I’ve been playing with settings and techniques for minimizing the amount of data gathered about me online. DoubleClick is probably the most invasive, as it silently tracks you as you wander the web, quietly recording what you do, and how you got there, as part of Google’s advertising distribution network.

It has an opt-out policy, and they provide a page with a link that is supposed to set a cookie to flag you as opted out – verboten for tracking – but it doesn’t seem to work. I’ve got the opt-out cookie set, but every day, I have fresh cookies from DoubleClick, waiting to be deleted.

What part of OPT OUT does DoubleClick not understand?

I tried to post this as a comment on the OLDaily post, but got rejected with a “Permission Denied” error.

Wait. Wired produces a bloated, braindead “magazine” that’s really just a CD-ROM’s worth of images of magazine pages, and you complain about bloat being the “Apple way” I don’t get it, Stephen. Apple had nothing to do with the app. And AT&T in the states is the bad guy for imposing the caps, not Apple. An Android phone running on AT&T would have the exact same limitations.

D’Arcy

I seem to be consistently putting myself into the role of Apple Apologist, but this kind of confusion pisses me off. Apple doesn’t control the network. AT&T (in the States, at least) does. And they do a really shitty job of it.

Take tethering, for instance. It’s worked just fine on iPhone OS 3 up here in Canada on Rogers. But AT&T blocks it, saying it’s not available until iPhone OS 4 is available this summer. Apple produced an OS with support for tethering over a year ago. It’s worked great. But AT&T blocked it, until, I assume, the were able to selectively enable it so they could charge more money for it. The bandwidth problems with the iPhone are entirely AT&T’s, not Apple’s.

And the Wired app is a joke. There’s no way in hell that the model of CD-ROM-sized bundles of images of text is going to fly. It’s shiny press release fodder “hey! we have a native app! totally! it’s cool!” but it is the worst kind of suck. We’ve seen this on the internet. It didn’t last. It’ll pass on mobile devices, too.

But, let’s at least get the facts straight, and blame the real offenders rather than jumping on the hate bandwagon.

Don’t even get me started on the constant conflation of App Store and The Web. A moderated App Store in no way prevents anyone from putting their own stuff on the devices.

I sent a copy of this letter to my alderman today, to ask him to support improving Calgary’s bicycle infrastructure

I just read that there is a vote coming up in council, regarding a potential bicycle strategy for the City of Calgary.

I urge you to support endorsing a comprehensive bicycle transportation strategy, aimed at making Calgary a bike-friendly city. It is currently extremely unfriendly, even dangerous, to those of us who ride bicycles.

Currently, we have several hundred kilometres of recreational pathways, but most destinations aren’t served by this system and require riding on city roads. Roads in this city (especially suburban NW) are extremely bicycle-hostile, dangerous places. Bike routes, where they exist, are poorly marked. Drivers are aggressive and dangerous. Bike routes, where they exist, are narrow, often obstructed by parked cars, debris, and snow, pushing bicycle traffic into the regular flow of vehicular traffic. Many roads don’t have adequate shoulders at all, forcing bicycles to “take the lane” in order to ride safely – and risking the wrath of angry drivers in doing so. Signage for bike routes and pathways is either completely absent, poorly visible, or confusing. It’s generally a bad scenario, but is fixable.

If we are to have more people ride their bicycles as a mode of transportation (and not simply as recreation) then we need to do more as a city to help make the roads safe for bicycles. We need to raise awareness, so drivers know that bicycles are allowed on the roads (I’ve lost track of the number of times angry drivers have yelled at me to get off the road). We need to designate bicycle lanes on all major roads – and not force bicycles to bypass city roads by using the recreational pathway system that doesn’t serve most destinations.

My son, currently in grade 1, wants to ride his bike home with me after school. I’m afraid to do that with him, because of the dangerous riding conditions that he’d have to navigate.

I ride my bike as my primary transportation – almost all year round (except for when the roads become impassible by bike because of snow piled up along the sides, and dangerous drivers not wanting to share the remaining ruts with bikes).

I ride over 5000km every year. I always follow traffic laws, stopping where required, and riding where designated. But even I feel unsafe on the city roads. I can’t imagine how a new rider would feel.

A recent article in the Calgary Herald perfectly outlines what we need to do as a city.

If there is anything I can do to help make Calgary bike-friendly, please let me know.

Murphy, A. (2008). A framework for identifying and promoting metacognitive knowledge and control in online discussants. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. 34(2) pp. 1-18.

Abstract: The effectiveness of computer-based learning environments depends on learners’ deployment of metacognitive and self-regulatory processes. Analysis of transmitted messages in a context of Computer Mediated Communication can provide a source of information on metacognitive activity. However, existing models or frameworks (e.g., Henri, 1992)[1] that support the identification and assessment of metacognition have been described as subjective, lacking in clear criteria, and unreliable in contexts of scoring. This paper develops a framework that might be used by researchers analysing transcripts of discussions for evidence of engagement in metacognition, by instructors assessing learners’ participation in online discussions or by designers setting up metacognitive experiences for learners.

The paper is just a framework for approaching online discussions wrt metacognition. it’s basically a beefy lit review, which is handy, but no methods to use, per se.

DN: my summary of the intro section: effectiveness of online learning is tied to learner’s regulation of their own learning, and to deployment of self-regulation and metacognitive processes. content analysis can provide info about metacognitive activity. Henri’s model of analysis makes it difficult to capture metacognitive activities. Interaction analysis gets at metacognitive activity better (see Gunawardena, Lowe & Anderson’s Interaction Analysis Model[2] , ferinstance)

In general, there is an abundance of literature related to analysis of online discussions (…). However, MC has received meagre attention in this literature especially as compared to other skills, such as, critical thinking.

The paper relies on foundational work in the area of MC, including that of Flavell (1987)[3] , Jacobs and Paris (1987)[4] and Brown (1987)[5]. It also draws on Schraw and Dennison (1994)[6] , who themselves built on Flavell’s work to create their Metacognitive Awareness Inventory. This paper also builds on Anderson et al.’s (2001)[7] taxonomy of Mc knowledge and on Henri’s (1992)[1] work.

Metacognitive variables (after Henri and Flavell):

1. Person: All that is known or believed about the characteristics of humans as cognitive beings.
   indicators:
   
   • Comparing oneself to another as a cognitive agent
   • Being aware of one’s emotional state
2. Task: All information acquired by a person in terms of the task or different types of tasks. Appreciation of the quality of available information.
   indicators:
   • Being aware of one’s way of approaching the task
   • Knowing whether the task is new or known
3. Strategy: Means chosen to succeed in various cognitive tasks.
   indicators:
   • Strategies making it possible to reach a cognitive objective of knowledge acquisition
   • Metacognitive strategies aimed at self-regulation of progress

lots of examples in the paper of various indicators used by other researchers.

prompts:

If we conceptualize Mc knowledge as Declarative, Procedural and Conditional, what might be some actual examples of these types of knowledge in a context of an online discussion, i.e., if a researcher or instructor wanted to identify instances of Mc thinking, what types of statements might constitute signs or evidence?

Footnotes:

1. Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. R. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: the Najaden papers (pp. 117– 36). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
2. Gunawardena, C., Lowe, C., & Anderson, T. (1997). Interactional analysis of a global online debate and the development of constructivist interaction analysis model for computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(4), 395-429.
3. Flavell, J. H. (1987). Speculations about the nature and development of metacognition. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 21-29). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22(3 & 4), 235-278.
5. Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition and other mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 460-475.
7. Anderson, L., Krathwohl, D., Airasian, P., Cruikshank, K., Mayer, R., Pintrich, P., Raths, J., Wittrock, M. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessment: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.

Meyer, K.A. (2010). A Study of Online Discourse at The Chronicle of Higher Education. Innovative Higher Education (2010) vol. 35 pp. 143-160.

Abstract: Given the explosive growth of online communications, new forms of discourse are an intriguing topic of study. This research focused on ten online discussions hosted by The Chronicle of Higher Education, using content and discourse analysis of the postings to answer several questions. What is the “conversational scaffolding” used by posters in higher education-related online discussions? Are academic online discussions more like speech or writing? Additional questions dealt with how posters identify themselves, who their audience is, what motivates them, how accurate and political they are, and what the experience of reading these online discussions is like. Based on the analyses, these posters were more likely to write correctly although with diary-like personal insights. Through the analysis I also identified both positive and negative aspects of the online discussion experience.

on discourse analysis:

Baron’s research (2008)[1] offers a type of “discourse analysis” (Fulcher n.d.), which has a long research tradition in the communications and media literature. Discourse analysis is a way of understanding social interactions, which online discussions are although they depend on writing to communicate and a web site as the medium. To engage in discourse analysis, a conversation is transcribed and deconstructed, each utterance is examined (in this case, a posting to the discussion served as an utterance), and themes are noted.

and

Discourse analysis is defined by Palmquist (n.d., ¶ 4)[2] as the “application of critical thought to social situations and the unveiling of hidden (or not so hidden)” politics, motivations, issues, and perceptions. It is a form of deconstruction, identifying features in the text (such as themes and word choices) in each sentence or thought (Fulcher n.d.)[3] . In discourse analysis, several items are analyzed, including sentence construction, grammar, stress, tone, and word choice; there are no set formulae for conducting discourse analysis (Rogers 2004)[4] .

sample:

In May 2009, I pulled ten online discussions from the Forums section of The Chronicle of Higher Education; these ten discussions were less than 10% of the 124 discussions available at the time.

ethics clearance:

Since they were posting to a public web site and they opted to use screen names that may or may not identify them, human subjects review and approval was not needed. This also means that the subjects did not consent to be involved in this study although their choice to post to a public site assumes that they were willing to have their words read and analyzed.

analysis:

Data collected on each discussion included:

1. total number of posts
2. number of sentences
3. average number of sentences per post
4. total number of words in the discussion
5. average number of words per post
6. range in number of words in posts
7. percent of abbreviations (e.g., NSF for National Science Foundation or “lol” for “laughing out loud”) per discussion
8. percent of acronyms
9. percent of contractions
10. percent of emoticons
11. percent of spelling errors
12. percent of punctuation errors

DN: so? none of these 12 types of data get at the discourse. what is the pattern of interaction? levels of engagement? etc… this is simple content analysis. After talking about discourse analysis in the intro, they revert to content analysis?

conclusion:

DN: basically, that people post stuff online. they may or may not do it anonymously. they may or may not post about academic stuff. they are, apparently, human, and do stuff that humans do. The paper isn’t much use to what I’m doing, but some of the references are interesting for background.

Footnotes:

1. Baron, N. S. (2008). Always on: Language in an online and mobile world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Palmquist. R. (n.d.). Discourse analysis. Retrieved June 4, 2009 from http://www.ischool.utexas.edu/ ∼palmquis/courses/discourse.htm
3. Fulcher, E. (n.d.). What is discourse analysis? Retrieved June 4, 2009 from http://www.eamonfulcher.com/ discourse_analysis.html
4. Rogers, R. (2004). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education. In R. Rogers (Ed.), An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education (pp. 1–18). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

I’d maintained a personal home page with handy links and utilities for years, but gave it up when iGoogle etc… came along. In my current attempts to withdraw as much as possible from The Allseeing Eye of Google, I’ve resurrected a personal homepage. I found a copy of my old one from 2003 on a backup CD. Oh, the ugly. It burns. So, I created a new one from scratch.

After using it for a day or so, I’m liking it a lot better than the heavy iGoogle homepage with all of the widgets and media. The source code for my page is 6K. It loads some external media, but not much. Quick. Lightweight. Personal. And no tracking by anyone, unless I choose to do a search or follow a link to a third party site.

Previously, Google learned a little bit more about me every time I opened a browser. They knew where (and when) I was. They learned what I read. They learned what I did, by tracking any clicks or activity. And they get to feed me ads for the pleasure. Now, it’s a simple, lightweight, personal page. No tracking. No ads.