Glad you are thinking about this issue. A while ago I developed a metaphorical model called the “spectrum of the intellect," based on the electromagnetic spectrum which has "visible light" in the middle and important things like x-rays, gamma rays, ultraviolet, and infrared on the "invisible" periphery. Similarly, the human intellect has "visible" abilities such as easily measurable verbal-symbolic processing in the middle of the intellectual spectrum and important but "invisible" abilities on the periphery—things like leadership, collaboration, ethical awareness, sensitivity to aesthetics, wisdom, the visual-metaphorical processing used in Einstein's thought experiments, etc. These abilities are “invisible" because they are not easily measured. Big data tends to zero in on the narrow band in the middle of the spectrum of the intellect, making us focus on what's necessary but insufficient while ignoring some very important abilities. Leading thinkers in various disciplines have discussed similar issues. Ian Shapiro, a political scientist, said we tend to place excessive faith in reductionism in analyses of human behavior and get caught up in overzealous statistical modeling. He called this tendency "the flight from reality in the human sciences." Economist Thomas Piketty used the term "scientific illusion" while criticizing a similar problem in his discipline. Mathematician William Byers said we fall prey to "sterile certainty" when we are captivated by excessive faith in mechanistic precision and assume that phenomena within the realm of human thought and action can be captured fully in ways that are certain, precise, and bound to logic. The K-12 education system, especially in the USA, is suffering from the dogmatism of policymakers who assume that you can measure and test everything of importance and hold educators accountable on the basis of superficial scores from standardized testing. The consequence—dogmatic, powerful policymakers are pushing education back toward the 19th century instead of refining it for the 21st-century.

the answer is YES. Also people do not act from their power but fear and so they follow the rush for BIG DATA and teach postgrad students to not think and the world at least in education looks a bit grim to me. So lets be part of a change :)

Hi Nabil,

Thank you for your answer, which is helping me understand more about the potential for 'big data'.  I think, as long as we don't rely completely on something, we can always glean useful insights.

I will read the articles you attached.  If I have any questions I hope you don't mind if I get back to you?

I'm only at the 'tip of the icerberg' on my journey toward an understanding of big data.  It was one of my work colleagues who said to me it's all about the big data David - Which is why I asked the question I suppose!

Many thanks,

David

Hi Ania,

An interesting answer.  I tend to agree that education is slowly but surely getting away from it's original remit of helping students to learn how to think.  There appears to be a divide whereby some universities (elite) continue with this, whilst the rest are expected to provide a workforce that has competencies the large corporations value, and this is not a well-rounded 'education'.

I'd be interested to hear what other people think about this.

Thanks,

David

I think there is a huge confusion out there abut teaching methods. Before one looks for one, one should define what it is. So what is it and what is expected of it to deliver?

And yes as for Harvard MIT etc - they preserved their freedom and they share it on the net as much as they can within their structures. But complaining about the average univ s also not sufficient because the academics also have a chance each time they teach. Also, how many of them make use of Harvard networks or Yale? People do not need policy makers to aim for less - there is culture in academia that favours reproduction at all levels. But there is also a culture aiming for better and I hope I am there :)

ania

Hi Ania,

Yes, teachers do have the option of becoming 'street level bureaucrats' whereby educators redefine policy 'backstage' (Goffman) so as not to compromise their values, whilst complying, or so it appears, with the status quo.

I think you're there and the numbers are slowly but surely increasing :-)

David

This weekend, I watched the film, MONEYBALL, again.  The focus is on this phase in history:  The age when weeding through the mega-numbers brings the greatest succes and most important breakthroughs for rationale decision-making.  Baseball teams in a minor market taking on other larger teams is the metaphor.  In the cases shared in the film, set in 2001-2002 USA,  the insight provided by data mining allowed decision-makers and teams to think differently.  Undervalued individuals were selected for the team in a way that was similar "to card-counting at a black jack table". 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiAHlZVgXjk

After the model worked out in real baseball, it was applied by other teams--to the benefit of many in baseball.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/moneyball/

I like what the tale holds for us.  Data mining is fine and great, but putting the data to work for us is what is more important.  This is a human dimension.  Any organization is made up of humans who need to relate to one another and need to work together in attempting to interpret data and what it means for them. 

The big data being gathered on us by governments and corporations can be detrimental but it can also be used by good clear heads to implement good reforms.   It is the human element that is the most important.

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for your comprehensive answer and great example (i.e. Baseball).

I think that's a good point you make about making the data work for us.  Indeed, the human element  with all its compexities is very important,  What one person sees another may see differently.  Thus, interpretation based on multiple perspectives (like the Delphi Method in a way) is the essence of collaborative working.

With regard to governments and corporations you're right, it depends on the people involved and ultimately their intentions.

I'll have a look at the You Tube links!

Cheers,

David

Interesting re moneyball; I think though we have a US culture of rationalism and in critical theory we have a culture of critical thinking. Am not sure how well we have scored on the latter hence my concerns regarding the former . In any event data about reality is not data of reality. So care needs to be taken and a local success does not prove the point. 

Hi Ania,

Interesting what you say about data about reality not being reality.  I think as long as we bear this in mind as researchers (we should do!), and are reflexive in our endeavours, that's all we can hope for.  For example, an excerpt from an abstract I've just submitted.

"Instrumentalism sees human thinking as a social endeavour emphasising the use of knowledge and intelligence in one’s interaction with the environment. Thought as a result, exists as an adjustment to the environment, especially the terms of thought and meaning relative to the function they perform. Thus, the value of an idea is judged in relation to its practical consequences, rather than being a transcendent truth"

Hope this makes sense!

Cheers,

David

Hi Stefan,

I wasn't sure myself what the big data phenomenon means, and that's why I asked the question, which has provided some very interesting answers.  Where do we draw the line with the way in which the data is collected and then used?

Thanks Stefan.

Dear Stephan.

In my opinion in one side Big Data is a place where "everybody" or "every teacher" in the world can meet or can be placed to know each other characteristics. But I completely agree with you that in the other side by using Big Data, we will lose the inherent identity of every educational process and we will push the comparisions between absolute different educational phenomenons. Maybe the same problems as PISA report?

Big Data means what the name express: big data resources of various sources connected and ready to be used. Is needed to think about such implications as Prof. Clancy hints.

Thanks for sharing,

Glad you are thinking about this issue. A while ago I developed a metaphorical model called the “spectrum of the intellect," based on the electromagnetic spectrum which has "visible light" in the middle and important things like x-rays, gamma rays, ultraviolet, and infrared on the "invisible" periphery. Similarly, the human intellect has "visible" abilities such as easily measurable verbal-symbolic processing in the middle of the intellectual spectrum and important but "invisible" abilities on the periphery—things like leadership, collaboration, ethical awareness, sensitivity to aesthetics, wisdom, the visual-metaphorical processing used in Einstein's thought experiments, etc. These abilities are “invisible" because they are not easily measured. Big data tends to zero in on the narrow band in the middle of the spectrum of the intellect, making us focus on what's necessary but insufficient while ignoring some very important abilities. Leading thinkers in various disciplines have discussed similar issues. Ian Shapiro, a political scientist, said we tend to place excessive faith in reductionism in analyses of human behavior and get caught up in overzealous statistical modeling. He called this tendency "the flight from reality in the human sciences." Economist Thomas Piketty used the term "scientific illusion" while criticizing a similar problem in his discipline. Mathematician William Byers said we fall prey to "sterile certainty" when we are captivated by excessive faith in mechanistic precision and assume that phenomena within the realm of human thought and action can be captured fully in ways that are certain, precise, and bound to logic. The K-12 education system, especially in the USA, is suffering from the dogmatism of policymakers who assume that you can measure and test everything of importance and hold educators accountable on the basis of superficial scores from standardized testing. The consequence—dogmatic, powerful policymakers are pushing education back toward the 19th century instead of refining it for the 21st-century.

Hello David,

Picking up on Ania's point about rationalism and critical thinking is the how is critical thinking is defined. Two VERY different forms ( i.e. Plato's' notion of form) are presented to the learner. One based in powerlessness and one based in power dynamics. In other words, Big Data is here and there is nothing we can do (agency) and "critically thinking" about its application in teaching is one from.

The second form (which I align with as my field of study) is based in critical theory which leads down a very different line of questioning and assigns agency. This form of critical thinking places the issue of power front and center. Questions concerning what does this mean to be able to track with far more accuracy buying patterns, individual behavior patterns, social patterns, ect. Who benefits and who are marginalized. Does it lead to equity or exploitation? Does this technology lead to further surveillance of already marginalized groups to rarify the existing social order of privilege and domination or is it re-humanizing.

Two very different forms of CT with very different conclusions. The question I personally would have to think about is the constant use of (dynamite metaphorically?).for two reasons coming out of my conclusion on big data. My conclusion is that is that Big Data is another mechanism added in the arsenal of the reification as (as Lukas defined) our existing social order.

Unlike social institutions (education) that have to be ideologically deconstructed Big Data is a machine, a technology which its use of is socially constructed and can ideologically deconstructed but the machine and the technology cannot.

Secondly, I cannot buy into the arguments that lead part of my live in the "duck and cover" era (how many remember?) for that is fatalism thus denying my agency. It denies human agency, it buys into as Fromm argues looking at the human condition as a natural evolutionary process (Ania's reality but not reality comment) instead of what the human condition really is social domination and oppression. Big Data just reirfies.

Douglas

As serious scholars who are aware of the complexities and contexts in which teaching and learning happens, the attention we give to the nature of data used rests with us. As we continue to examine what we know and explore ways to expand that knowledge, we need not be limited by any one approach. The nature of what is studied is likely one of the best guides to determine if big, small, or other types of data best represents what is learned through disciplined study. See response from Don Ambrose. He presents a strong rationale for the value of context- and context-based data choice.

Well, the conversation has certainly moved on in the past 24 hours!  Don, I totally agree with you.  Both quantitative and qualitative researchers can be guilty of reductionsim.  I tend to used a mixed methods approach in a 'local' context (i.e. courses/units/modules depending on the system, which are embedded within undergraduate programmes of study).  This provides me with information useful in my particular environment, and what is evident or emerges there, may or may not be the case elsewhere.

This is something I think Gil is pointing out, unless I have misinterpreted what he has said!

Douglas, I think what you're alluding to is Social Engineering', which is found in the work of Bourdieu and Foucault amongst others.  Add to this Stefan's last post and the conversation does seem to be suggesting this with regard to 'big data'.

I'm so happy I asked this question as the resulting conversation has been fascinating.

David ;-)

David,

more in the line of  using "Big Data" as a tool in social reproduction of both scholars you mentioned and also the work ofGramsci, Fromm, Freire, Du Bouis, Baldwin, Colllins, and feminism thought..

Thanks,

Douglas 

Hi Douglas,

Thanks for your reply.  I will certainly have a look at what the authors you mention have to say in relation to our conversation here!  I'm learning things I didn't envisage when asking the question in the first place.

Cheers,

David

Hi, David,

To give a start Bourdieu concept of social capital, Foucault question on social instutions of the past being usefull in a new epoch, Gramsci hegenomy, Freire Marxist based notion of pedagogy based reproduction.

All the best

Douglas

Hi Douglas,

Thanks, much appreciated.

Best wishes,

David

I would like to know do we have enough data in teaching learning or still we are in a need of data specially for  research in teaching and learning.

thank you so much sir.

As with every big business backed phenomena, big data is froging ahead in the field of education. But you are right to be alaarmed. For me, that sense of alarm is more from losing the actual human touch and the 'datarization' of our learners rather than losing complexities. For happens to the minority of students who do bnot fit a specific data image/pattern? As with the data business, we approximate and aggregate. In this case, such approximations will be driven by data economics rather than humanity. It does not take a genius to see the potential carnage. Finally, have we thought about when teachers will become datarized too? No question, we do need data. What we dot need is for data to take over our role, our learners and become a substitute for our particular sensibilities

My concern is the misuse of data for marketing of educational "aids": "This will fix 'that'" -- with no basis in any fact other than sly and politically-driven interpretation of the data.

Is there any international agency or group of researcher are there in the world to discuss or to keep an eye what kind of   data is needed for education in research or related with teaching and learning .. 

Hi Everyone,

I see we have moved on again over the past couple of days, thanks to Kiran, Stefan, Gordon and Jonathan!

I like Stefan's answer and think that within the huge amount of data, we should be able to select what is relevant for our own needs.  We can always add to and extend when we think there may be a gap somewhere.  As Gordon quite rightly points out, we should use data to our advantage, not let it be used as a tool to replace good practice or to 'beat us with'.  Data can never replace human experience!  I think this is what you are alluding to Jonathan.  Thanks for the added questions Kiran, which have kept the ball rolling.

David :-)

Hi everyone

Thank you so much David for your precious comments and summarizing whole of the discussion.

Regards

kiran

I read an interesting anecdote about designing everything for the 'average' person. In summary it was tht a fighter jet, very expensive, was designed to fit the 'average' pilot and in doing so fit NONE of the pilots attempting to fly it. I believe it was Lockheed Martin went back to the drawing boards and redesigned the cockpit to be able to adjust to the range of pilot possibilities. Education should be like that. Big data can be used but only to inform the personal.

This question and responses, particular those of Don and Gordon, speak so directly to the situation at my university right now--the dominance of data and economics over human sensibility and need.  As the Faculty Senators pointed out, there has been a lack of shared governance and major, essential decisions made based solely (allegedly) on data, spreadsheets, reports, the money.  The problem is, of course, as Don and Gordon have noted, the tendency to rely solely on data removes humanity from the equation and creates carnage!  And we are being "beaten with data" that we have not helped to produce and have not had access to.  Because numbers seem so clear of bias, sometimes certain people tend to use those numbers to behave in an obviously biased manner.  Too often, we tend to forget one of the tenets of science (pointed out by the late Stephen Gould in one of his wonderful essays) that facts (and stats) mean nothing until they are interpreted by somebody and put into context.  But an individual can use stats and facts in an indifferent manner, never taking into account the subsequent disasters that may result on the human level as a result of those numbers.

It is still Mark Twain who said it best: "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Aysha

Very well said and properly contextualised Ayesha. We are human, and that entails diversity. Too often, data ignores this, not because it foes not have the potential yo recognise it, but because this is what falls in tune with the 'money men' who have now encroached into education. As they say, 'he who pays the piper dictates the tune' reliance on data services the business interests of the dominant paymasters and while we cannot and should not ignore it in its entirety, we should draw on our human experience in understanding that one size can never fit all

Strong points Aysha, Gordon. Here's a little more on "the flight from reality,” and "scientific illusion.” While presenting the results of his highly influential critique of failures in the global economy, Thomas Piketty elaborated on this form of dogmatism in his high-impact book “Capital in the twenty-first century”:

I dislike the expression ‘economic science,’ which strikes me as terribly arrogant because it suggests that economics has attained a higher scientific status than the other social sciences. . . . For far too long economists have sought to define themselves in terms of their supposedly scientific methods. In fact, those methods rely on an immoderate use of mathematical models, which are frequently no more than an excuse for occupying the terrain and masking the vacuity of the content. (p. 573-575)

In essence, he was encouraging some in his field to break out of a form of dogmatic, sanitized myopia. Now moving from this to the context of the discussion of big data, the well-meaning dogmatists and opportunistic profiteers who are using distorted forms of big data to commandeer the levers of power in higher education and K-12 education are masking the vacuity of their content.

Hello all,

I am very glad thid discussion has swinged in this direction, Gordon, Doan, and Aysha and I agree. May I ask a question however, I think there is something also going on besides just money (but in the long run it will be profitible) and that is control. Here in the states already we seeing school districks choosing whole educational "systems" from textbooks, assessments, lesson plans, methodology instead of methodologies, stamp in times as to where you should be, ect.. 

This to me is dogmatic, I am wordering what your thoughts might be. Carter Woodeson wrote in 1933 about "if you control a mans [women] thinking yoou don't have to worry he will find his own place (ehre he belongs). This "controling" through dogmatic educational systems I would like some thoughts if possible.

Thank you,

Douglas 

Hi,

You might want to look at:(if you haven't already!)

Out of our minds by Ken Robinson

The Leipzig Connection by Lance J Class

The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America by Charlotte Iserbyt

I think they will be of interest.

David

Hi Daivid,

I have read Iserby, but not the others 

Thanks,

Douglas

Look for the Anual Report on Education from  National Education from USA

Compare with National report of your Country See if there are the use Estatistcs

Behavior  instruments and the result of  evaluation