Warning: Constant MAX_INLINE_MENTION_LENGTH already defined in /home/dkernohan/public_html/wp-content/plugins/semantic-linkbacks/includes/class-linkbacks-handler.php on line 4

Warning: Undefined array key 3 in /home/dkernohan/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wp-youtube-player/wp-youtube-player.php on line 85

Warning: Undefined variable $doing_rss in /home/dkernohan/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wp-youtube-player/wp-youtube-player.php on line 92
Uncategorized – Page 21 – FOLLOWERS OF THE APOCALYPSE
Warning: Attempt to read property "plugins" on null in /home/dkernohan/public_html/wp-content/plugins/styles/classes/styles-customize.php on line 150

Category: Uncategorized

  • The user data bubble?

    post represents my opinions only. available under a cc-by-3.0 (unported) license.

     

    In many ways the 2000 “dot com” crash was a misnomer – there was nothing fundamentally wrong with the technology. However, what was wrong was the model used to pay for the technology, which was primarily either display advertising revenue or (more commonly) venture capital advanced with the expectations of returns based on display advertising. There were expectations around the revenue generatable from on-line adverts simply because they were online that were just not realisable.

     

    It is difficult to understand, more than 10 years on, quite why people thought that advertising would be more effective online than elsewhere. Advertising Effectiveness is a young science, and much is advanced (and then debunked) based on nothing more concrete than theorising. But many major advertisement placement conglomerates (Google, Microsoft, Apple… sometimes incorrectly referred to as service providers, hardware manufacturers and search engines) are focusing on one particular theory – the idea of personalised advertising based on user data.

     

    (apologies for linking to a bad Tom Cruise film of a decent Philip K Dick book)

     

    Google is widely reckoned to receive 99% of total income from advertising – around $28 billion in 2011. Facebook partnered with Microsoft in order to gain an estimated $3.8billion via advertising in 2011. And Microsoft itself (in partnership with Yahoo and AOL) are determined to break in to this market despite losing £2.5 billion a year on providing online services, barely breaking even. However, both Google and Facebook have seen recent valuations of substantially more than £100billion dollars, and Apple (a major provider of mobile-targetted adverts) has is valued at $362 billion (more than the UK national debt),very recently holding more cash on deposit than the US government.

     

    Large amounts of these earnings, and much of the assumptions made regarding company values, are based on revenue generated by personally targeted advertising drawing on user data. The data these companies hold on our online (and increasingly, offline) activity represents their most valuable asset. Twitter, a company that doesn’t even yet have a revenue model, is valued at more than $12bn (£8bn) simply on the value of the user data it holds.

     

    As we reach the bursting point of the bubble we see increasingly crazy activity. Only today Google launched “search plus your world”, using recommendations on social media (initially it’s own Google+) to serve you search results, and thus advertisements, based on the opinions of your online contacts.  The “freezing out” of Facebook and Twitter is not the issue here, it simply breaks search. It relies on your G+ account being well-managed in order to provide you with tailored results. Forgetting that if I want the opinions of my online contacts I will most likely ask them, and most likely disagree with them too.

     

    Tesco, the UKs largest retailer, does not allow you to set up an online account to make purchases without being signed up to their own “Clubcard” user data collection scheme. Simply and startlingly if you don’t give them your data, they don’t want your money.

     

    Your user data, goes the theory, allows adverts to be specifically targeted to you. Should you buy, for instance, a decent bottle of single malt, you would be likely to receive advertising for other whiskies and spirits. And as a “single malt drinker”, you personal data becomes valuable to other companies selling other products and services that other “single malt drinkers” buy. Online, this is easier and quicker, due to data stored by your web browser such as cookies, and search and purchase histories stored by search engines and shopping sites. This makes personal advertisment serving quicker and easier (“looked at data projectors online recently? You’d love to see these ads about data projectors. Never mind that you just bought one, or were researching for a friend…”). Analysts estimate that targeted advertisements drawing on your user data (on and offline) are twice as effective.

     

    To me, all of this seems to be based on a reversal of what I have previously termed “one of the odder beliefs that our culture seems to have developed about markets” – the idea of market efficiency and the rational consumer. Advertisement targeting draws on the idea of our observed behaviour presenting a coherent and realistic picture of our desires and needs. Bluntly speaking, it doesn’t. My past spending behaviour likely bears no relation to my spending currently or in the future – circumstances change, tastes change, opportunities change.

     

    All of this sails wonderfully close to Stephen Downes’ recent post on learner data. He argues, and I would agree, that data is not “wrong”, but it is used in ways which are wrong in that it is used to generate conclusions that it cannot support. As Brian Kelly points out, the NMC Horizon 2012 Preview Report (you can’t read it unless you give them your data!!) sees Learner Analytics as a key 3-5 year trend for adoption in HE.  And educational technology companies are putting serious money behind the idea.

     

    You can see the effects of this cultural mindset even see this in UK funding policy. Students are expected to make decisions regarding their place of study (or indeed, whether to study at all) based on the Key Information Set [KIS]), an abstracted and highly summarised set subset of user data. This data, it appears, can fix broken markets.

     

    To conclude: estimates of the  value of user data are everywhere, and probably overestimate the actual realisable value. True in education and in wider e-commerce. Adjust your investment portfolio or educational predilections as you see fit.
  • i believe in faeries

    “there is no dream that sings anymore
    that ship sailed a long time ago
    but true as the rust and the soil and the trees
    lord i still believe” (asmz)

    i believe in faeries

    i sincerely and truly believe in faeries in sprites in spirits in pixies and elves and woodfolk
    in life and water and air and stars

    because today i want a truth that sings

    i wish for the credulous soul of a child open to wonder
    and of an old poet unshackl’d from fear

    i wish for the moment of dawn where the world is still and the light untarnish’d
    i wish for the aethereal music that pours out like water from my fingers
    for people who still delight in things that are pure

    washing the suffering from long days 

    forcing down future narratives of the new crusades 
    putrid heroic stories of the coming war
    the only story is a sacrifice
    is our sacrifice

    the only sacrifice is a hope of something somewhere anything anywhere that is
    MORE TRUE THAN THIS
    that here and now could be more than we see

    and to lose a single moment that shines is to lose everything
    and that is why I believe in faeries

    because in the race to define and measure the bleakness that surrounds and will engulf us;
    we will lose and we will lose because we care
    we should be proud to lose the game of despair

    —

    This my invocation for 2012. I’m tired of believing in growth and sensation. I’m tired of believing in progress and measurement. And I’m tired of believing in capital and power.

    I don’t want to measure or quantify, because none of the the things I can honestly say I care about are measurable or quantifiable.

    My liturgy is not written by a business consultant. My truth is not a 140 character condensation of a management textbook. I am not going to “follow my dream” until I have a dream worth following.

    I’ve spent long enough on the traditional collapse of the west. I’ve got my apocalypse, now is the time for what comes afterwards.

    And the ideas that go beyond the mundane have more to say to me than technology, spectacle or property. Give me purity, truth and beauty. Give me what it is to be human, and to connect to others.

    Welcome, all followers of the Followers, to a very strange year.
  • The followersoftheapocalyp.se review of the year – 2011

    2011, for many of us, has been predominately characterised by having everything we once cared about and held dear torn away from us – and not merely torn away but snatched, mocked and destroyed by gibbering fools who care for nothing but their own momentary pleasure. Things that we loved for their purity, truth and beauty have been turned into sewage by the very people who promised to protect and cherish them. We’ve seen ever spark of humanity, every twitch of the rotting corpse of the beautiful civilisation that once gave us Swift, Cervantes and Rabelais immediately extinguished by a world that confuses what it means to be authentic with what it means to be selfish.

    Every piece of music that made our souls leap, every connection with a fellow-traveller, every idea that ever spoke to us has become tarnished and poisoned by the cult of immediacy and sensation. Creative acts are now simply opportunities for monetisation, every altruistic impulse is a way of serving advertisements. The idea of “choice” has been cited by politicians and businessmen as a reason to choose not to care.

    It’s no longer enough to shudder against the onslaught of uninformed speculation – we’ve developed entire industries dedicated to maximising our exposure to the dribblings of idiots, and another to provide those very dribblings freshly minted and cropped to the requisite number of characters. All of it slewn with the suffocating irony and dog-whistling crowd management lowest-common-denominator dreck that has left us flinching from joyless, spiritless puns and artless references to other nuggets of popular culture that have had any semblance of humanity sucked from them generations ago.

    Looking back across 2011, we have been lied to by everyone who has ever pretended to have our interests at heart. We’ve moved from governments pretending to do the right thing to seeing them pretend to do the wrong thing as a cover for doing something even more wrong. Anyone attempting to speak up for anything approaching meaning has been marginalised, smeared with shit before being effectively subsumed into the same stinking machine they once wanted to smash. We have failed to stand in support, we’ve bickered, jeered or ignored anyone we’ve been told to.

    It has been the year of the false binary, the cynical requests that we provided detailed and costed alternatives to acts of audacious evil before we earn some “right” to question it. We’ve seen selfishness and mendacity enclose our memories and pleasures, limit our search for meaning to those which can be sold at an eye-watering profit margin.

    2011 was the year we gave up and bought in to the narrative where we settle for losing what we are most proud of unless we lose more. We’ve redefined education as a state-funded hothouse for junior executive recruitment programmes, we’ve sold the minds of our children to entrepreneurs and thought leaders. We’ve turned the pursuit of truth, via art and science, into a disgusting and demeaning plea for money and security.

    This was also the year when we learnt the languages of business and finance – quoting thoughtless anti-profundities in the way we used to quote poetry and philosophy. We’ve watched people live and die by the whims of discredited economic theories, we’ve let people starve and wither as we’ve argued for ideas that have been wrong for more than 100 years. We’ve seen ancient prejudices and jealousies, thought long-managed, re-explode into ugly life. And we’ve watched on YouTube, pointed and sniggered, as if our own ill-considered opinions are being ratified.

    Top amongst the great sales pitches of the year has been the industrialisation of the artesan. Supermarkets pile-high “hand baked” and “authentic” goods, but these are available at an even greater price from airbrushed and idealised “farmers markets”. The ecological movement has become a smokescreen for the industries that celebrate inefficiency as if it were some kind of worthwhile goal.

    2011 was the year we finally managed to sell love and friendship. Brands start conversations and launch memes, and the potentially beautiful platforms where we spread these to those we care about are able to carefully place the appropriate advertisements alongside them. 

    And this year marks the end of outmoded ideas like retirement, curiosity, dignity and mutual support. Solidarity is little more than a hashtag. Even the language of the old left has been plasticised into vague exhortations about the “big society” and “we’re all in this together.”

    And all this is what we used to call the “first world”, the supposed exemplar of all that is noble and intelligent about humankind. In less advantaged parts of the world things are also exactly as I have described above, the only difference is that 99% of the population of the world have never known it any other way.

    It is traditional to end yearly reviews with an optimistic message for this happiest of all seasons. And it is true that 2012 would have to monumentally suck to have any chance of out-sucking 2011. So we can all be happy that it already shows every sign of doing so. Merry Christmas!

     [This post originally featured a section dealing with the German Brothel Myth, at the time I didn’t realise it was a myth but I’m very glad to hear that it is. However I guess it says something about the state of the rest of the year that I didn’t notice this until the wonderful @amcunningham pointed it out to me]

  • “Please, don’t be educational!”: Waste, Civilisation, Learning

    Post represents my own opinions only. Available under a CC-BY license.

    After a tip-off from Charles Stross’ always-excellent blog, I’ve been very struck by Karl Schroeder’s reflections on a paper concerning the Fermi Paradox by Keith B. Wiley at Washington U. The paper offers a range of considerations concerning our lack of contact with alien civilisations, and (almost in passing) considers the range of expected signals that we would have expected to find from such civilisations.

    Schroeder’s take on this is that all of these signals – be they electromagnetic “noise”, self-replicating deep space probes, the construction of orbital computing resources – are by-product (or waste) expressions of essentially wasteful civilisations. And that truly advanced civilisations would not produce waste. I like his re-statement of Clarke’s Third Law, that “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from nature”. In other words, we wouldn’t see it because we wouldn’t have any way of knowing it wasn’t natural.

    Our own Western Civilisation bases itself on a presumption of resource scarcity, and I would perhaps paradoxically argue that waste is a by-product of scarcity: both in terms of “process waste” (the stuff we create incidentally whilst trying to get to scarce stuff) and “use waste” (the scarce stuff that we don’t actually bother using after we get it for various psychologically and sociologically interesting reasons).  The philosophy of the Zero Waste Institute (ZWI) is well worth a further look in this context, as the website states with impressive clarity:

    “How has humanity dealt with the excess goods it generated?
    First generation (immediate satisfaction)…  DISCARD and DUMPS = GARBAGE
    Second generation (short term)… POST-DISCARD REUSE = RECYCLING
    Third generation (long term)… EXPLICIT DESIGN FOR REUSE = ZERO WASTE”

    Schroeder seems to be putting genuinely advanced alien civilisations at a postulated “Fourth Generation” within this system, which I could perhaps state as:

    “Fourth generation (eternal) … GOODS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM NATURE = NEGATION OF WASTE AS CONCEPT”

    We open all kinds of bio-engineering cans of strawberry-flavoured worms here – but you could argue that microbes designed to produce drugs or food designed to be resistant to rot are the beginnings of a movement that could end with all technology becoming indistinguishable from nature, and thus within a natural cycle that has “waste” as one of several interim stages. (I’m assuming here, of course, that humankind manages to sort out this nonsense about patenting such things…)

    Anyway, I’m fully aware I’m on dodgy ethical ground here, so let’s talk about David Wiley’s idea of “Open Educational Resources (OER) as classroom exhaust” – learning materials being shared as the by-product of learning.  In ZWI terms we appear to be in the second generation here, perhaps beginning as OER becomes a more mainstream idea (and, we hope, practice) to edge in to the third. 

    Wiley is clear that he’s taking the concept from the idea of the “data exhaust“, which I would argue is actually a different beast entirely. A “data exhaust” is process waste – we’ve not deliberately set out to create user data, it just happened whilst we were trying to get to those resources we wanted to use. In contrast, learning materials are use waste, it’s stuff that we deliberately put together to use for learning that didn’t get used up.

    [Great big parenthesis here: a fundamental reason that they didn’t get used up could be because they’re not resources we really can use up (see my previous post on post-scarcity and a lot of what the likes of Martin Weller blogs about too). But because of our cultural oddness that likes to pretend that things are finite and scarce when they aren’t, we act as if it is possible to use them up.]

    A fair chunk of these learning materials may actually be in ZWI generation one (and therefore not in Wiley’s virtuous classroom exhaust), so we dump it because we feel it is neither recyclable nor reusable outside of the the immediate context that we have just been using it in. So what do we do to learning materials to make them so context specific?

    An article I’ve had on my “to think about” stack for a long while is by writer and concert pianist Stephen Hough. In “Please, Don’t Be Musical“, he laments the way that musicians in training internalise so many conventions around the expression of musicality that we hear musicality rather than music. He quotes and reflects on the words of an old piano teacher:

    “I remember very clearly a certain lesson with Gordon Green when I was about twelve years old. I was playing the opening of the first movement of Beethoven’s sonata op. 110 and, just as I reached the decorative arpeggios at the bottom of the first page, he stopped me: “My dear boy, this music is not beautiful [pause for a deep draw on his smouldering pipe] … it is sublime“. I was responding to the superficial charm of the melody instead of reaching inside the flesh and bones to the very soul of the music. It is a lesson hard to learn because it seems as if at the very moment when we have built up an impressive arsenal of interpretative trinkets we need to start getting rid of them. It is allied to life itself: as soon as we’ve learned how to behave as an adult we need to start to rediscover our childhood again.”

    I wonder if educators preparing materials for learning are themselves guilty of “educationality” – you could see the “interpretative trinkets” as being conceptions of educational intent in a particular context, based around various theories of learning or environmental variables, manifesting themselves as tangible  on an otherwise reusable resource. And it could be this “educationality” that gets in the way of reuse? Is “educationality” an indicator of waste? Is “educationality” what we have in the limo?

    I’ve been around ds106 long enough to know the difference between mere beauty and the sublime (is there a plaisir/jouissance thing here?) and the latter tends not to have an implicit learning intention. Indeed, it could also be argued that “learning materials” from ds106 are generally shared because they are (a) learner-created and (b) awesome. And because, if you didn’t know the source, you wouldn’t think they were learning objects.

    On the web, they are indistinguishable from nature.
  • Why I’m striking #n30

    This post represents my views and not those of my lovely public sector employer. It’s available under a creative commons CC-BY license.

    For my generation, this isn’t about pensions. Not that I’m claiming ultra-militancy or anything, I simply don’t think any of us expect to get them. Public/Private sector, we think of pensions as something our parents got.

    The stark truth of the matter is that by the time I get to what my Dad would call a retirement age we will either exist in a state of corporate feudalism, or scavenging and subsistence farming among the ruins of late capitalism. So, in many ways, whether we lose a huge chunk of our pension today or in the next round of austerity that we need to prop up our corporate overlords is irrelevant.

    There’s a basic principle behind the public sector – we work to help people, we don’t work to make money for our bosses. The sustained attack by the government is an attack on this principle.

    In this brave new world that is being ushered in – everything has to make a profit. Everything has to make enough surplus value to make rich people slightly richer. And if we can’t turn the required profit by our labour alone, we lose our terms and conditions rather than eat in to the pockets of the rich. The profit must be preserved at all costs.

    The kind of things that the public sector does tend not to make a profit. Caring for, supporting and encouraging people seldom does. Sure, there’s been attempts to metrically measure and map in “added value”, or whatever heartsinking phrase is currently in vogue. But, deep down, we have committed the greatest sin of the 21st century – by doing things that don’t make piles of money.

    You see this in the constant plea for efficiency savings, cuts to “back office staff” (whoever they are). We are trying to apply the thinking that has made profits for billionaires to the provision of the services and opportunities people directly rely on. It doesn’t work. 

    And we have suffered attack after attack because of this. We are a drain on the economy. We are pampered bureaucrats with gold-plated pensions. We are (memorably, and wonderfully) Enemies of Enterprise.

    Which is odd, because when we do withdraw our labour, it apparently costs the economy rather a lot of money.

    So that’s why I’m striking, and that’s why I’m marching. Because people simply need to stand up and say that not everything worthwhile turns a profit.
  • What Nordic/Baltic countries talk about when they talk about OER #nordlet #ukoer

    Very very very rough notes from opening #nordlet session – will tidy up later. These notes can be considered available under a CC-BY license. The UK entry is basically covered by the last blog post. #nordlet attendees, please comment and correct, I’ll keep this post as up-to-date as I can.

    Overall note from these presentations:

    (i) emphasis on education as whole sector, not just HE/schools

    (ii) clear link (almost conflation) between online material use and OER. “OER” is used as a much wider term than the UK would recognise.

     Additional detail is available on the Nordlet Summit Wiki http://tinyurl.com/summitwiki

    NORWAY

    NDLA – http://ndla.no/en/node/42 national digital learning arena – co-owned by 18 out of 19 county councils in Norway. Not Oslo. Learning resources for upper secondary education, teachers working as local editors (35+ subjects) . Increasing traffic numbers. Based on open source platform, developing, buying and distributing learning resources (via CC license). Costs 44EUR/student (20% of total learning resources budget)

    Key results: (European Public Service Award – NDLA was a finalist).

    74% of all teachers know NDLA – 50% use in their teaching 43% on a weekly basis – valued for quality. High level of private and public collaboration – 70% of funding is spent with publishers, has “redefined educational materials market“.

    http://www.matematikk.org  – All universities, trying to popularise mathematics. Aimed at primary and secondary level (pupils, teachers learners). 300 000 unique users. 7m page views/month. “Christmas Calendar” is popular c.2500 teachers use it with 18000+ pupils. (issues with tracking use)

    Solid backing from funders. Business models/funding models need to be clear.

    Involvement of practitioners is essential – this unleashes educator enthusiasm and skills. (people that enjoy what they are doing produce amazing stuff)

    Legal/Technical – licensing, metadata, open formats are key.

    Keeping momentum is important. Important to learn from past experience. Pay attention to quality and continuous improvement.

    LITHUANIA

    http://iite.unesco.org/publications/3214687/ – part of a UNESCO series of case studies summarising best practices of OER in non-English speaking countries. State participation is very important.

    http://portalas.emokykla.lt – secondary education portal, provides information and services at compulsory level. Learning Objects with proper LOM – supplied by teachers and other members of the community. Again state participation helped. Portal allows for rating and commented (registered users only)

    http://www.lvb.lt – http://www.elaba.lt  searching all academic libraries e-catalogues, plus scientific papers, theses.

    Key questions – getting community involvement, moving from “projects” to cultural change, integrating OER into mainstream practice. Interest in sharing examples of OER, making case for the reliability of OER.

    FINLAND

    HE history network – http://agricola.utu.fi – 10 universities began to share course designs and materials, has now spread to the whole area of history teaching at all educational levels.

    Open universities (eg https://www.avoin.jyu.fi/en)

    Educational leadership https://www.jyu.fi/edu/laitokset/rehtori/en – up to doctoral level, delivered internationally (Chile, Japan…)

    Virtual high-schools – all courses and exams online.

    Problems with online resources – how will the teacher implement objects in their personal curriculum – concerns of plagiarism (but why is this not expected?). Need to start telling stories courses, background materials – and work via students expectations.

    All material that you need for teaching is already online (in Finnish, probably other languages too) students can access this material, but they need to be guided in the choice and order of material. But teachers cannot possibly be familiar with all available materials, so rely on the advice and documentation of peers. Good case for preserving pedagogical context alongside materials.

    Hence narrative database “Teacher’s Card” learning recipies – http://www.peda.net/openkorti

    Big push for Creative Commons – moving from information age to social age (sharing). The creator gets to limit how much she will share – CC is an easy way of doing this.

    ESTONIA

    National education portal: http://koolielu.ee – small country so easy to involve a critical mass – 1/3 of all teachers in Estonia are portal members, less are active contributors.

    And LeMill  http://lemill.net/   (between several  universities including one in Estonia and one in Finland) repository plus web tools, communities – 800 active Estonian users. (Most active use is in Georgia… but this was unexpected and unplanned for) Teacher competitions for OER creation in collaborative small groups. All resources are web-based, can be edited in a web browser.

    Open content is a small part of openness – very inspired by MOOCs (Downes, Siemens). Programmes to promote OER have become MOOCs. They never become massive (stick around 30-40 participants), anyone can join but limits have been added for each iteration. These have also moved to HE level – Estonian involvement in Wikiversity http://beta.wikiversity.org  .

    Tool to support MOOCs http://www.edufeedr.net (blog platform, quasi-LMS)

    Technical issues – platforms are not just repositories, are for content and community. However, many just use these as repositories. MOOCs have added to the value of the community aspects.

    Thinking about learning analytics – feel it is important to build these tools into platforms, not there yet.

    Internationalisation – can resources and platforms be designed to be translatable. Eg built in translation ability for science simulations at the university of Colorado. http://phet.colorado.edu

    Licensing – LeMill made the decision to use only CC-BY-SA, so very easy to remix and is compatible with Wikipedia. Leaving choice to teachers would lead to incompatibility, but noted concerns about losing content. Universities can use CC-BY-NC-SA or CC-BY-SA.

    SWEDEN

    Some developments but very scattered (there was a small programme organised by the Royal Library for HE), enthusiast driven, low management awareness, No university culture of sharing – much scepticism within teachers unions too. Only 1 university has an OER strategy.

    More sharing in schools, but nothing strategic (though one teacher-startup private company based around sharing now has 200,000+ Nordic/Baltic members.) Publishers are curious and are looking for new business models know very little about OER.

    In Puenteduras model Sweden is at the Augmentation/Enhancement level.

    LATVIA

    Favourite resources: google search and wikipedia! Also youtube has a lot of interesting material. Example of ECDL course in Riga – 10 years old but still heavily used. And CSDD driver license training test (theoretical part).

    OER in Latvian web http://www.lis.lv/mspamati (1997!)

    ESF project “Natural Science and Mathematics” www.dzm.lv

    Teachers portal: www.skolotajs.lv

    Library portal: www.biblioteka.lv eg basic computer skills for children

    Classroom management systems for observing school and pupil performance (2 competing packages)

    OER portals at Latvia U, Riga Technical U. Also scientific papers, proceedings, dissertations, repositories.

    Main success factors cited as: initiative and creativity, collaboration and teamwork, (complete) courses aimed at self-learning not teacher reuse, proper financial support for projects.

    Main challenges: professionalism of OER creators – quality issues. Need for “unbiased and correct” content, needs peer review. Effort needs to be co-ordinated. Some schools have very outdated computers, problems with rich multimedia. Also trust and copyright issues.

    Issues with Nordic-Baltic collaborations: differences in languages and culture, are there pedagogic differences too? Can we share scenarios/experiences.

    Why are teachers not using OER in courses? difficult to match to precise educator needs. Preference for full learning objects (+ context) or full courses. Need to keep hold of idea of student & teacher creative input to learning – how can we preserve diversity in teaching?

    Issues with content and platforms/formats/technologies becoming updated. Interested in a common single OER platform which would be reliably updated and maintained.

    There is a trend towards global convergence of culture online, but a difference may appear within national language communities. Visual materials can be helpful – also improvements in translation (eg stuff like http://www.universalsubtitles.org/en-gb/ alongside automatic tools?) and a simple need for us to learn more languages.

    Need to raise IPR issues – country/jurisdiction differences – could CC be a start to solving this?

    Policy – move to eLearning and eTools has largely happened, but policy needs to evolve to support interest in openness, collaboration.

     

     

     

     


  • What I talk about when I talk about #ukoer

    I spend a lot of my time talking about #ukoer (#4life!!), and – pretty much as a personal aide memoire that other people may find useful, I’ve decided to add some common links, inferences and my ideas of key outcomes on my personal blog. Do please comment and add to this as you see fit, also please reuse it as you see fit (cc-by). And note that this is on my *personal* blog for a reason, other programme staff offer equally valid perspectives with different emphases.

    For practical purposes, there have been three main “phases” of UKOER (the large programme led by JISC and the Academy). I tend to characterise them as per the diagram below:

    Unknownname


    This is not in any way to denigrate the excellent earlier work that UKOER directly builds on – basically more than a decade of experience on the cutting edge of digital content and online sharing. Two key pieces of work that came out of the initial UKOER discussions were the RePRODUCE programme – which was an early attempted to examine educator attitudes to reusing content – and the Good Intentions report, which looked at business models for openness. The experiences of Jorum have been a huge influence, also projects like Xpert at Nottingham. And latterly, a number of other areas of work have begun to use UKOER ideas and concepts, most notably the recent work of the Digitisation and Content team at JISC.

    But I tend to focus on the three main phases, as above, because it allows me to describe the narrative that I feel explains the way our perspectives have shifted.

    With the initial kick off at phase 1, I was acutely aware of two things. Firstly that we were launching a risky undertaking – doing something that flew in the face of a lot of what was (and often still is) a prevalent internet business model. And secondly, that we were doing so with public funds, so we needed to make compelling arguments about value and sustainability. Phase 1 was split into three main strands, examining release models around institutions, consortia (based around the HE Academy subject networks) and individual academics. Though there was never an intention to directly compare them, we were interested in which models provided the most benefit and appeared to be the most sustainable at a low initial cost (compared to OCW-style approaches) and without substantial ongoing investment.

    There were really three culminations of the programme. The Evaluation & Synthesis final report provided, drilling down to near-forensic detail, offered an overview of programme findings. The OER InfoKit distilled these into advice and guidance for those working in the area, and the UKOER10 symposium presented findings to the wider world.

    Broadly speaking, what we learnt was that it was possible to do OER efficiently and (comparatively) cheaply in pretty much any setting, that it was possible to realise a variety of benefits from release (not all of which were directly linked to the reuse of material), and that lowering the technical and metadata barriers to release brought great participation but may cause issues further down the line.

    Phase 2 had to be prepared in such a way that we were pulling ideas and plans together as phase 1 was coming to a close, and the major strategic steer we were getting concerned the “use” of OER-as-artefact, by students and staff. Addressing this, we supported a range of projects to draw together OER from various sources in managed collections aimed at identified user groups. This was coupled with two research studies into academic reuse and the student response to OER, and a small set of case studies examining specific instances of reuse. Phase 2 also explicitly built on the findings of stage one, funding more OER release projects to build on what we had learnt (with a nod to key sectoral priorities identified by the funding council), and using a “cascade” methodology to explicitly transplant working release models from phase 1 projects into new areas.

    Again an evaluation and synthesis final report and extensions to the OER infokit were (alongside the wide range of materials produced and collected) the major outputs. For me, the interesting findings moved in two directions. The postulation – by Lou McGill, Helen Beetham, Marion Manton, Dave White and others – of the concept of “Open Academic Practice” – simply put, academics being open in every area of their practice and artefact creation. This idea ties OER more explicitly into stuff like Open Access Research, Open Data and MOOCs. We also started to see more movement technically, with stuff like the OpenAttribute browser-plug in, CapRET, the (US) Learning Registry and some of the widget-led approaches to resource collections all starting to manifest. The potential for webscale change is there, but might require a significant cultural shift before we start to see benefits.

    What was also interesting about phase 2 was what we didn’t see – evidence of OER reuse at scale by academics. From the early days of OCW even up to the design of the UKOER programme one of the central benefits postulated from OER release has been the massive academic reuse of materials giving rise to an efficiency saving. To me, what the early OER thinkers failed to do is to take into account the growth of online practice and the ongoing decay of the c19/20th idea of “intellectual property” – to be blunt, educators are reusing and remixing stuff they find online anyway, license-be-damned. 

    Following on from this, I don’t think I can tell the UKOER story without mentioning the political themes running alongside it. Joss Winn at Lincoln was among the first in the UK to connect some (not all) of the ideas and assumptions behind OER with the ongoing struggle for the soul of the university sector – thrown into sharp relief by the change both of government and university funding regime in the UK. Open Academic Practice (if not so much OER directly) has been a part of the critique and resistance to the way HE seems to be going, and you can see elements within the “free” university and MOOC-like movements that have sprung up alongside mainstream provision. At the very least, there is a really interesting collection of blog posts.

    As we came to define UKOER phase 3 I think that these things were uppermost in our minds, alongside the idea that we should be concentrating on what we could do with OER, having proved to our satisfaction that we could do OER. The “themes” strand takes as a starting point the need to address specific institutional and sector-wide issues drawn from a range of perspectives, ranging from engagement with the private sector to the development of new models of delivery. The OMAC project from phase 2, developing materials for academic staff development, has become a full strand in support of the new Academy-led UKPSF. And there are a range of studies and pilots, looking at ways of using OER and spreading further the ideas and practices behind it.

    For me, the unique nature of OER in the UK is constituted as follows:

    • low initial and ongoing cost practice
    • empowering individual academics to create and release materials, within (and outside of) institutional policies and practice.
    • a nuanced understanding of the issues around reuse.
    • a genuine feeling of community action and community support, supported by an inclusive and wide rationale.
    • drawing on existing strengths and structures, most notably the existing national services and ongoing work around the more library-esque facets of digital resource management.
    • a spirit of technical and structural experimentation.
    • large amounts of tea and/or warm beer.
    So that’s what I talk about when I talk about OER.
  • OER Hero? OLGA and Open Education (pt 1)

    Finally had chance to write up my OER11 presentation, which is something I’ve been meaning to do for ages. Usual deal, post is my views and not those of my employers, CC-BY-SA license.
    Unknownname

    Sometimes the clearest precursor of an academic development comes from outside academia. I’d argue if you want to understand open learning, you’ve got to look beyond distance learning and the learning object. You’ve got to look at guitar tablature.

    As long as there has been written music, there has been tablature (or tab) – it represents a far older, and less formal, system for notating music than “traditional” western notation. When writing tab, one records the actual movement of the fingers, rather than the notes produced, and timing information is explicitly approximate. For this reason, tab is very popular with students of the guitar and other stringed instruments – it provides exactly the information needed to play, it is easy to read, and – like playing by ear – it requires the development of listening (especially rhythmic listening skills).

    I’d argue that it is a better fit for most music outside of the classical tradition, as it notates what is possible to perform on the instrument, rather than limiting performance to what it is possible to notate. It also presents a close analogue to “learning by listening and watching”, the traditional way that tunes and arrangements were spread throughout pre-literate society.

    So, to look at an arbitrarily chosen piece of guitar tablature, you’ll see that each string of the guitar is represented by a line, and each line has numbers on it – which indicate which fret you should have your finger on when you play that string. The position of the numbers along the lines give an indication of timing and relationship, and a fluid and adaptable language of additional markings has developed to represents the huge arsenal of non-classical techniques and effects the modern guitarist has access to.

    You’ll also have noted that tab is very easy to share electronically. All you need is a fixed-width font and a text editor. Such as your email client. So it should come as little surprise that tab was shared via newsgroups such as rec.music.makers.guitar and alt.guitar.tablature (both now pretty much dead, sadly) , and eventually archived on the OnLine Guitar Archive (OLGA). It was a participative, networked process – tabs requested, presented, tested, argued, refined and finally published in a way that feels more like a modern MOOC (Massively Open Online Course) than the later parallel of mp3 sharing on Napster.

    Like movements around sharing more conventional learning material (because isn’t a tab simply a learning object?), the online guitar tab movement had to deal with issues of licensing. It chose the “fair use/fair dealing” route, providing one of the first serious digital-age tests of this defence.

    But – and, I need hardly add, the resulting IPR story is both tragic and uplifting – the real interest to OER folks comes within a short 2004 paper by Thomas Chesney in the Journal of Computer Mediated Communications, detailing participants motivations. At OER11, I summarised these as follows:

    0unknownname
    Chesney also provides a number of quotations from survey responses concerning the benefits that participants felt they got from participating:

     get my name out there

    [o]nce I’ve transcribed them for myself, it’s not hard to send them to OLGA or another site.

    I have worked them out and someone else might want to learn that song

    23o of the 72 respondents claimed they received no benefit from publishing tabs. Referring to benefits, one respondent claimed he got “none. others benefit. i benefit from their work.” Chesney concludes:

     The act of preparing (collecting, collating etc.) the material to be shared should have meaning in itself for the person who is preparing it. This was seen in the fact that most self motivations were motivations to transcribe a song and store that transcription in electronic form, and not motivations to publish the tabs. The publishing came later and all that publishing involved was emailing a file to OLGA. This result could be used by organizations with a little imagination.

    To me, this sounds a long way from the received wisdom that academics are unlikely to share materials without some system of codified reward and recognition. Of course, your young guitar player – fixated on mass adulation and random sexual encounters in anonymous global hotels rather than becoming a professional transcriber – could not be further from our traditional view of an academic, but we do see in their reported comments the idea that the work is involved in creating the materials, and after they have been created sharing is little or no effort. In Martin Weller’s terms this is very much an argument for little OER.

    I hinted darkly at the IPR-mageddon that essentially ensued from this proto-academic behaviour – and it was as far back as the late 90s that music publishers started to claim rights over transcriptions. Just to bring home how odd that is, imagine Damien Hirst claiming rights over a book about biology preservation techniques. The stream of takedowns and legal challenges ending in 2006 served to remove the fundamental folk idea of “playing by ear” from the commons. As Rob Balch from “Guitar Tab Universe” put it in The Register:

    At what point does describing how one plays a song on guitar become an issue of copyright infringement? This website, among other things, helps users teach each other how they play guitar parts for many different songs. This is the way music teachers have behaved since the first music was ever created. The difference here is that the information is shared by way of a new technology: the internet.

    When you are jamming with a friend and you show him/her the chords for a song you heard on the radio, is that copyright infringement? What about if you helped him/her remember the chord progression or riff by writing it down on, say, a napkin…infringement? If he/she calls you later that night on the phone or emails you and you respond via one of those methods, are you infringing? I don’t know.

    It was an audacious attempt by music publishers not just to defend their rights but to own our interpretation and critical response to “their” products, which has as many implications for academics as it has for guitar students.

    Needless to say, it failed.

    How it failed is very interesting, has further parallels to the world of OER, and will be the topic of post two in this little series.

  • “Frankly, I suspect the book isn’t even necessary”

    OK, so I’m writing a blog post about a webcomic. *Hangs head in shame*

    Unknownname
    (shared under a CC-BY-NC 2.5 licence, from xkcd.com)

    One of my internet guilty pleasures is xkcdsucks (probably not entirely SFW as will have swearing and internet memes in) – a small community dedicated both to lamenting the continued drop in quality in the published work of Randall Munroe and to disappearing into an onslaught of in-jokes and general nonsense. But I’ve never actually been annoyed enough by XKCD to write a response to it. Until now.

    One of the ways XKCD polishes it’s geek cred (along with the whole “I worked for NASA once” thing – he had an internship and they ‘let him go’) is to publish everything under an open license to support sharing and open culture (not of course, free culture – Randall isn’t going to countenance someone that isn’t him making money from his stick-figure drawings of Richard Stallman. Oh dear me no.). Which make this particular strip a little embarrassing for him.

    So anyway, stick figure A (characterisation, like lactation fetishism, is one of Randall’s weaknesses) is astonished to discover stick figure B has an entire bookshelf filled with blank books. On questioning B, A is met with a series of arguments drawn from… well where, exactly? The first panel sounds like it could be part of a course on creativity, the second seems more like a generalised big business conspiracy theory. Clearly we are expected to find these arguments risible because, as person A notes, person B has paid for blank books. Excuse me whilst I LOL, or indeed RO the FLM pert and beguiling AO.

    Unfortunately both of the straw man arguments hold a lot of water. Like bowls. Large bowls made of straw. It is perfectly legitimate to argue that the rise of DRM and closed file formats have led internet culture to become a community of consumers rather than a community of producers and remixers. You hear this a lot around the growth of iOS and the closed-platform/app-store model replacing the open web, indeed – it’s an argument I’d expect Linux and Android fan Randall to make himself. Which he kind of does.

    And it is easy to stereotype arguments about big business taking away our freedoms and manufacturing needs in order to sell products, but it is exactly what publishers do. Apart from exploiting authors, reviewers, and readers, which I guess is what they do in their spare time when they aren’t constraining and limiting the free flow of knowledge via introducing artificial ideas of scarcity. As Randall also has pointed out.

    So – am I arguing that we should all buy books with blank pages? No. But stories and information doesn’t have to come, via a publisher, from a book. We can, do, and should write our own stories and share them with the world. And if that sounds jejune, well, we’re the grown-ups now, and it’s our turn to decide what that means.
    My own opinions, not those of my employer. Available with a CC-BY license, excepting the cartoon which is available under a non-free CC-BY-NC license.
  • The strange birth of #economooc #ds106 #mooc

    So there I was last night, reflecting on Luke Fernandez’ post about the tension between what Jim Groom was saying and what Josh Jarrett was saying in their back-to-back keynotes at #opened11 . As Luke says, some of the language about this tension framed the debate in terms of antagonism but to do so misses the point. We should be grateful that open education is – well – open enough to encompass two clearly articulated and useful conceptualisations.

    The danger comes when the two conceptualisations don’t treat each other with mutual respect. As my wife rather elegantly put it, it can just get like breadheads vs hippies all over again. The “open learning” hippies just see a watering down of key “open concepts” into business benefits and analytic data, the “open learning” breadheads just see a load of wishful thinking and very little actual learning. But there are strengths in moderate positions, we need to be careful not to become so entrenched that we miss out on the benefits.

    At the very least, the hippies need (so the argument goes) to teach something that’s not just about education and digital life, probably using a MOOC-type approach. And make the experience scalable, because as Giulia Forsythe put it, critical reflection should be scalable – and what is higher education but critical reflection?

    Enter the EconoMOOC. Although not quite enter, because at the moment all we have is a hashtag. And the #ds106 assignment library. And the sum of human knowledge on the internet. We don’t have a way for you to sign up. We don’t have a professor. 

    Unknownname

    Like many of the finest things in life, #economooc began in a twitter discussion with Giulia Forsythe. Both of us are enjoying the creativity and peer learning that ds106 exemplifies. And both of us want to learn more about economics, this crazy collection of academic theories which seems to run the world and could lead either to utopia or apocalypse. We’re both happy with self-directed learning, but would appreciate peer support and expert or non-expert comments.

    The first liberating step was admitting (as in the WSJ mash-up above) that we don’t know what we are talking about. The next was admitting (as in this triple troll) that when we do know what we are talking about, we are likely to be wrong.

    0unknownname

    (identify the image, and also the source of quote, the citation has nothing to do with either).

    Actually the quotation above neatly summarises “why Economics” – and why we need to feel comfortable in playing with these ideas in order to deal with the constant assumption-ridden and uncritical econo-theory onslaught from news channels. I happened to read Adam Curtis’ blog post on the left’s reluctance to express ideas about how society should be organising for fear of the power of mass-media co-option, and the influence of Marcuse on this mindset.

    The step after that is to begin to create artefacts outlining key economic concepts – because what is an assignment if not the creation of an artefact that demonstrates knowledge or understanding we have gained through learning. Here, Giulia is ahead of me illustrating her growing understanding of Monetarism via an animated gif.

    But what happened next is amazing. An actual real economist, Steve Greenlaw, comments and beautifully explains monetarism in a single paragraph. And sparks a number of new conceptual hares running for us #economooc types to chase. Me, I want to define money to my satisfaction, given what I’m beginning to learn. 

    And this is the thing – it’s a proper subject, we’re learning, we’re MOOCing and we’re having fun and we have no overheads (other than our free time). Where’s the problem?

    This post represents my opinions and not those of my employers. It is available under a CC-BY license, excepting the photograph which is available under CC-BY-SA, and the WSJ screengrab which is presented here with a claim of “fair dealing” but may not be reused.