Snopes? Yeah, I encountered so many idiots who responded to being referred to anything on Snopes by alleging that Snopes was “biased”. People literally don’t want the truth.
Yeah. One that got me in particular in the last couple of weeks was someone on my FB page, who wouldn't even accept the original source documents. Like, actual court transcripts from the actual day in court. Gobsmacking.
Blanket dismissals of the “MSM” are part of the problem.
Hear hear! Radio NZ is part of the MSM, and we've all been relying on it heavily for the past 36 hours or so. And having dealt with Matt Nippert with respect to a few tax stories, I'm very impressed by the way he digs and digs and digs to get information out of government and big business.
Well, yes, but for example, when I saw a tweet saying that the FBI had announced an investigation into alleged Russian tampering with the US election, a quick visit to the NY Times front page was enough to confirm that it was about as credible as all the frothing from Wikileaks in the last few weeks.
I wanted to cry / scream / shake my head in despair everytime I got referred to sites like USUncut.com if I wanted to know the truth during the US election, and then told that if I referred to the WaPo or NYTimes, that the MSM were just a giant conspiracy.
Disappearing down <insert your preferred expletive> rabbitholes.
I'm not sure what to do about it except keep on fighting back, and buying MSM subscriptions.
Thank you. It's taken me years to get my head around brains and difference. Not good or bad or better or worse: just different.
I was honoured to be asked, and it's a very small return for the way that you've helped me to change my thinking over the years, Steven.
Because in New Zealand two things are at the top of the stats: rugby and domestic violence. This is NZR’s chance to start defeating one with the other.
We will know that the wider New Zealand community is starting to treat domestic violence as serious crime when an All Blacks player, or a Super Whatever-Number-It-Is player, donates his man of the match award to Women's Refuge.
Steve Maharey has a good piece about on-line learning in the Dom Post this morning: Delivering and education for the 21st century.
In other words, the key issue is not how we deliver education – in school, online, blended, block course – what matters is if all students are getting the best education. If, for example, online learning translates into receiving large amounts of content to be read, memorised and regurgitated then the student is being short changed.
This is the model many of the new mass online providers of "education" are using around the world at the moment. It hardly qualifies as education. It simply gives people the opportunity to access content. Learning is another matter.
The minister is right when she says that new technology offers students and teachers exciting new possibilities. But those possibilities will only be positive and lend themselves to great learning if it is understood that the technology is merely a delivery mechanism. On its own it changes nothing.
What has to change is the model of learning that will ensure all learners, regardless of the mode in which they learn, get a 21st century education. That means they come out of our schools as flexible, creative, innovative people; that they know how to learn for themselves; that they know a lot; that they know how to create new knowledge for themselves and; that they know what to do with the knowledge.
Given his experience as a university lecturer and vice-Chancellor of a university that has the most developed tertiary distance education programme in New Zealand, I think that what he says is worth listening too.
I home educated three children who are now adults.
It's the word "I" that makes the difference. Yes, kids with committed carers can and do thrive with home schooling, and on-line delivery of home schooling is can surely be part of that. It's far from clear that kids without that committed carer supervising their education will do well with on-line education. And in fact, the evidence with respect to on-line charter schools in the US shows that most of the schools are abject failures.
These are all good arguments about the advantages of being physically present in a classroom and a school.
I think there's also another set of arguments around just how bloody hard on-line teaching, and on-line learning is. As a teacher, I know that it takes an enormous amount of work to prepare distance materials, far more so than preparing internal courses.
And as a former student, I know that the big issues are motivation, and getting immediate feedback. People in a classroom have someone they can ask, straightaway. People learning on-line don't. They have ways of contacting a tutor, but not that immediate individualised response.
My guess is that there are some kids for whom on-line learning could be great. But for many it would just be another step towards disengaging from education altogether.