I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who views Hunch with disdain. It seemed to be a marketing engine targeted to people well above my pay grade. The recommendations were very poor, which is quite typical, but, as one of the readings said, "all the models are wrong." In the case on Hunch, I'm not sure that the model is particularly useful either.
The discussion board brings up the idea of using a hunch-like tool to identify learning styles in students. There was mention of "the necessity of some classification." I've always been suspicious of learning styles and multiple intelligences precisely due to to classification. I often see these concepts used for pigeonholing. The key point is multiplicity - we aren't limited to one type, but rather use all the types, each to differing degrees. I think there would need to be some sort of fuzzy logic that recognizes this degreeness and multiplicity, and that learning styles may be more relevant to the subject than the learner.
A strand of the thread muses on "what if higher ed needs to open up, so their courses can be screened by students?" I love this idea. I was rather disappointed by some of my last experiences in grad school. Had course descriptions been more detailed and clear, I might have been able to make better choices. That's a personal gripe rather than an LAK comment, I suppose.
Side discussion on the ELI presentation talks about the privacy issue as it relates to libraries. "Private or confidential? Couldn't library patrons learn what subjects are being actively pursued or researched, while keeping the identity of patrons confidential?" It's a good question. Librarian ethics place a high value on privacy. There could be a bit of professional resistance to making library data open to an extensive use of analytics.
No comments:
Post a Comment