What’s your podcast about?

This post was originally published on Seth Godin’s Blog https://seths.blog/2019/08/whats-your-podcast-about/ on August 6th 2019.

This is the moment, right here and right now, to start your podcast. Not because it will make you rich. Hardly. There are too many other ways for people to spend their attention for you (or me) to possibly assemble a large enough audience to make a killing selling ads. There are three good reasons […]

Innocence lost: What did you do before the internet?

This post was originally published on Internet | The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/aug/04/innocence-lost-what-did-you-do-before-the-internet on August 4th 2019.

People born in the late 1970s are the last to have grown up without the internet. Social scientists call them the Last of the Innocents. Leah McLaren ponders a time when our attention was allowed to wanderIn moments of digital anxiety I find myself thinking of my father’s desk. Dad was a travelling furniture salesman in the 1980s, a job that served him well in the years before globalisation hobbled the Canadian manufacturing sector. He was out on the road a lot, but when he worked from home he sat in his office, a small windowless study dominated by a large teak desk. There wasn’t much on it – synthetic upholstery swatches, a mug of pens, a lamp, a phone, an ashtray. And yet every day Dad spent hours there, making notes, smoking Craven “A”s, drinking coffee and yakking affably to small-town retailers about shipments of sectional sofas and dinette sets. This is what I find so amazing. That my father – like most other professionals of his generation and generations before him – was able to earn a salary and support our family with little more than a phone and a stack of papers. Just thinking of his desk, the emptiness of it, induces in me a strange disorientation and loneliness. How did he sit there all day, I wonder, without the internet to keep him company?In this age of uncertainty, predictions have lost value, but here’s an irrefutable one: quite soon, no person on earth will remember what the world was like before the internet. There will be records, of course (stored in the intangibly limitless archive of the cloud), but the actual lived experience of what it was like to think and feel and be human before the emergence of big data will be gone. When that happens, what will be lost?We are the last of a dying breed who knew days of nothingIt was in those lost hours that we really got to know ourselves Continue reading…

Can people be pushed into #mandatory #learning? Old myths in new mantra’s #learning #pedagogy #instruction

This post was originally published on @Ignatia Webs http://ignatiawebs.blogspot.com/2019/06/can-people-be-pushed-into-mandatory.html on June 24th 2019.

Let’s be clear: teachers still are not transforming into guides-on-the-side, contemporary-online-learning is not a fabulous learning utopia (we can build it, but we lack whom we want to reach) and pedagogy is now debilitated through new innovations in learning. At least that is my frustration of the day. Let me explain (picture credit: PhD comics.com).As I am getting more into the ‘AI helps people to be trained in a personalized way’-project (officially called the skills3.0 project, slides here), I am starting to feel uncomfortable with some of the ideas that emerge and resonate with false assumptions found 20 years ago:the old elearning assumption: if you build it, people will come (they did not, at best you need to market it ferociously in order to attract some worldwide learners – confer MOOCs). But when looking at the numbers and the degrees, it is still rather weak in terms of successful tailored learning resulting in professional learning enhancement. In most cases, MOOCs cover the basics, not the advanced side of professional topics.  another one: having to transform instructors (defined as sage-on-the-stage) to guides-on-the-side (something which is repeated by Norris Krueger in his blog article ‘from instructor to educator’ with a focus on entrepreneurial education). This idea of guide on the side stems from 1981, which means in the last 38 years we haven’t managed to get there… this does show it is hard to expand people to embrace a different approach to learning. For in my opinion the best teachers have always been guides-on-the-side, they inspire their students and lift them to their own next level.  The debilitation of pedagogy: I cannot get around this tendency to oversimplify learning, and almost dismiss the proven, evidence-based pedagogy we – the learning researchers – established over the last 30 years. For years fellow researchers in online learning were testing, investigating, reiterating learning options, to see what worked best. And as soon as the market took over, all is reduced to …. classic courses, with one speaker who delivers knowledge but barely listens, clearly a sage-on-the-stage model (MOOCs) and all of us learners discussing and sharing knowledge with each other in the discussion areas in order to tailor what was said to our own situations (social learning, which actually happens in face-to-face courses as well). The only thing that is added to the sage-on-the-stage in most of the MOOC cases is ‘fancy video’ and a ‘new type of Learning Management System’ (cfr. Coursera, FutureLearn, EdX… they are basically LMS’s with some extra’s). Yes, some people learn from the hole in the wall, some do, but most of us don’t. So why do learning data scientist and innovators in their new learning tools think that all of humanity will start to learn simply because they say: here it is, this will get you in a better career position. And even if this would be the case, please tell me who would have these actual magic courses, for who can build courses at the speed of the emerging, changing industry? And if we build them, who will be waiting, filled with anticipation and willingness to follow these courses?I feel frustrated that learning is again be seen as simply a thing that all of us do, and for industry-related reasons. Honestly, I think most of us learn informally (proven!) and if we learn for professional reasons we need to be able to spend time on it (HR enabling time), and if we were to be allocated time to learn, it should be allocated in terms of our own capacity for learning, based on our own background in learning (using a holistic approach to pedagogies). In order to move forward with the Skills3.0 project, there are several elements that need to come together and make sense in order to scale the project as well. These elements are:Using AI to filter out industry needs (which means you look at all the reports from industry, and analyse which new concepts arise from these reports to predict where the industry is going)Using AI to analyse which true experiences (and related competencies and skills) a person has: based on LinkedIn profiles, current CV’s…Finding the skills gap between both previous steps: getting to know what people might be missing in order for them to answer to upcoming industry needs,And finally pointing them to training/courses/workshops that might push them to be better for the future jobs. The project is taking off (see movie at the end, to see where we are at, I look a bit tired in it, or maybe simply older).The last step is underestimated by most of the non-educational people. At present learning cannot be put into simple formula’s, it is the complexity of life itself, it is why everything evolves in the long and in the short term, including us humans.  All of the above steps of the Skills3.0 project are laudable. If this works, it has a broader societal meaning, you can even say it provides a way to direct people to a more fulfilling professional life. But… that feels like a Utopian emotion following new innovations. We can see how providing guidance to courses that will help each one of us to perform better, to enhance our careers, to find new professional challenges, … is a good thing. The only problem is, that humans are also bound to their own learning characteristics (e.g. Big five personality traits, or more academically the learner characteristics guiding their own self-directed learning).Simply providing courses might not be enough, we need coaching, workshops, orientational sessions which depict which types of learning will benefit you most (e.g. if we look for data science courses online, which ones are useful to each of us individually? that will depend on what we know, where we want to use them for, and how we learn (for me, numbers are a challenge)).Whether we say learners must self-direct, or self-regulate or self-determine their learning, inevitably this means we are talking about learners that are willing to learn, and are capable of learning. Indeed, in the near future we will ask learners to learn at a speed that is ever increasing, meaning you need to be a really good learner to keep up with your own changing field. Can we do this? And if we can, how does it work?Short video on the Skills3.0 project recorded during the WindEurope conference in Bilbao. Which will lead to ‘building the workforce’:

Open Plan Offices Kill Productivity. Here’s What to Do Instead.

This post was originally published on ReadWrite https://readwrite.com/2019/06/20/open-plan-offices-kill-productivity-heres-what-to-do-instead/ on June 20th 2019.

For years, the business world lived under the false pretense that open plan offices were a killer idea. I myself even bought into the hype. At Netconcepts, the digital agency I founded (and sold in 2010), only the executives had offices with doors that closed. Open plan offices were a win-win for anyone looking to […]
The post Open Plan Offices Kill Productivity. Here’s What to Do Instead. appeared first on ReadWrite.

ANTH 101 – A Deeper Dive

This post was originally published on Bionic Teaching http://bionicteaching.com/anth-101-reflection/ on June 4th 2019.

It’s been a good while since I had the pleasure of working with Mike Wesch and Ryan Klataske on ANTH 101. I revisited the course recently to write a letter of support for an award submission for online courses. I am posting an extended version of that letter below because I think it paints a path with online courses that is rarely followed but is, nonetheless, replicable and worth considering. Bigger Picture? I see ANTH101 as a path forward that makes me hopeful in an online space that seems increasingly depressing.1 You have two races currently in online learning. There is a race to be the cheapest and easiest place to enroll.2 This article on Liberty “University” paints that picture pretty well. This world will be like the fast food industry in many ways. How uniform can we make things? How automated? What’s the least we can pay the fewest humans? The only path to profit will be through ridiculous scale. There will be very little difference between these providers. They will use LMS products that are very similar while following very similar online course rubrics and probably (poorly) paying many of the same adjunct/itinerant online course faculty. Additional sadness will occur when the same OPM is creating content, marketing etc. for multiple universities for the same courses and programs.3 […]

Cine online: Suspiria de Luca Guadagnino

This post was originally published on El antepenúltimo mohicano http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/ElAntepenultimoMohicano/~3/6bUeejrqw4Q/critica-suspiria-de-luca-guadagnino.html on April 25th 2019.

Oscuridad, lágrimas, suspirosCrítica ★★★★★ de «Suspiria», de Luca Guadagnino.Estados Unidos, Italia, 2018. Título original: Suspiria. Director: Luca Guadagnino. Guion: David Kajganich. Productora: K Period Media, Frensey Film Company, Videa, Mythology Entertainment, First Sun, Memo Films, Vega Baby. Productores; Marco Morabito, Brad Fischer, Luca Guadagnino, David Kajganich, Silvia Venturini Fendi, Francesco Melzi d’Eril, William Sherak, Gabriele Moratti. Música: Thom Yorke. Fotografía: Sayombhu Mukdeeprom. Montaje Walter Fasano. Diseño de producción: Inbal Weinberg. Dirección artística: Merlin Ortner, Monica Sallustio. Vestuario: Giulia Piersanti. Reparto: Dakota Johnson, Tilda Swinton, Mia Goth, Angela Winkler, Ingrid Caven, Elena Fokina, Sylvie Testud, Renée Soutendijk, Christine LeBoutte, Fabrizia Sacchi, Małgosia Bela, Jessica Harper y Chloë Grace Moretz. Duración: 155 minutos.El equipo de Suspiria no estaba completo cuando se sentó en la rueda de prensa de la Mostra de Venecia. La sala estaba presidida por Luca Guadagnino acompañado de Tilda Swinton, Dakota Johnson, Mia Goth, Chloë Grace Moretz y Jessica Harper, pero faltaba el Profesor Lutz Ebersdorf (que interpreta al Dr. Josef Kemplerer), algo que Tilda Swinton abordó con total tranquilidad. «Desafortunadamente nuestro colega Lutz Ebersdorf no está presente, pero nos ha dejado un mensaje para leeros», comentó la actriz. Se escucharon carcajadas entre el público, pero Swinton, imperturbable, continuó ajena a ellas: «Espero poder entender su letra». Y durante un minuto entero y frente a la seriedad de sus compañeras, Swinton leyó dos páginas de carta donde Ebersdorf se disculpaba por su ausencia, escudándose en su privacidad. «La ilusión creada por mis compañeros es obra suya, no mía», apuntaba el profesor alemán. Y una vez concluido el mensaje, la sala rio, aplaudió y se dio paso a la ronda de preguntas. Fue entonces cuando, pasados veinte minutos de intervenciones rutinarias, un periodista del Boston Herald expresó su interés en que las actrices explicaran cómo fue trabajar con el autor transalpino. Y, tras una pausa, añadió: «Y a Tilda, si podría comentar sobre los dos papeles que interpreta en la película». Se hizo el silencio en la sala. Swinton se mantuvo inexpresiva y callada, pero tras unos segundos y con un cortante pero amable tono de confusión en sus palabras, simplemente dijo: «¿Qué dos papeles?» Lo que puede parecer una simple conversación entre un periodista que necesita hacer su trabajo y una actriz que se niega a renunciar a la magia del suyo, captura al mismo tiempo y de forma bastante casual la unicidad de Suspiria y el peligro que esa característica conlleva frente a los espectadores. En esa rueda de prensa todo el mundo sabía que, efectivamente, el Profesor Lutz Ebersdorf no existía y que el Doctor Kemplerer era en realidad uno de los tres personajes que Tilda Swinton interpretaba en la película. Nadie (que hubiera hecho bien su trabajo) había caído en la trampa. Partiendo de ahí, los periodistas tenían dos opciones: entrar en la narrativa, guardar silencio y mantener un secreto a voces; o quebrar la ilusión y prestar atención al hombre (o la mujer, mejor dicho) detrás de la cortina. O una u otra, pero no las dos. Y tampoco ninguna entremedio. Porque Suspiria es, para lo bueno y para lo malo, una película de extremos.El italiano Luca Guadagnino, justo después de terminar el rodaje de Call Me By Your Name, se embarcó en el proyecto de llevar a cabo lo que él ha definido como una respuesta (no tanto un remake, lo cual es tan cierto como apropiado) a la Suspiria de Dario Argento, el clásico de giallo italiano estrenado en 1977. Un proyecto que tiene una disonancia casi cómica frente a sus anteriores películas, pero que no debe hacernos dudar, porque Suspiria es una película de Luca Guadagnino de principio a fin. Con solo tres cintas anteriores a Suspiria, el italiano había cultivado un estilo marcado y reconocible por su cohesión temática (el hedonismo, la riqueza, el verano), pero también por su particular capacidad de crear una genuina sensación de intimidad con la que impregna sus historias, cuya presencia (Cegados por el sol) o ausencia (Io Sono l’Amore) marca el carácter de éstas. Dotando de un significado especial a lo banal, lo casual, a esos pequeños gestos y detalles cotidianos que en cualquier otra película pasarían desapercibidos, el director nos deja entrar en las vidas de sus personajes de una forma que nadie en su entorno comprende. Pasamos a ser parte de ella. Compartimos el secreto. Sentimos que formamos parte de algo especial. Comer un plato de pasta se convierte en una infidelidad, tomar el sol en una provocación y hacer cosquillas en una declaración. El director había tratado esta intimidad con delicadeza, asociándola a una forma de explorar la libertad sexual de sus personajes despojándose de prejuicios, pero lo que hasta ahora había sido una invitación, en Suspiria se convierte en intrusismo que transforma esa liberación en opresión. Si la sensualidad de Call Me By Your Name nacía de buscar esa intimidad, aquí la oscuridad se genera a través de la incapacidad de escapar de ella. Esto crea una invasiva sensación de peligro y constante observación que, sin embargo, se presenta etérea, y que se traduce en una electrizante atmósfera que se aprovecha de la vulnerabilidad de sus personajes de una forma que Guadagnino ya había hecho en otras ocasiones, solo que (a priori) por primera vez no es a favor del espectador, sino que es en contra.Pueden ver Suspiria en Filmin por 3.95€ Guadagnino, como en todas sus películas anteriores, construye esto con precisión milimétrica. Existe un detallismo inherente a su buen gusto italiano (y aristocrático) donde cada elemento de la película se incluye para enfatizar una realidad de esta, y lo hace de la forma más bella posible, sin perder por ello la oscuridad a la que sirve: El delicado vuelo del drapeado en el vestido marrón de Madame Blanc, fantasmagórico y mágico al mismo tiempo; el alienígena sonido de los sintetizadores, la flauta y la voz de Thom Yorke, su sincronización con la tristeza de su piano y el trance que invoca la unión de ambas; o los colores que componen la paleta cromática con la que se forma Suspiria, una rica gama de grises y marrones en los que la fuerza que adquiere el rojo cuando se introduce en ella es poderosa (y significativa) sin ser chirriante. Y Guadagnino consigue crear un universo concreto y rico, único y complejo, completamente inmersivo y alejado de aquel que conocíamos en la Suspiria original. Su entrega a definir los límites en los que plantea su historia llega al punto en el que el director desarrolla un lenguaje cinematográfico inédito en su trabajo, mucho menos sutil que en anteriores ocasiones, que contribuye a que la sensación de alienación se consiga no solo a través de lo que vemos, sino de cómo lo vemos. En ocasiones el montaje imita las pulsaciones que se presentan en Volk y se vuelve rápido, seco y agresivo (como la visita de Patricia al Dr. Kemplerer o la primera vez que vemos a Susie bailar). Otras, la cámara avanza sutil y discreta, como un fantasma que sigue a los personajes (como en los ensayos de Madam Blanc). Y a veces la segunda evoluciona a la primera (y viceversa). Porque en Suspiria todo es impredecible, pero nada es aleatorio. Este universo que Guadagnino crea en la película es un espacio que le da sentido y coherencia a la crueldad de lo que muestra, pero también a la trascendencia que intenta alcanzar. Suspiria es una historia sobre brujas que indaga en el concepto de identidad y su significado (no es de extrañar que tres actrices interpreten más de un personaje en la película), pero también es una reflexión sobre el abuso del poder (político y jerárquico), la culpa (de un marido, de una madre) y la vergüenza (de un país, de un hombre). El guion trata temas que, sin ser expresamente relevantes para la historia en todos los casos, sí contribuye a enriquecerla. A extender su alcance. A que el aquelarre de brujas y su magia infecte Berlín de la misma forma que infecta a la Academia Markos. Se traza una línea que lo une todo. Grosso modo, como es el caso de la historia personal del Dr. Kemplerer (que no termina de funcionar como debería), pero lo une. Y es excesivo y grandilocuente, quizá demasiado, pero ahí es donde radica su belleza. Como espectadores, solo nosotros podemos decidir en qué lado de la cortina queremos quedarnos, pero a la película no podría importarle menos nuestra posición. Suspiria tiene el valor y la fuerza de querer llegar a todo, de querer existir en ese extremo, y te atrapa con su magnitud, su baile y su crueldad. Con su pulso carnal. Es intoxicante y maquiavélica. Pero es bello. Así que sigamos bailando. Sigamos bailando | ★★★★★Aitor Salinas© Revista EAM / Columbia, Misuri