The ugly truth is that I have no problem with the collection of metadata. I do not care if someone out there knows what keystrokes I hit, or how long I stay on a web page, or how many games of Freecell I have played since December (950). I do not care that a guy in Des Moines knows that on April 18th I viewed an online ad for Purina Pro Plan dog food. If that helps them target advertisements to my needs, I am okay with that as long as I keep getting free services from google such as email and google drive. I also get Freecell for free.
The problem is that I know it won't stop there. I have read enough dystopian literature to understand where all of this is heading. Pretty soon "they" will have a camera in my living room to make sure that I heartily sing along with the national anthem when it comes on the television at 5:00. I am not sure the exact steps required to go from Purina to Big Brother, but my ignorance of the process is clearly part of "their" plan.
I enjoyed the article by Audrey Waters. I like her style. She raises good questions and she doesn't pretend that she knows the answers. She points out some fairly disturbing trends in data mining and information gathering. The concept of having a camera in my classroom to determine whether or not I am an effective teacher is one of those disturbing possibilities. Imagine being the person whose job it is to watch those tapes. What an awful way to make a living.
Of course, some of the concerns raised are not real concerns at all. Whether or not Purdue University's Course Signals was as effective as advertised by the school does not concern me. It does not appear that anyone was placed in jeopardy by the system. No one is claiming that student performance deteriorated due to its use. The only debates are level of effectiveness of the program and the confidence in Perdue's claims. Neither of those areas impacts me.
It all comes down to student data. Again I declare that if it is guaranteed that no names or identification will be attached to the data reports and only group information will be disseminated, then I care not what happens to it or who gets ahold of it. To me, there is a big difference between "Bryan Kurish posted 8 blogs during the VOLT program," and "Students in the VOLT program posted an average of 7.3 blogs." The second one uses my data in a way that does not bother me at all.
Now if you will excuse me, I have to attend the Two Minutes Hate.
Bryan, I agree with you that the use of metadata seems pretty benign.
ReplyDeleteBut what if the metadata applies to only one person? What if your employer is suddenly able to say to you, "Bryan, last month you logged 125 unique visits to education-related sites on your school computer during school hours, but you logged 950 unique visits to non-education-related sites during the same time. We need to see more productive use of our resources." Leaving aside the arguments to this hypothetical employer, metadata can be pretty invasive when applied to only one person.
I was with you at first, on the Course Signals issue. How does that affect me, so why should I care? Except, I later realized, it bothers me when people or organizations claim something prestigious that is not accurate - that diminishes the meaning of any worthwhile accomplishment that actually occurs. For instance, I'm bothered when Student A is proud of receiving a merit-based scholarship from Cabrini College (for instance) when, in fact, every student who applies to Cabrini College (for instance) receives a merit based scholarship. That belittles the accomplishment of a student who receives a merit scholarship from Columbia (for instance) where fewer than half of applicants do so. I guess that's a long winded way of saying that Watters is right - if important decisions (like grants and legislation) are being made based on this product, someone needs to be sure it works first.
I think we're on the same page that it all seems ok right now, but the slipperiness of this slope is inevitable. But I also think that the Purdue case brings up more interesting questions that you're overlooking. If the data-mining-is-wonderful arguments aren't in the end playing out as advertised, what is left but the data-mining-is-definitely-NOT-wonderful argument? If we keep hearing about how meta-data will save the day, but at day's end it's really done nothing good or bad for students (while possibly collecting meaningful information for UlteriorMotiveCorp), isn't that something worth looking into?
ReplyDeleteGreat conversation and comments. I think everyone had great examples. Of course there are many sides to the meta data collection argument, but none have been proven to be worthwhile (yet) when it comes to learning. I definitely see more harm than good at this point (just my not-too-thinly-veiled opinion) but I have some hope for the future. There have been other verticals (medicine, for instance) where lives have been saved - so let's just hope!
ReplyDelete