The term in question here is Key Performance Indicator (KPI) and I'm sure most managers' eye do not glaze over when they hear it. They know that a term like 'KPI' is insider jargon for managers, which is why this HBS article is discussing it. The key to understanding KPI is benefit, which is why they ask questions about (say) training like "what the organization is getting out of this". A 'benefit' is the value for which you would exchange (say) money. Or labour. Or whatever. For a company, the only benefit that counts is profit. The indicator is what connects the (say) training with profits (either directly, or indirectly through a 'logic model'). For governments and public services, the definition of 'benefit' is much wider (unless your only bottom line is GDP), but the idea is still the same: to justify and measure the success of a program, you need a KPI that shows how the program produces the benefit. So if you're making proposals to managers, this is the language you need to use, because this is how they speak. This is the point this article is trying to make (I think), albeit in a rather convoluted way.
This is a basic set of patterns related to user interactions with data, including everything from login patterns to giving permission to automated decisions. It's not comprehensive by any means but gives readers a good starting point to think about how users interact with online services. As the company says, "People designing and building services are in a position of power. IF created the data patterns catalogue to help product teams make better decisions about data."
You may have been hearing recently about the activism of KPop stans and wondered what they were. If you're a longtime OLDaily reader you'll already know about KPop - aka Korean Pop. These days the biggest KPop act is unquestionably BTS, and it is their stans who have been the most activist. So what is a stan? "A stan is a highly devoted fan of a particular person, like a musician, actor, author, or influencer. Stans are characterized by their high commitment and intense involvement in a performer’s fandom." So if you understand that "The group's Korean name, 방탄소년단, Bangtan Sonyeondan, translates into English as 'Bulletproof Boy Scouts,' and was borne out of CEO Bang Si-Hyuk's desire to create a group that could withstand social pressures and serve as a voice for the younger generation," the evolution of fans into activist stans makes complete sense.
Take the time to read this post carefully, because Jon Dron doesn't waste a single word in this commentary on the OECD report cited in this CBC article. As Dron notes, the report is based on a model developed by Hanushek and Woessman over the years that explains variations in global productivity according to amount and the quality of education people receive, so, less education means less productivity. Right? Well, maybe not. Perhaps greater productivity is caused by other factors. Perhaps the indicators of 'quality education' (like, say the PISA tests) don't measure what they think it does. And "even if their predictions about GDP are correct (I am pretty sure they are not – there are too many other factors at play." But more to the point, he says, "the OECD has a bit of track record on this kind of misinterpretation, especially in education. This is the same organization that (laughably, if it weren’t so influential) claimed that educational technology in the classroom is bad for learning." Yes, I remember that.
I admit that I am predisposed to agree that active learning would be more equitable than the lecture. But if you're going to say imflammatory things like 'lecturing is racist' you'd better be able to back it up. This article, however, proves no such thing, and the evidence cited shows an entirely different point, specifically, that in one particular institution, "Underrepresented students were less likely than well-represented peers to persist in chemistry if they performed below a C−." It barely even mentions lectures. The authors reason that since all chemistry courses are lecture based, and underrepresented persist less well in these courses, that underrepresented students in lecture courses persist less well. That's not even close to a valid inference, and the results could be explained equally well by saying underrepresented students at that particular institution have bad teachers, biased markers, poor lab sessions, inadequate support, few role models, and or insufficient funding. Also, as an aside, I would think that authors lecturing us about inequality could use the term 'frosh' in their article instead of 'freshmen'.
I wasted about an hour of my time this morning giving the new Google Groups a good going-over. It's still useless. It's really intended to be restricted to G Suite customers (eg., G Suite Enterprise edition) and for people inside the enterprise. Yes, you can invite external pepple to join, but it's convoluted, and unless you can figure it out, you'll be faced with a 10-per day limit. Meanwhile, people can't even see your group unless they're logged in to Google. While I was checking, I looked for the old Google Plus (which was continued inside G Suite) and found it has evolved into a non-functioning service called Currents. The new Google Groups is only the first salvo; get ready for the integrated Gmail experience coming soon. Oh, and they're cutting back what you can do in Google Meet. My theory: Google is setting up these services as a revenue stream in preparation for the day when ad revenue collapses. Pictured: My G Suite admin panel (I have basic only).
This is another one of those things sceptics said were impossible to produce online - until they were produced online out of necessity. "Many colleges have pivoted their student services to a virtual setting. At Northern Virginia Community College, students can enter a virtual lobby on Zoom that connects them with advisers, who then connect them with the services they need." In my experience, community college students are also often working or supporting a family, and don't have time for more traditional forms of college community, but a virtual alternative allows them to take part in their own time and place. But the college has to actually make it available for it to work.
This is a short post posing two perspectives on college against each other. One is what we may call the standard view where "college is the gateway to a good life and a good career; every person should have the opportunity to go to college." But, says Mitch Weisburgh, "This perspective looks down on anyone without a college degree: they couldn’t cut it, they weren’t smart enough, they settled for something less, they dropped out, etc." The alternative allows that "you don’t need four years of college to start being an adult." It's just one pathway, and the people who pursue it aren't better than anyone else. "The amount of education required is just dependent on the life and occupation paths you choose, and most do not require a 2-year or 4-year degree." I'm not really happy with either option. I think people have value independently of their education, and reject any framing that depicts one person as better than another. That said, education is typically of great value to people, and I think it should be accessible to all, depending on their need and interests.
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 2020 Stephen Downes Contact: email@example.comThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.