I realize that it's not a zero-sum game, and that we can work toward both quality and access, but I nonetheless caution against voices who look at the issues and proclaim "a wake-up call for greater investment in the quality of education." No it isn't. The vast bulk of the problem isn't the quality of education. It's access. The money directed toward access will ensure that learning resources (teachers, support materials, environments) reach those in need. The money directed toward 'quality' will end up in the hands of publishers and academics in the U.S. and Europe (which, my cynical voice intact, is I feel why they continually call for investment in 'quality'). People who are starving need food now.
"In order for the University of South Africa (Unisa) to use predictive analytics to improve these outcomes though," writes Manuela Ekowo, "the school may first have to jump through some ethical and technical hoops." The tone implies that the hoops are unnecessary, but I don't think ghata was the author's intent. "For example, how can institutions avoid mischaracterizing students with labels such as 'at-risk'." It matters how you define 'at risk'. Here's Angelo Fynn, manager of student success projects: "I don’t share the common view that students are inherently at risk but rather that risk is contextually and historically located."
This newsletter is sent only at the request of subscribers. If you would like to unsubscribe, Click here.
Know a friend who might enjoy this newsletter? Feel free to forward OLDaily to your colleagues. If you received this issue from a friend and would like a free subscription of your own, you can join our mailing list. Click here to subscribe.
Copyright 2017 Stephen Downes Contact: email@example.comThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.