I was a guest speaker in the MA in Elearning class at Cork Institute of Technology today. Thanks very much to Gearóid Ó Súilleabháin for the invitation. Here’s a little bit of what I stated …
Thank you for welcoming me to speak to your class today.
I can’t. I’m sorry.
It’s also an deeply uncomfortable time to be an American with any sort of subject know-how– it has been since well before the 2016 election, however particularly since then. I do not want to come off today as making broad sweeping statements about all of education everywhere when I’m very much talking about the education system in the United States and the education innovation industry in the US. Grain of salt and my apologies and all that.
One of the factors that I am less than sanguine about most education technology is due to the fact that I do not consider it this autonomous, context-free entity. Ed-tech is not a tool that exists only in the service of improving mentor and learning, although that’s quite how it gets spoken about. There’s far more to think about than the pedagogy too, than whether ed-tech makes that better or worse or about the exact same just more expensive. Pedagogy doesn’t occur in a vacuum. It has an institutional history; pedagogies have politics. Tools have politics. They have histories. They’re developed and moneyed and embraced and declined for a variety of reasons other than “what works.” Even the notion of “what works” should prompt us to ask all sorts of questions about “for whom,” “in what way,” and “why.”
I wish to speak with you a bit today about what I think is going to be one of essential trends in education innovation in the coming months and years. I can state this with some certainty because it’s been among the most crucial trends in education innovation for a long time. And that’s monitoring.
Now, I don’t state this to insist that security innovation is undoubtedly going to be more vital, more pervasive. Me personally, I don’t desire the future of education to be more monitored, data-mined, examined, anticipated, formed, managed. I do not desire education to look that method now, however it does.
Surveillance is not prevalent just because that’s the innovation that’s being offered to schools. And surveillance plays out extremely in a different way for various students in different schools– which schools need schools to stroll through metal detectors, which schools call the police for disciplinary infractions, which schools track what students do online, even when they’re at home.
In order to shift educational institutions far from a security culture, we are going to have to make a number of modifications in top priorities and practices– concerns and practices already in place long in the past this global pandemic.
Historically, a good deal of security has included keeping abreast (and control) of what the teacher was up to. And I’ll return to this notion of instructor security in a bit, however keep in mind, as I talk here, that none of the technologies I talk about affect students alone.
Possibly the most apparent form of security in schools involves those innovations designed to avoid or recognize unfaithful. If we broaden our meaning of “technology” to include more than just things with equipments or silicon, we may acknowledge much of the physical classroom design is suggested to increase surveillance and reduce unfaithful opportunities: the teacher in a supervisory stance at the front of the class, wandering up and down the rows of desks and peering over the shoulders of trainees.
Despite all the claims that ed-tech “interrupts,” it is simply as most likely going to re-inscribe That is, we are less most likely to utilize ed-tech to reconsider assignments or evaluations than we are to utilize ed-tech more closely scrutinize trainee habits.
Some of the earliest academic innovations– devices established in the mid-twentieth century to automate instruction– faced charges that they were going to make it simpler for trainees to cheat. As today, these innovations promised to “customize” education; but that increased individualization also brought with it a need to develop into new gadgets methods to track trainees more carefully.
And this is essential: the worry that trainees are going to cheat is constitutive of much of education innovation. This belief determines how it’s created and implemented. And in turn it reinforces the idea that all students are possible scholastic wrongdoers.
For a long period of time, probably the very best understood anti-cheating innovation was the plagiarism detection software TurnItIn. The business was founded in 1998 by UC Berkeley doctoral students who were worried about unfaithful in the science classes they taught. And I think it deserves keeping in mind, if we think about the affordances of technology, they were particularly worried about how trainees were utilizing a new feature that the personal computer had given them: copy-and-paste. They turned some of their research study on pattern-matching of brainwaves to produce a piece of software that would recognize patterns in texts. And as you certainly understand, TurnItIn ended up being a substantial organisation, bought and offered several times over by private equity companies because 2008: initially by Warburg Pincus, then by GIC, and after that, in 2014, by Insight Partners– the cost for that sale: $754 million. TurnItIn was gotten by the media corporation Advance Publications in 2015 for $1.75 billion.
So we should ask: what’s so important about TurnItIn? Is it the size of the customer base– the variety of schools and universities that pay to utilize the item? Is it the algorithms– the pattern-matching abilities that claim to recognize plagiarism? Is it the large corpus of data that the business has amassed– decades of essays and theses and Wikipedia entries that it utilizes to assess student work?
TurnItIn has actually been challenged many times by students who’ve grumbled that it breaches their rights to ownership of their work. A judge ruled, however, in 2008 that students’ copyright was not infringed upon as they ‘d consented to the Regards to Service.
But what choice does one have but to click “I agree” when one is compelled to use a piece of software application by one’s professor, one’s school? What option does one have when the whole procedure of assessment is intertwined with this belief that trainees are cheaters and therefore with an innovation facilities that is designed to monitor and curb their dishonesty?
Every trainee is guilty until the algorithm proves their innocence.
By the way, among its newer items promise to assist students avoid plagiarism, therefore essay mills now likewise use TurnItIn so they can assure to help students prevent getting caught unfaithful. The business works both ends of the plagiarism market. Genius.
Anti-cheating software isn’t just about plagiarism, naturally. No longer does it just examine students’ essays to make certain the text is “original.” There is a growing digital proctoring market that uses schools method to keep an eye on trainees during online test-taking. Popular names in the industry consist of ProctorU, Proctorio, Examity, Verificient. Much of these business were released circa 2013– that is, in the tailwinds of “the Year of the MOOC,” with the belief that an increasing number of students would be learning online and that teachers would require some sort of mechanism to verify their identity and their stability. According to one investment firm, the market for online proctoring was expected to reach $19 billion in 2015– much smaller than the size of the anti-plagiarism market, for what it deserves, however one that investors view as poised to grow rapidly, particularly in the light of the coronavirus pandemic.
These proctoring tools gather and examine even more data than simply a student’s words, than their actions on a test. They require a trainee program photo identification to their laptop video camera prior to the test begins. Depending upon what kind of ID they use, the software collects information like name, signature, address, contact number, motorist’s license number, passport number, along with any other personal data on the ID. That may consist of citizenship status, national origin, or military status. The software likewise gathers physical qualities or descriptive information including age, race, hair color, height, weight, gender, or gender expression. It then matches that information that to the student’s “biometric faceprint” captured by the laptop computer video camera. Some of these products also record a student’s keystrokes and keystroke patterns. Some request the student to hand over the password to their device. Some track location information, pinpointing where the student is working. They capture audio and video from the session– the background sounds and landscapes from a trainee’s home.
The proctoring software application then uses this information to keep track of a student’s behavior during the test and to recognize patterns that it infers as cheating– if their eyes stray from the screen too long, for example, their “suspicion” rating goes up.
We understand that algorithms are prejudiced, due to the fact that we know that humans are prejudiced. We know that facial recognition software struggles to recognize individuals of color, and there have been reports from students of color that the proctoring software application has required they move into more well-lit spaces or shine more light on their faces throughout the test. Because the algorithms that drive the decision-making in these products is exclusive and “black-boxed,” we do not understand if or how it may use specific physical traits or cultural attributes to determine suspicious habits.
We do understand there is a long and racist history of physiognomy and phrenology that has actually tried to forecast individuals’s ethical character from their physical look. And we know that schools have a long and racist history too that runs nearby to this.
Obviously, not all surveillance in schools has to do with preventing unfaithful; it’s not everything about scholastic dishonesty– but it is always, I ‘d argue, about keeping track of habits and character And monitoring is constantly captured up in the inequalities students already experience in our educational institutions.
For the past few years, in the United States at least, a growing number of schools have actually embraced monitoring technology particularly developed to prevent school shootings. In some methods, these offerings are similar to the online proctoring tools, except these display physical and well as online spaces, using facial recognition software and algorithms that claim to recognize risks. This online tracking consists of tracking trainees’ social media accounts, “listening” for menacing keywords and expressions. (These items are offered to schools in other nations too, not as school shooting avoidance– that appears to be a grotesquely American phenomenon– however typically as methods to recognize potential political and religious extremism and radicalization among trainees.)
Schools utilizing radio-trackers on trainees’ ID cards and keeping an eye on trainees’ mobile phones to make sure they’re in class. And all this is in addition to the unbelievable amounts of data gathered and analyzed by the everyday administrative software application of schools– from the knowing management system (the VLE), the trainee information system, the school network itself, and so on. Like I stated, not all of this is about preventing cheating, however all of it does show a school culture that does not trust trainees.
So, what happens now that we’re all doing school and work from house?
Well, for something, schools are going to be under much more pressure to purchase monitoring software– to prevent unfaithful, obviously, but also to meet all sorts of guidelines and expectations about “compliance.” Are trainees truly registered? Are they really taking classes? Are they doing the work? Are they logging into the knowing management system? Are they appearing to Zoom? Are they really learning anything? How are they feeling? Are they “at risk”? What are instructors doing? Are they holding class routinely? How quickly do they respond to students’ messages in the knowing management system?
And this gets us back to something I pointed out at the start: the security of instructors.
For a long time, the argument that lots of companies made versus working from house was that they didn’t trust their workers to be efficient. The manager needed to be able to stroll by your desk at any moment and ensure you were “gon na have those TPS reports to us by this afternoon,” to obtain an expression from the terrific film Office Space And much as education technology is designed on the basis of mistrust of students, business technology– that is, technology sold to big organisations– is created around a suspect of workers. Once again, there’s a long history here– one that isn’t almost computing. The punch clock, for instance, was invented in 1888 by a jeweler William LeGrand Bundy in order to keep track of what time his workers came and left work. He and his bro founded the Bundy Manufacturing Company to make the devices, and after a series of mergers, it became a part of a little business called International Company Machines, or IBM. Those “organisation devices” were sold with the promise of more effective offices, of course, which suggested monitoring employees.
Zoom, this charming piece of videoconferencing software we are using today, is another example of enterprise technology. Zoom never planned to serve the education market rather like this. And there is quite a bit about the performance of the software that exposes whose interests it serves– the capability to track who’s taking note, for example, and who’s in fact working on something else (a feature, I will state, that the business handicapped previously this month after problems about its relatively abysmal security and privacy practices). Who’s cheating the time-clock, that is. Who’s cheating in charge.
Social media monitoring tools that are used to surveil trainees are likewise used to surveil workers, determining those who might be on the cusp of organizing or striking. Gaggle, a monitoring tool utilized by lots of schools, composed a blog post a couple of years ago in which it suggested administrators turn the monitoring towards instructors too: “Think about the recent teacher work stoppage in West Virginia,” the post read.
Among my biggest worries today is that this pandemic strengthens this surveillance culture in school. And the new innovations, embraced to relieve the “pivot to digital,” will exacerbate existing instructional inequalities, will put vulnerable trainees at even more risk. These innovations will for foreclose possibilities for students and for instructors alike, shutting down dissent and conversation and curiosity and community.
Too frequently in education and ed-tech, we have actually puzzled monitoring for care. We require to view students closely, we tell ourselves, since we desire them to be safe and to do well.