Faculty members are still worried that online education can’t deliver outcomes equivalent to face-to-face instruction. They are split on whether investments in ed-tech have improved student outcomes. And they overwhelmingly believe textbooks and academic journals are becoming too expensive.
Because of AI’s “learning” abilities, some people have raised concerns about the potential threats that AI could pose in the future, from both a national defense perspective and an even larger, almost science-fiction-like societal threat. These types of threats are still futuristic, but it is interesting that several tech companies have formed a consortium to start looking at the larger potential ethical and other potential non-technical impacts of AI.
Source: USA Today
“In the future, 80% of customer interactions will be built without human interaction.” Gavet said. She said that the company is focused on how to use this technology to provide a human level of customized service for everything from questions about hotels and tickets to—eventually—delivering your room service.
There’s a lot of chatter about chatbots these days and how we might be able to use them in the future. The biggest question seems to be whether chatbots can be useful enough to convincingly replace human conversation. Answering that isn’t easy. Before chatbots can reach that point, they’ll need to develop and mature into a technology that enables human communication with a computer using natural language. Most bots today are not at the level where they can flawlessly replicate conversation.
College has a lot in common with your cable TV package, according to Michael Horn, a principal consultant at innovation agency Entangled Solutions. As schools plow money into new dorms, administrative costs and sports stadiums, some students find themselves paying for “channels” they have no use for. Horn is co-chairing a new group to make “cutting the cord” a viable option for students who find college painfully expensive and poorly suited to their needs.
Source: Washington Post
A number of studies suggest that student evaluations of teaching are unreliable due to various kinds of biases against instructors. (Here’s one addressing gender.) Yet conventional wisdom remains that students learn best from highly rated instructors; tenure cases have even hinged on it.
What if the data backing up conventional wisdom were off? Anew study suggests that past analyses linking student achievement to high student teaching evaluation ratings are flawed, a mere “artifact of small sample sized studies and publication bias.”
As teachers everywhere settle into classrooms for the fall, they will be looking at grades and classroom climate as some indicators to measure whether their work is making an impact. But a new study suggests there is a more superficial component of good teaching—teachers' physical appearance.
About my sharing
This section is used to share resources I find interesting. The opinions expressed in this section do not necessarily reflect my views. Most of the highlights are direct quotes from the original sources.