TED Community » Edmond Hui

More About Me

I'm passionate about

Proper understanding of the role of information technology in education. The teaching of Science.

An idea worth spreading

I am an IT enthusiast yet I am often disappointed by the actual practical contribution of IT in education; so often I see computer use in schools praised as if mere usage in the classroom guaranteed a positive effect on learning. My generation has unwittingly participated in a huge experiment to discover whether a population can be educated without any computers and yet live happily in a world of pervasive IT. If you're over 50, your school was likely to have no computers at all, and yet if you're a TED enthusiast you're likely to be a fluent user of IT. You are proof that computer-free education is not only possible but highly successful. Educators younger than me will increasingly find the concept of education without computers to be unimaginable. They will never be able to repeat the experiment because future students will always go to computer equipped schools. The younger you are, the less likely you will be able to discern whether the Emperor's new clothes are real or not.

People don't know that I'm good at

Yuloh.

Comments

• TEDCred score: +1303.60 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• +1

  A comment on Talk: Joshua Prager: In search of the man who broke my neck

  Apr 20 2013: I once spent a five hour flight listening to two passengers in the row behind me very loudly comparing stories about how they had 'found themselves' when in fact all they'd done was lie next to a pool for a week. Since then I have had a perhaps unjustified prejudice against listening to anyone finding themselves.
  
  I'm glad that I suppressed my prejudice, trusted in TED and listened. In contrast to Mr Barnsley below, I very much enjoyed this as a story carefully constructed, well rehearsed and beautifully spoken. If it was a book reading, at least it's his book!
  
  What is life if it's not learning how to deal with the fact it ain't fair, people aren't always good; and to get on with making the most of it?
• +3

  A comment on Conversation: In a democracy should voting be compulsory

  May 10 2012: It doesn't matter. I have both voted and not voted in elections. Regardless of the rules, the entire electorate contribute. A thoughtful citizen who does not vote does so in full knowledge of what effect that inactivity has on the election. The electorate will over time get the government they deserve. In the end the only certain safeguard that democracy gives us is the ability to get rid of malicious dictators. Whether it's compulsory or not, politicians tailor their campaigns to suit the rules in order to improve their chances of power, making democracy quite a poor method to elect good government- it's just a way to elect the most electable people.

• A comment on Conversation: What features do u seek in the search engine of the future?

  May 10 2012: What features do 'u' seek? I don't know. Where are all these 'u's anyway, and do they have abilities built into their serifs that allow them to type into search engines? Are Garamond 'u's more handy with keyboards than Gill Sans 'u's? Personally I'd hope search engines analyse the input and dumb down their results according to the care with which the search term has been phrased, to best suit the needs of the user.
• +1

  A reply on Conversation: Should health insurance be related to a patient's risk?

  May 7 2012: You are right about the opportunity for risk based premiums to influence behaviour, but that's a red herring. You can't influence people out of their genetics, yet genetics are a major contribution to risk. The problem most people have with this question is that it appears unfair when you have to pay more than the next guy, as if a loaf of bread costs you more. But the health insurance for each person costs the insurance company a different, definable amount to provide. It's not the same loaf of bread. If you are truly talking about insurance, then the premium has to be risk-based. Some other thing might be good for society, but if you have that, it wouldn't be 'insurance'.
  
  When I bet on a horse, I don't complain that if I bet on the favourite I get less if it wins than if I bet on an outsider and that wins. That's precisely the same problem faced by the insurance companies. A chain smoker who doesn't brush his teeth costs is simply more expensive for the insurance company to cover than a non-smoking spouse of a dentist. So their premiums should reflect that difference.

• A reply on Conversation: Should students be punished by their schools for comments made on social medial from their homes.

  May 7 2012: Yes, you're right in that the statements are objectively false, and in both cases you have correctly identified situations where I would agree action absolutely ought to be taken between the parties without resort to the courts. The difference is that McDonald's is not charged either by the state or by the parents to educate the employee, whereas the school certainly is. As I see it, those who argue against punishment by the school do so because the act was committed outside school time and not on school equipment. But the actual damage is done when the comment is read, just as surely as a punch only hurts when it lands. If the punch lands in school, the school has a duty to respond. So if one student defames another, even if the victim reads it at home, if the victim comes to school in an unfit state to study, the school is right to be involved. If on the other hand the two students get into an argument that doesn't spill over into school, then it's probably none of the school's business. Similarly, if a reasonable person feels that Mr Faccineli is going to be affected while he teaches because the student has posted something, again the school has a legitimate right to be involved.
  Perhaps my residence in the UK colours my judgement on this. I don't see the freedom of expression argument at all- I don't see a slippery slope- none of this affects the student's right to post. If a school sought to prevent students from posting on social networking sites from home, BEFORE they had done anything wrong, that would be censorship and that would be wrong of the school. All of us have a responsibility to think before we publish, now in the internet age more than ever.

• A reply on Conversation: Should students be punished by their schools for comments made on social medial from their homes.

  May 7 2012: I think perhaps the site's limit on number of replies is a good thing here- it has the feel of a long and tiresome argument. My final comments are these- sticks and stones may break my bones, but internet defamation can REALLY hurt me (more so a vulnerable child)- just because it's a quote doesn't make it true.
  Your example about Facebook is clearly inappropriate since Facebook's UI is a perfectly legitimate subject for discussion amongst its users, all of whom Facebook has a good financial reason to want to keep. This is not about good netizenship. It's about good citizenship, which is what schools are trying to educate students in.
  I actually agree with you on the example of TED, because it's my poor analogy that brought him into the argument. Chris is unlikely to actually ban such a user, because it's not his job to educate him. Schools do have a responsibility to educate. It would be irresponsible for a school not to respond.

• A reply on Conversation: Should students be punished by their schools for comments made on social medial from their homes.

  May 7 2012: I agree wholeheartedly with that- I was responding to the question 'should students be punished' in the general sense of punishment, rather than in the clarification of the question that mentions them being expelled. There's a whole range of appropriate reaction from being counselled by pastoral staff in e-safety through a talk with the head teacher through a range of other more serious punishments. The simple cause of all this is that the internet has immensely changed the ability of individuals to publish without young people being able to appreciate, or be taught, the implications of publication without proper care. It's just a case of doing stuff that hurts other people, and schools have a role in guiding students not to do that- including a range of legal and proper sanctions.

• A reply on Conversation: Should students be punished by their schools for comments made on social medial from their homes.

  May 7 2012: No, not at all. I didn't mean I get into an argument with Chris. I meant I post something entirely defamatory and for the purpose of this conversation entirely malicious and wrong, without any possibility of confusion.
  .
  I believe Chris does indeed own this, but I'm not sure. For the sake of argument let's say he does.
  
  Again, it's not censorship- I'm not saying anything about rights to delete comments. I'm talking about Chris's right to take punitive action within his organisation if someone who is associated with it defames it on a third party publication. Surely the courts are not the only place an ethical and responsible organisation can respond to an action by an individual?

• A comment on Conversation: What guidelines would you give someone preparing a TEDx talk?

  May 7 2012: This is a classic TEDx talk. http://www.ted.com/talks/rick_guidotti_from_stigma_to_supermodel.html
  It's entirely admirable except he runs out of time at the end. Now notice how much time he wastes establishing himself as a person of credibility at the beginning. At the end of the talk you'll realise it didn't matter one jot where he's previously worked. I tell my speakers to truly believe that if they're invited to speak, they already have credibility. Don't waste time introducing yourself or proving you're worthy.

• A comment on Conversation: Should students be punished by their schools for comments made on social medial from their homes.

  May 7 2012: I just had a thought. I had the great pleasure of meeting Chris Anderson a couple of weeks ago. He's every bit as warm and friendly as you'd expect from seeing him on this site, from his comments and from the direction he's taken TED. Let's imagine that I'm some sort of malicious idiot and I badmouth him on Facebook and accuse him of actions and attitudes he's never been guilty of. Of course he could sue me, but I think he'd also be well within his rights, responsibilities and expected behaviour to sanction me in the context of my activities with TED- boot me out of my TED membership, ban me from conferences, etc. As a member of this site, and a TEDx organiser, I have some responsibility towards TED and TED has some right to sanctions if I were to bring it into disrepute. At least that's my view. David- what do you think on this?
  Ed