pursuing this to a greater extent in my research.  This thought was trumped by the realization that this interest of mine was purely selfish and had no long-term presence in my academic career.  Stating that, I’ve realized that, as Miller stated in a pleasant New York Times article posted yesterday, “Learning the skill of how to learn is more important than trying to fill every possible cup of knowledge in every possible discipline” [more].  Educators need to be right from the start.  Students need to be accountable for learning the correct information.  That the information is not correct when they receive it is both selfish and incomprehensible.  John Anderson notes that “if a fact about a concept is encountered frequently, it will be stored with that concept, even if it could also be inferred from a more general concept”.  In the context of math instruction and the subsequent remedial ‘unwinding’, students will typically learn a concept and ‘imbed’ this information with regards to applicability and correctness regardless of whether they can or cannot discern the true nature of the information.  It is not to say that some students during their developmental years are unable to extrapolate how a given mathematical method, concept or principle applies in relation to other facts (or propositions), but rather that the education of most students by poorly-trained educators threatens the nature of learning during early childhood.  That the credibility of these educators is not thoroughly examined and subsequently profiled is an injustice to a ‘free and open learning environment’. We expect our students to perform on par with other nations, but we are reticent to impose accountability on their part because it may damage and impair their development.  I purport this is not the case.  It is because it’s more difficult to hold oneself accountable that educators and teachers are willing to take the easy way out rather than do what is right.  We want so much for our students to grow and learn that we forget to realize that the welfare and well-being of our educators, the ones that put their own lives out for the sacrifice of preparing others to excel, is being usurped for the betterment of other federal and municipal wishes. Ultimately, education begets education, which in turn is reliant upon our teachers.  If we devalue educators and teachers, we devalue the worthiness of pursuing education.  Think of it this way… if I, as a 7th grade math teacher, have to divert my focus from teaching to working my part-time job after school to ensure that my family is well cared for and has food on the table, then I’m less likely to fully invest myself in the pursuit of my primary job.Education is not a job.  Until we start to treat it as a career, then all it will be is a way to make a paycheck and not a living.  I hate to think of the students that have to be taught critical skills - skills that they will remember in one way or anther, by someone who has to rethink the validity of being a teacher. 

In an effort to stave off what has been the daunting task of initiating the process of writing my thesis (they call it a final project, but I’m inclined to make it sound traditional in the name of tradition), I’ve been consciously oblivious to the proper steps to complete this assignment. Normally, I would start my paper by going to the assigned readings. This is easy. In a typical situation I would merely follow protocol and, eventually, reach the desired goal within the alloted time.

This assignment is not typical in any of the numbers of ways that one would engage this project.

This assignment is not typical because there is no pre-defined path, no assigned readings, and no explicit deadline. The structure is loose and the framework is ill-defined. Basically, I can do whatever I want. The problem is that whenever I do whatever I want, there is some sort of catch. Without descending into a full-on complaint, I’m inclined to note that a true resolution is possible; I’m just unaware of how I’ll make it happen.

Therefore, I am proposing how I will write my thesis. These steps will help me find my true solution.

1) …

As I think about it, I’m reminded of a time (read: last Spring) when I went to school and sat in on a lecture that provided me with some tips on how to successfully write papers of this size. My meta-knowledge needed this blog entry as a trigger. I guess shedding these ideas onto the screen was the best way for me to get this assignment started.

1) Planning
2) Research
3) Developing an Argument
4) Draft
5) Revisions
6) Final Project/Presentation/Publishing

Right now I am involved in a couple of online classes to finish up my masters at TC and am exploring the various intelligent systems concepts and how they might be applicable to my own goals. To this end, I’d like to explore the creation of an educational system which provides both instruction and evaluation on remediation of standardized topic areas. This self-sustaining system would have enough prior knowledge to support various instructional requirements while dynamically adapting to the needs of each user. This, in turn, requires that each system possess an expansive background on a variety of topic areas and have the ability to modify expectations based on pre-defined outcomes provided by the user. In AI terms, the agent would develop a percept sequence (”the complete history of everything the agent has ever perceived”) for the student’s progress through information gathering. It’s agentic function would determine the behaviors as they are mapped to a particular action. Conversely, the system would learn which common traits are exhibited by its users and (hopefully using some empirical data such as demographic and gender) modify its outcome to best suit the user to complement the end goal.

-Cameron

According to McFarland and Klopfer, the ‘knowledge domain’ seeks to benefit from the vast opportunities of various dimensions. However, the lack of “structure of ideas” prohibits this venture from being realized since the “multiple network-dimensions” (segmented, paradigmatic, star-stricken, and cohesive/permeable) are not readily available to academics. To make it possible for “knowledge artifacts” to effectively reach the broad scope of the educational knowledge domain (to “enable more efficient searches… facilitate individual comprehension… broaden access and participation…. enable direct empirical study… identify coordinations regions… and identify knowledge innovation mechanisms”), a “dynamic of form and content” must be accessible to those both within and outside the knowledge domain. This can be operationalized through the creation of a multi-variant collaborative knowledge artifact repository which is centrally located, free from restrictive governance, with dynamic aggregate capabilities to broaden the scope of access, contribution, and growth of the knowledge domain with defines education.

-Cameron

Seems like every day brings with it more obligations and responsibilities. My coursework has been intense lately, but I’m glad it’s that way and not the other way around (otherwise I’d say I’m throwing away valuable dollars). At any rate, I find myself constantly reading and absorbing information. At the same time, however, I find that managing my content in an easy way seems to have evaded me. The solution? An onine-based application that requests the course ID, session number, session topic, article titles with corresponding areas for both key terms and summaries, and an overall summary of the session. This collection of data could then be formatted to be printed and used as a physical reference to my already substantial printed article repository (also known as my filing cabinet FULL of print media).

That’s it! I’m not going to posit any additional features. This idea is well on its way to becoming part of my teacher tools (tbd).

“Patent pending, patent pending, patent pending… hey, who is this guy?” - Homer Simpson

No, really, patent pending!
-Cameron

It’s amusing, but I never thought that I’d feel the overwhelming urge to keep up with a blog. Here it is. Late at night and I couldn’t fall asleep without partaking in this reflective goodness.

In education, the notion of being driven is so unique that it isn’t viewed as normal within a standard educational environment. In a meeting with Harvard hopefuls, an attendee asked the right question. He asked what the typical student in their graduate programs all possessed. At some fundamental level they all had to have one unifying quality which made them unique. It was leadership. Leadership is the one quality that great men and women have. If you want to be a success and complete tasks, make strides, and contribute extraordinary things, then you must be willing to be constantly driven and always seek answers. If you have all your answers, then you’re not asking enough questions. If you’re asking a lot of questions, but fail to get sufficient answers, then either you’re speaking the wrong language or have failed to ask the right questions.

Ask the right questions and doors open, people reciprocate, and opportunities to continually prove brillance still exists in human form. Most people are bored and dulled. Brilliance makes all of that lack-lustre living a little bit more colorful, rich, radiant, and vibrant (sounds like a shampoo commercial, sorry).

Signing off,
Cameron

There is a principle in interface design that goes something like “the fewer clicks to get to a point, the better”. So why is it, after so many years of development on online learning systems, that I have to click on the ‘Reply’ button when I want to make a comment on a peer’s work? This one little, tiny detail stifles participation because the user has to ‘change states’ in order to go from ‘reader’ to ‘participant’. Yet this system is made ONLY for participants. So why should I have to modify how the screen is organized in order to easily, quickly and readily comment on a posting? This is not how an intelligent techology should function. The system should be built to encourage my participation from the start and simply allow the user to make the determination as to whether he/she wishes to contribute to a particular post or not.

Now some blogging systems have it right (unfortunately, not WordPress). Don’t get me wrong… I like this system. In fact, this system has made it possible for me to ‘jump on board’ without extensive training and get right into this new publication medium. However, the systems that are properly laid out let the reader, after skimming through the profound posting by the author, immediately post his/her statements directly below the posting. This lets the user (1) see the information previously written as direct reference for the posting and (2) encourages participation on that particular blog. A single click takes the user one step further away from the material and, consequently, sends a subliminal message to the user that he/she must be a part of a ‘unique club’ in order to contribute words to this blog. Web 2.0 (or the moniker associated with social networking) is built upon the principles of “empowering citizen media…, democratiz[ing] culture, buid[ing] authentic communit[ies] (and) creat[ing] citizen media” (Keen, 2006, The second generation of the Internet has arrived. It’s worse than you think.). In order to properly address the issue of ‘building authentic communities’, the system must allow for the user to make his/her thoughts readily known without the need to take an additional step. Conversations, in the traditional sense of two people talking, are not likely to have deliberate breaks interwoven within the stream on dialogue to denote entry and exit points. You wouldn’t say to somebody “say ‘reply’ in order to respond to my statement”, so why should you have to do the same in an environment which is meant to encourage continuous dialogues?

-Cameron