Serendipity35

On the same day, I saw three articles about artificial intelligence that made me view AI in different ways. One article was about how a chatbot powered by the Internet has passed exams at a U.S. law school after writing essays on law topics. Another article was about a company that is developing AI for warfare, but said they would only sell it to "democratic nations." The third article was about how AI makes the translation of difficult "dead" languages as well as interpreting medical tests faster and more accurately. 

Jonathan Choi, a professor at Minnesota University Law School, gave ChatGPT the same test faced by students. It had 95 multiple-choice questions and 12 essay questions. He reported that the bot scored a C+ overall.

In my own essay testing, I have found that the bot can produce in seconds a "C" paper or the start of a better paper. It is impressive but it is not like a really good student's work. So far.

But many of the AI bot stories in the media are about jobs that are likely to be replaced by AI. One popular media story at cbsnews.com/ supposes that computer programmers and people doing administrative work that they term "mid-level writing" can be handled by AI. That latter category would include work like writing emails, human resources letters, producing advertising copy, and drafting press releases. Of course, there is always the possibility that a worker doing that could be freed from those tasks and put onto higher level tasks and actually benefit from the AI.

I have seen positive and negative results from using AI in media work and law. Some of the negative examples seem to me to be when the user expects too much from AI at this stage in its development.

I don't think we know today what AI and bots will change in the world of work by next year, but it is certainly an area that requires concern by individuals and those who can affect the broader culture.

In my years developing online courses starting at the turn of the century, we discovered quickly that students had no interest in recorded 90-minute lectures on tapes, CDs, DVDs, and eventually online. They hit the fast-forward button frequently.

I had learned in my secondary teaching years before my higher ed years that chunking material was essential.  Chunking is the process of breaking down instructional materials into smaller, "bite-sized" pieces and then arranging them in a sequence that makes it easier for your learners to learn the material. Think of how we write phone numbers: 800-289-9246 rather than 8002899246. We do it for dates, we make categories, chapters, heading, subheadings, menus.

The more current term for this seems to be "microlearning" which is used in education and professional development. These short, focused bursts of learning, are often delivered in the form of videos. Proponents will say that this is also effective for time-poor and attention-deficient learners, though that is arguable. 

We know that video accounts for the vast majority of Internet traffic. Of course, it's not all learning. In fact, much of it is entertainment, but educators can learn from how entertainment uses video and media. All those short clips from late-night talk shows or Saturday Night Live get far more views than would a full version of the show.

The effectiveness of microlearning depends on a range of factors: the quality of the materials being delivered, the context in which they are being consumed, and the learning objectives of the individual.

Microlearning in education, especially online, can include:
Text (in phrases, short paragraphs)
Images (photos, illustrations)
Videos (of the short variety)
Audio (also short)
Tests and Quizzes (yes, shorter is better)
Games (such as simple single-screen challenges)

MORE
https://www.umass.edu/ctl/resources/how-do-i/how-do-i-chunk-content-increase-learning

https://thepeakperformancecenter.com/educational-learning/thinking/chunking/chunking-as-a-learning-strategy/

https://elearningindustry.com/what-is-microlearning-benefits-best-practices

Google recently introduced a new feature to their Workplace suite that they call "Help Me Write." This generative AI will first appear in Gmail and Google Docs. At the moment, it's available to a select audience of invited testers.

Like other generative AI, you will be able to enter a prompt and have a first draft created. for you.,An example Google shared is not having it write a paper for your English class, though it will probably be able to do that. They show the example of having it create a job description for a regional sales representative/

It's another AI tool that might frighten teachers because it seems to help students unfairly but I think this may be a misperception. As with other AI tools, such as the much-discussed chat GPT, I think the best thing educators can do is to introduce this to students and guide them in the ways that it can be best used and best used legitimately.

The evolution of digital literacy in classrooms will never end. Yes, these kinds of AI- assisted-writing tools present boyj opportunities and challenges for educators. But ignoring them or trying to ban them from student use is certainly not the solution. This tool and others like it are an opportunity to improve student writing skills and critical thinking. 

Google Announcements
https://blog.google/technology/ai/ai-developers-google-cloud-workspace/
https://workspace.google.com/blog/product-announcements/generative-ai

Image via Flickr svklimkin Public Domain
 

I was reading a post on Medium by Bryan Alexander in which he used the term "queen sacrifice" in reference to some changes occurring at universities. I know the term from chess but wasn't sure of his usage. It turns out he has been using that term for the past year to describe something happening in higher ed.

Another post by him on two more campuses (one in my home state of New Jersey) got me more interested in this trend. I worked briefly with Bryan on a MOOC about MOOCs back in 2012 and found him to always be thought-provoking and innovative.

In chess, a queen sacrifice is a move that sacrifices a queen in return for some compensation, such as a tactical or positional advantage. These university "queen sacrifices" are sacrifices of faculty and programs are usually brought on by dropping enrollments and reduced government funding for public institutions.

At NJCU, they released this interestingly worded press release (emphasis on language is mine).

The Division of Academic Affairs announced on December 15, 2022 that it has responded to the ongoing university-wide rightsizing efforts by reducing its academic portfolio by 37%. The University is sunsetting 48 undergraduate programs, 24 minors, 28 graduate programs, 10 certificate programs, and one doctoral program.

 

Robots, yes - but cobots? The term 'cobot' is a portmanteau of  "collaborative robot", a robot designed for human interaction. Traditional industrial robots would typically be isolated from humans for safety reasons. Cobots operate alongside people within the same space.

Collaborative robots are promoted as being cost-effective, safe, and flexible to deploy. Cobots designed to share a workspace with humans make automation easier in a variety of applications, according to Universal Robots.

Robots that will be able to exist next to people in our homes, factories, and offices and navigate safely around us is seen as possible in the next 5-10 years.

Similar to industrial robots, cobots can automate manual processes but can also do jobs that humans don't want to do. What kind of jobs does that include? Tasks that are repetitive, tedious, dirty, or dangerous. So, injury reduction is one of the benefits of working with cobots. Strenuous lifting and repetitive movement are common workplace injuries.

Not to insult the humans reading this, but robots and cobots offer far higher levels of consistency than humans. That is a key benefit in tasks that require a high degree of precision.

The cobots we are using emerge tend to be more compact and lightweight than conventional robots. They are also more user-friendly and require fewer or no engineers or programmers to set up ad monitor operations.

MORE at euronews.com/next/...

I have been seeing the abbreviation "WFH" used more lately. It stands for “work from home” which is work being done remotely, instead of at an office. Although many organizations transitioned their employees from the office to WFH during the Coronavirus pandemic, the WFH idea has not gone away. Both workers and employers saw advantages to remote work.

In my reading, I have come across studies that show productivity while working remotely from home is as good or better than working in an office setting. One article states that those who work from home spend 10 minutes less a day being unproductive, work one more day a week, and are 47% more productive.

Surveys of workers seem to indicate that from that point of view, the plusses to WFH include: 

• the ability to flex work hours (but not decrease them in most cases)
• gives a better work-life balance 
• eliminates the cost and inconvenience of a commute 
• no office politics 
• less need for childcare (though not every parent can care for children and work)

In these same surveys, it seems that many of the minuses fall into two levels. Workers either feel something is missing entirely, partially or just not as effective as when they are in the office.

• less or less effective or no collaboration
• less or less effective or no mentoring
• Let's face it, despite office politics, the office is also a part of many workers' social life. I met my wife at work and many of my friends too. Online TGIF happy hour just isn't the same.
• It is harder to understand the "corporate culture" and feel like part of an organization when you are at a distance. Some people feel "disconnected" from their employer and fellow employees.

These are broad answers and every job has its own unique plusses and minuses. A salesperson who is used to making in-person contact with customers and potential customers might actually miss commuting to meet them and might find that sales are better in a face-to-face meeting. Not everyone has the equipment they need to do their work from home. The people we labeled as 'essential workers" during the pandemic's worst days probably have no option to work from home now.

According to the 2021 State of Remote Work Report from Owl Labs, 2021 was the year the world stayed remote, and 90% of the 2,050 full-time remote workers surveyed said they were as productive or more productive working remotely, compared to when they toiled in the office. A Forbes article is headlined "Remote Work Is Here To Stay And Will Increase Into 2023, Experts Say."  

In education, a NY Times article is similarly headlined "Online Schools Are Here to Stay, Even After the Pandemic," though the sub-heading is "Some families have come to prefer stand-alone virtual schools and districts are rushing to accommodate them — though questions about remote learning persist." I know colleges that are still offering more online sections than before the pandemic. Partially, it may be because the investment was made in the technology so "let's get some use out of it." Students - and more importantly, faculty - who had not worked online may have found it to be better than they expected with some of the same plusses are above.

The push for K-12 schools to go back to "normal" was much greater than the push for higher education. Though K-12 school districts also made the shift with technology, it might only be used now for special situations (weather-related closings, absent students, parent content, professional development etc.)

To make a K-20 generalization, there is greater hybridization of earning now than there was pre-pandemic. That may also be true in the workplace.