An analysis shows that information flow between individuals in a social network can be ‘gerrymandered’ to skew perceptions of how others in the community will vote — which can alter the outcomes of elections.
The Internet has erased geographical barriers and allowed people across the globe to interact in real time around their common interests. But social media is starting to compete with, or even replace, nationally visible conversations in print and on broadcast media with ad libitum, personalized discourse on virtual social networks3. Instead of broadening their spheres of association, people gravitate towards interactions with ideologically aligned content and similarly minded individuals.
n information gerrymandering, the way in which voters are concentrated into districts is not what matters; rather, it is the way in which the connections between them are arranged (Fig. 1). Nevertheless, like geographical gerrymandering, information gerrymandering threatens ideas about proportional representation in a democracy.
Figure 1 | Social-network structure affects voters’ perceptions. In these social networks, ten individuals favour orange and eight favour blue. Each individual has four reciprocal social connections. a, In this random network, eight individuals correctly infer from their contacts’ preferences that orange is more popular, eight infer a draw and only two incorrectly infer that blue is more popular. b, When individuals largely interact with like-minded individuals, filter bubbles arise in which all individuals believe that their party is the most popular. Voting gridlock is more likely in such situations, because no one recognizes a need to compromise. c, Stewart et al.1 describe ‘information gerrymandering’, in which the network structure skews voters’ perceptions about others’ preferences. Here, two-thirds of voters mistakenly infer that blue is more popular. This is because blue proponents strategically influence a small number of orange-preferring individuals, whereas orange proponents squander their influence on like-minded individuals who have exclusively orane-preferring contacts, or on blue-preferring individuals who have enough blue-preferring contacts to remain unswayed.
Companies like Microsoft, Google and the start-up Magic Leap have all released AR glasses over the years, but none have gained massive consumer adoption.
The SCSU VIzLab , InforMedia Services, and the SCSU Marriage and Family Program are conducting a pilot study to explore possible applications of Virtual Reality technology.
We are currently seeking student volunteer participants.
They will be asked to take part in a short virtual reality experience, about 10 minutes long, followed by a brief survey.
The goal of this experience is to help determine the effectiveness of current VR technology and 360° video as a potential resource for the university.
There are available times on the 23rd, 25th, and 30th of April, and 2nd of May.
The experience will be held in ISELF 118 (first floor), the lounge just off the lobby (pls see map).
As this data is just exploratory in nature, we are limiting the survey to 30 participants, so signup is required here:https://doodle.com/poll/d5iee9ixitxdv4cv
Acclaim, Badger, Badge List, Credly, CSULogics, and Red Critter
Acclaim and Credly merged. CSULogics seems CCCS native; pls advise if I need to contact them nevertheless. Badgr is now with Canvas, but I still think we need to explore the options with other LMS, such as D2L.
From: Hank from Badge List <hank.holiday@badge-list.intercom-mail.com> Reply-To: Hank from Badge List <hank.holiday@badge-list.intercom-mail.com> Date: Friday, April 26, 2019 at 4:53 PM To: Plamen Miltenoff <pmiltenoff@stcloudstate.edu> Subject: Re: Discuss a setup of microcredentialing system
Please look that over and we can help you via email if you have any questions.
Cheers,
– Hank
From: Ben from Badge List <ben.roome@badge-list.intercom-mail.com> Reply-To: Ben from Badge List <ben.roome@badge-list.intercom-mail.com> Date: Monday, April 29, 2019 at 5:30 PM To: Plamen Miltenoff <pmiltenoff@stcloudstate.edu> Subject: Re: Discuss a setup of microcredentialing system
Hi Plamen,
We’d love to get on a call but unfortunately we can’t spend those time resources on accounts that generate below $4,950 per year. Does your budget meet those requirements? If so we’d be happy to schedule a conversation.
the emphasis (strong side) is the streamlining of the different offices and activities on campus
levels of proficiency is very much geared toward undergrads
aspects of gamification, but no peer support credit/badge
U of Pittsburgh – OCC outside the class curriculum
Monclair U (NJ second largest):
U of Wyoming: after level 3, career coach does storytelling appointment.
pilot is $5K and institutional can vary between $10-15K
Under the Dewey Decimal System that revolutionized and standardized book shelving starting in 1876, nonfiction essentially already gets the genrefication treatment with, for example, Music located in the 780s and Paleontology in the 560s. Yet most fiction is shelved in one big clump alphabetized by author’s last name.
Many librarians say the “search hurdle” imposed by Dewey classification (a system originally designed for adults) significantly reduces the odds of a child finding something new they’re likely to enjoy. In a genrefied library, on the other hand, a young reader standing near a favorite book need only stick out a hand to find more like it. (It’s a bit like the analog version of Amazon’s recommendation feature: “Customers who bought this item also bought”)
The Dewey-loyal also oppose genrefication in principle for, interestingly enough, the same reason others support it: self-sufficiency. Sure, they argue, kids might be better able to find a book independently in their school library, but what happens when they go to the public one? When they get to high school?
The debate has led to compromise positions. Some leave books for older students in the Dewey arrangement while genrefying for younger ones. Other librarians rearrange middle readers and young adult books but leave picture books shelved by author since it can be unclear how to categorize a story about a duck driving a tractor.
Weakest students more likely to take online college classes but do worse in them
Survey of rigorous academic research on online education finds lower grades and higher drop out rates Column by JILL BARSHAY February 4, 2019
According to the most recent federal statistics from 2016, roughly one out of every three or 6.3 million college students learned online. That number is growing even as fewer people are going to college.
Online degrees are also concentrated among a handful of nonprofit universities. Just three — Western Governors University, Liberty University and Southern New Hampshire University — enroll about a third of all online students at private, nonprofit institutions.
overwhelming research evidence that community college students aren’t faring well in online classes
Another 2017 study of students at a for-profit university which offers both in-person and online classes found that students who took an online class not only got lower grades in that class but also in future classes. Online students were more likely to drop out of college altogether than similar students who attended in-person classes.
There are much stronger results for courses that combine supplemental materials online with traditional, face-to-face instruction. But the authors do not consider this hybrid instruction to be “online” learning.
Smartphones also provide an easy way for teachers to “inspire students to positively contribute to and responsibly participate in the digital world,” as espoused by the ISTE Standards for Educators.
research shows that when students are engaged in their learning — and they’re almost always engaged with their phones when given a choice — they are less likely to succumb to distractions.
1. Create short videos.
Videos can express any type of learning in any style, from music videos to interviews, book trailers, historical re-enactments, tutorials and stop animations.
Flipgrid is the one of the best educational video-creation sites
Gartner predicts that nearly 38 percent of companies will stop providing devices to workers by 2017 — but 20 percent of those BYOD programs will fail because of overly restrictive mobile device management measures. So how can IT pros devise a BYOD strategy that stays afloat? Here are six guidelines to accommodate legitimate IT concerns without sinking a policy’s odds of success:
Look to Existing Policies
Before creating a BYOD policy, take a look at existing HR and legal procedures. Many email, VPN, and remote access security policies can be applied to mobile devices, as well.
Provide Training and Education
Employees are using personal devices at work, whether the company realizes it or not. But that doesn’t mean they are using them correctly. Employees often use file-sharing and other tools of their choosing without IT’s knowledge, which could put sensitive corporate data at risk. Use a BYOD policy to trainemployees how to correctly use their applications
Specify Devices
BYOD isn’t limited to smartphones. According to Gartner, a “new norm” is emerging in which employees manage up to four or five devices at work.
Enforce Passwords and Encryption
passwords aren’t foolprool. Data encryption is an additional security measure
A smart BYOD policy doesn’t mean IT is off the hook. Rather, successful policies rely on IT and employees sharing security obligations.
Set Ownership Expectations
Employees often fail to realize that all data on their devices is discoverable, regardless of whether the device is personal or company-owned. The question of who owns what is still a legal gray area, though companies increasingly take the liberty to remote wipe employees’ personal devices once they leave their job. Avoid the guessing game with a clear exit strategy.
