Yu-Chun mentions one change that I hope does happen in the future, "Due to the advent of technology and the emergence of the OER, there are more ways to achieve higher education. I imagine that people probably can get their degree through free materials besides entering to university the normal way. "
I, for one, am looking forward to having more ways to achieve higher education so that higher education will be able to cater to more students and fulfill their needs more accurately.
Catia says, "I think that there is a long way to go before there is fair awareness of the potentials of openness in education. There is even a longer way to go before the universities work with such openness withing their institutional structure. Can you imagine getting around the bureaucracy? I think that by 2012 educators who believe in open education will still be working a lot in order to spread the notion of open education and to untangle the misconceptions in the area - for higher education institutions as well as for k-12 systems."
I certainly agree with this. Higher education has been resistant to change in the past and will continue to be. Changing it could be compared to trying to change the velocity and direction of a train on tracks.
Rob also talks about the resistance to change in higher education but believes that they will eventually be forced to make a change, "With the lower-tier schools enabling and empowering their students, the research universities will have no choice but to adjust their practices to remain competitive. The top-tier schools will be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the collaborative age and then will immediately turn around and congratulate themselves on their innovative practices (like how the cellphone companies fought against phone number portability, but now tout it as a great feature since they were forced to implement it)."
I laughed and laughed about the cell phone companies comment.
Catia also mentions that the Learner support organization is not plausible and she thinks that learning communities are more likely. My thought about this is that Learner Support seems to have many of the elements of learning communities except for one difference, it is for profit.
Karen has a good point, "Even if the “formal” OER community (higher ed courseware projects, Hewlett funded projects, etc.) implode under their own weight, there are a number of other open efforts that cannot be stopped. These include Wikipedia and all of its associated projects (Wikibooks, Wikiversity, etc.); other wikis such as Wikispaces, WikiEducator, etc.; user-generated content sites like YouTube, TeacherTube, MySpace, Facebook, and countless others; and a plethora of other brilliant web sites. These sites will continue to multiply, build strong communities, and improve in quality. This will be a huge boon for lifelong learners."
Karen believes that Formal educational institutions (K-12 and higher education) will ultimately not be changed by OER initiatives. Karen mentions things that cannot be stopped like youtube and wikipedia. Youtube and wikipedia are different than OER initiatives because they completely rely on user input. There is no authoritative voice of knowledge. Are OER initiatives just ways to turn something formal that should be informal anyway, and by changing does the usefulness of OER initiatives become nothing? Does the fact that OER initiatives have to be funded cause thier death in the future? Does the fact that OER initiatives are organized and have a mission kill them? Interesting questions, thanks for the thought Karen.
Bobbe mentions, "As we discuss localization and colonization we need to be aware that their are some people missing from the movement. Non-inclusion will one day come back to bite the butt of OER. What measures do we take to make sure that all stakeholders are included?"
I am not an expert or insider on the OER movement, but I think that this is true too. Those who are not involved in the movement because they are not allowed or not aware will hurt the future of OER too. OER movements tend to ignore the end user just a little too much too.
Jessie gives a good insight about changes in her native China, "I believe that the higher education in the U.S. will become more open in the future; but as a Chinese viewpoint, I feel like it is too difficult to change the traditional system of higher education. We talked about words like democracy and open for years, but hard to move on. There are many reasons of difficulties such as our government, politics, economics, and especially the population."
It is so nice to have the opinions of people from places other than the US (and very different) to put these discussions into context.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Monday, November 19, 2007
OpenEd week 13: TenureTrek, The Next Generation
I think that the future of Higher Education will move to be more open in more ways than just items that result in the change from open educational resources. David Wiley paints an interesting picture of the future of Open Education. I like the future that it portrays from dealing with license issues of the NC clause and the LLL to the "trib" features of open educational resources. I particularly like the part where publishers finally lose power and students start scanning textbooks to stick it to the man. TAKE THAT, man.
From: http://www.tv.com/naruto/show/18558/the-japanese-and-english-versions-of-naruto/topic/8722-840435/msgs.html?page=1
Let me paint a more bleak picture....(jokingly?)
One trajectory that higher education is on right now (at least at research universities in the USA) is the increase in difficulty of qualifying for a job. Many long-time (and even some short-time) professors have mentioned to me that they would never have gotten a job in today's academic world. This trend is likely to increase and to create a more exclusive, rather than inclusive, culture in academia.
Students emerging with a PhD must have several publications, presentations and a lot of experience. And they must increasingly do it all to the same set of specifications and in the same way. In the future, Students will have to have 50 publications to graduate and at least 100 a year. They will have to have received a grant for at least 10 million dollars too. Those who do not have these qualifications will not even be remotely considered for a job and will end up working at Super Star-Mart (the future successor of Wal-Mart, the biggest store will be the size of Mexico City, offering more cheap plastic crap) as a bagger with a PhD. Students who can attain this high level of publications and grant money are those who are rich and powerful enough to hire an army of writers to do their work and have friends and family with money to grant them.
Another trend at research universities is the increase in difficulty of getting tenure. Many long-time professors have also admitted that they would not have received tenure with their credentials in today's world. Tenure makes you compete against your peers so there will be an increase in the competitive nature of the academic world. Those who receive tenure will be increasingly limited to people who have little personal life and no families, giving them more time to work on research, publications and presentations.
Having inherited money or being independently wealthy will also help since budget cuts seem to be on the rise and armies of writers aren't cheap. Tenure will depend on more and more of less and less factors (grants and publications only, not teaching or service, etc.). Professors wishing to receive grants will be pitted against those who have friends and family in the now corrupted granting institutions. Faculty who do not have money or power will not receive grants or write their 100 peer-reviewed publications in thier first year and will be removed from their positions.
With these two trajectories, faculty will increasingly become more exclusive, wealthy and childless. These "virtues" will be taught to all new students who go through the education system and higher education will soon become even more of an ideological mass production factory than it already is. Rich and powerful faculty in higher education will soon influence legislators to make laws that limit the freedom of those who are not "smart" because they think that knowledge should forever govern ignorance.
Of course, I hope that this doesn't happen but some of the trajectories are there, at least as I see them in my own associations here in the US. I think other places are quite different.
Here is what I hope happens. Higher education becomes more open to change, allows more time for faculty publications and grants, gets more money, and tenure becomes open to more diverse values than just publications and grants. Teaching in higher education becomes more open to techniques besides lecture and powerpoint, allowing students to "trib" a lot more.
Open education may help the tenure and job problems listed above by adding to the options for a faculty member to get tenure. Contribution to Open education could be one more thing to do in academia that can help with tenure along with many other neglected values in higher education (how about quality teaching, for starters). Open education will play a big part in online type higher education institution, and competency based programs like Western Governors university.
I think that higher education will get to this good future by listening to students and responding to their needs. Higher education will need to become less unwieldy and more open to change or I think it will get more and more behind.
From: http://www.tv.com/naruto/show/18558/the-japanese-and-english-versions-of-naruto/topic/8722-840435/msgs.html?page=1
Let me paint a more bleak picture....(jokingly?)
One trajectory that higher education is on right now (at least at research universities in the USA) is the increase in difficulty of qualifying for a job. Many long-time (and even some short-time) professors have mentioned to me that they would never have gotten a job in today's academic world. This trend is likely to increase and to create a more exclusive, rather than inclusive, culture in academia.
Students emerging with a PhD must have several publications, presentations and a lot of experience. And they must increasingly do it all to the same set of specifications and in the same way. In the future, Students will have to have 50 publications to graduate and at least 100 a year. They will have to have received a grant for at least 10 million dollars too. Those who do not have these qualifications will not even be remotely considered for a job and will end up working at Super Star-Mart (the future successor of Wal-Mart, the biggest store will be the size of Mexico City, offering more cheap plastic crap) as a bagger with a PhD. Students who can attain this high level of publications and grant money are those who are rich and powerful enough to hire an army of writers to do their work and have friends and family with money to grant them.
Another trend at research universities is the increase in difficulty of getting tenure. Many long-time professors have also admitted that they would not have received tenure with their credentials in today's world. Tenure makes you compete against your peers so there will be an increase in the competitive nature of the academic world. Those who receive tenure will be increasingly limited to people who have little personal life and no families, giving them more time to work on research, publications and presentations.
Having inherited money or being independently wealthy will also help since budget cuts seem to be on the rise and armies of writers aren't cheap. Tenure will depend on more and more of less and less factors (grants and publications only, not teaching or service, etc.). Professors wishing to receive grants will be pitted against those who have friends and family in the now corrupted granting institutions. Faculty who do not have money or power will not receive grants or write their 100 peer-reviewed publications in thier first year and will be removed from their positions.
With these two trajectories, faculty will increasingly become more exclusive, wealthy and childless. These "virtues" will be taught to all new students who go through the education system and higher education will soon become even more of an ideological mass production factory than it already is. Rich and powerful faculty in higher education will soon influence legislators to make laws that limit the freedom of those who are not "smart" because they think that knowledge should forever govern ignorance.
Of course, I hope that this doesn't happen but some of the trajectories are there, at least as I see them in my own associations here in the US. I think other places are quite different.
Here is what I hope happens. Higher education becomes more open to change, allows more time for faculty publications and grants, gets more money, and tenure becomes open to more diverse values than just publications and grants. Teaching in higher education becomes more open to techniques besides lecture and powerpoint, allowing students to "trib" a lot more.
Open education may help the tenure and job problems listed above by adding to the options for a faculty member to get tenure. Contribution to Open education could be one more thing to do in academia that can help with tenure along with many other neglected values in higher education (how about quality teaching, for starters). Open education will play a big part in online type higher education institution, and competency based programs like Western Governors university.
I think that higher education will get to this good future by listening to students and responding to their needs. Higher education will need to become less unwieldy and more open to change or I think it will get more and more behind.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
OpenED week 12: Comments
Last week, Elisa mentioned some important things that fall along the lines of what I said in my post. "one can assume that open educational resources should include, among other things such as full courses, course materials, content modules, collections etc., learning objects as well." And "m optimistic as for the future of learning objects. They have not died;"
Jennifer mentions, "Likely, in the process, elements were "fixed", but it is unclear to me if the desire to fix problems with learning objects led to the open education movement. Rather, it seems more likely that advances in technology and experiences with what is possible have helped to foster the changes in the characteristics between learning objects and open education." I agree that learning objects have evolved and that the purpose is what is important. People probably did not set out to fix learning objects, OERs were just the next inevitable iteration for those whose goal is to spread education. It was not, however, the next phase for those whose goal is to create automated instruction. I don't know what that next phase is (hopefully death).
I disagree with Jennifer's classification of old learning objects and the new open educational resources. I think that most definitions of learning objects never stuck them into the don't change, rigid and high cost column. That was done by opportunists on a small piece of what could be considered learning objects.
Jennifer also gives a great point that I totally agree with, "I'm not sure we have a good handle on either the extent of OER use (by teachers or learners) or the best ways to facilitate use of OERs by users. Further, I think there is a lot to be learned from an instructional design perspective about both open educational practices, as well as OERs as instructional content"
Catia mentions at the end of her post, "But let's not forget that quality is an element that cannot be forgotten - no matter what the approach might be." The discussion on quality is very important and multi-faceted. In my previous post I talked about this same issue of quality, Can open educational resources be made higher quality for everyone everywhere, or is localization the only answer?
Karen talks about the problem of engineers working on open educational resources, "The bottom line is that there is too much focus on structure, technology, and systems and not enough attention on learning, learners, and content." AMEN.
She also talks about a problem with OER that we have not yet looked at, "In informal interviews with several experts in this area, I have heard several times that the overriding problem with most OERs is that they are not reused much at all." I think that ease and knowledge for reuse is an important factor here.
Houshuang talks about the absence of lms's for this class, "this course being a good example, we don’t use Moodle or ATutor or similar software, and I am not sure if anyone thinks that our course would be enhanced by using them." I Agree. For a class presentation on open source Learning Management Systems, I discussed the idea of how lms's lock things down and that students cannot go back and view old courses at all. But I used this course and others taught by David Wiley as examples of courses that can be seen later and are open.
Jon talks a great deal about the bricks and mortar metaphor of learning objects. I like this metaphor too because it allows for what the user adds or the mortar. Jon gives some good insights about brick laying and how rocks can be very different from each other yet they can be placed together.
Speaking about my last weeks post, Jesse shares her opinion, "I do agree that localization is very important, but I think it is possible to make a piece of instruction effective in every culture because the world is getting flatter." Perhaps she is right and her perspective about China is valuable, but I would still like to see any studies done with this.
David Wiley wants to make 2008 the year of open content. I say we begin with some lighthearted and creative mash-ups:
Jennifer mentions, "Likely, in the process, elements were "fixed", but it is unclear to me if the desire to fix problems with learning objects led to the open education movement. Rather, it seems more likely that advances in technology and experiences with what is possible have helped to foster the changes in the characteristics between learning objects and open education." I agree that learning objects have evolved and that the purpose is what is important. People probably did not set out to fix learning objects, OERs were just the next inevitable iteration for those whose goal is to spread education. It was not, however, the next phase for those whose goal is to create automated instruction. I don't know what that next phase is (hopefully death).
I disagree with Jennifer's classification of old learning objects and the new open educational resources. I think that most definitions of learning objects never stuck them into the don't change, rigid and high cost column. That was done by opportunists on a small piece of what could be considered learning objects.
Jennifer also gives a great point that I totally agree with, "I'm not sure we have a good handle on either the extent of OER use (by teachers or learners) or the best ways to facilitate use of OERs by users. Further, I think there is a lot to be learned from an instructional design perspective about both open educational practices, as well as OERs as instructional content"
Catia mentions at the end of her post, "But let's not forget that quality is an element that cannot be forgotten - no matter what the approach might be." The discussion on quality is very important and multi-faceted. In my previous post I talked about this same issue of quality, Can open educational resources be made higher quality for everyone everywhere, or is localization the only answer?
Karen talks about the problem of engineers working on open educational resources, "The bottom line is that there is too much focus on structure, technology, and systems and not enough attention on learning, learners, and content." AMEN.
She also talks about a problem with OER that we have not yet looked at, "In informal interviews with several experts in this area, I have heard several times that the overriding problem with most OERs is that they are not reused much at all." I think that ease and knowledge for reuse is an important factor here.
Houshuang talks about the absence of lms's for this class, "this course being a good example, we don’t use Moodle or ATutor or similar software, and I am not sure if anyone thinks that our course would be enhanced by using them." I Agree. For a class presentation on open source Learning Management Systems, I discussed the idea of how lms's lock things down and that students cannot go back and view old courses at all. But I used this course and others taught by David Wiley as examples of courses that can be seen later and are open.
Jon talks a great deal about the bricks and mortar metaphor of learning objects. I like this metaphor too because it allows for what the user adds or the mortar. Jon gives some good insights about brick laying and how rocks can be very different from each other yet they can be placed together.
Speaking about my last weeks post, Jesse shares her opinion, "I do agree that localization is very important, but I think it is possible to make a piece of instruction effective in every culture because the world is getting flatter." Perhaps she is right and her perspective about China is valuable, but I would still like to see any studies done with this.
David Wiley wants to make 2008 the year of open content. I say we begin with some lighthearted and creative mash-ups:
Thursday, November 8, 2007
OpenEd: Learning Objects are not Dead, You Just Didn't Understand Them
To say that open educational resources fix many of the problems of learning objects is a stretch simply because what learning objects are has not been defined. From what I have read there are so many different things that can be considered learning objects that open educational resources could certainly be another name for what some though learning objects were supposed to be. They most certainly fit most of the definitions of learning objects. It seems like the idea of learning objects has simply evolved to better meet a goal and with the evolution came a new name.
I think when people say that learning objects are dead they are not talking about the Wiley definition of learning objects. If the definition of learning objects is, “A digital resource that can be reused to mediate learning,” then learning objects are certainly still alive and well. If we define learning objects as digital resources that reside in a closed system and are only available for out of context and non-adaptable learning experiences, then they should be dead. Why didn't people make the distinction? It seems to me that the goals for using learning objects were different and therefore the definition of learning objects went along with the goals. Wiley and colleagues had the goal of spreading education through whatever means possible. Others had the goal of making money by creating a system which would save time for users. Still others wanted to use learning objects as a way to create more precise instruction, but in order to do so they had to be very specific and time-intensive in what information about the learning objects they required. These systems inevitably were closed rather than open because of their highly specific nature.
Of all of the directions that learning objects could have taken, open educational resources are the most useful way to go if your goal is to spread education. David Wiley mentions this in his presentation. Learning objects needed to go in the direction that people actually do things already to make them easy enough and simple enough. What are people doing to sort and find information on the web? Tagging and Google. Why are people doing this? Because it is easy and simple. Open educational resources are the new learning objects, and they are now easier to find and use. Now learning objects are created as open as possible to allow for use in a variety of systems and are created by universities to share educational materials for free.
If your goal is to create an automated learning system, then open educational resources have not fixed any of the problems that learning objects had. The idea of vendor lock-down comes to mind. Learning objects did what many software vendors do. They locked people into a certain system and method of use. We are still where we were years ago with our systems that piece together learning objects in a instructionally effective way. These systems do not work well with humans, and require a lot of work.
I recently read an interesting chapter in the book, Lessons in Learning, e-Learning, and Training by Roger Schank. The chapter was about Artificial Intelligence and its use in training. Schank mentions that Artificial Intelligence could be used in a training solution to give learners a proper story (Schank loves stories) at the proper time to help learners handle a situation. The intelligence, as I understand it, would provide for more appropriate resources being given at the correct time to help a learner learn. At the beginning of the chapter, however, Schank makes the point that if we can create great training already, why use Artificial Intelligence anyway? I tend to agree. Too many new technologies have come and gone with unfulfilled promises for education.
Some innovations, however, have good uses and have fulfilled some promises. If such an intelligent system would work well, then why not use it. The problem, Schank says, is getting there from here. The costs right now are too expensive to create such a system for the average instructional design group. When the cost of production is less than the value of what is created, then these systems will be a good idea.
David Wiley talked a great deal about infrastructure in his opening speech at OpenEd 2007. He gave the example of roads being an infrastructure for all kinds of innovative activities such as food delivery. He mentioned that open educational resources are a kind of infrastructure and that all kinds of innovative activities can be built upon them beyond what was ever intended by their creators. I think some innovative activities to come include the “learning with media” and not from that Thomas Reeves often talks about. Instead of using open educational resources as the instructor and purveyor of information, students can take the resources to remix and make something new out of them. Students can take the resources and use them as cognitive tools to scaffold their learning experiences. Task-centered instruction could make use of open educational resources to help students complete a task. There are many great ways that resources could be used by students to help them learn. We have the infrastructure of openly licensed resources, now we need the people willing to build on that infrastructure.
Something that I heard in David Wiley's Presentation troubled me. He said that it is not possible to make a piece of instruction more effective for everyone in every culture and this is why localization is so important. Yet there are those in the field who would say that instruction is a science and you can do certain things that will improve instruction universally. M. David Merrill would be one of these people, his First Principles of Instruction is a work that attempts to combine prominent instructional theory into a universal whole. I could not readily find any work attempting to compare the effectiveness of first principles as a model of instruction to other (perhaps more culturally relevant) methods of instruction in a culture or place very different from the United States or Europe. Or in other words, does localization work better than First Principles?
Of course the answer would depend on a lot of factors. Some cultures do instruction very different from the ones in which first principles originated. Storytelling and experiential learning are two examples but I am sure there are more. First principles methods of instruction may not work in cultures that have rich traditions of pedagogies that differ greatly from first principles. However, it may well be that introducing such a culture to first principles would result in more effective instruction.
What about accepted laws dealing with human learning. Thorndike's law of exercise and law of effect come to mind. Would building these into open education guarantee a more effective learning experience? Should M. David Merrill put an asterisk on his first principles linking to fine print stating that they only work in the United States and some places in Europe?
I think when people say that learning objects are dead they are not talking about the Wiley definition of learning objects. If the definition of learning objects is, “A digital resource that can be reused to mediate learning,” then learning objects are certainly still alive and well. If we define learning objects as digital resources that reside in a closed system and are only available for out of context and non-adaptable learning experiences, then they should be dead. Why didn't people make the distinction? It seems to me that the goals for using learning objects were different and therefore the definition of learning objects went along with the goals. Wiley and colleagues had the goal of spreading education through whatever means possible. Others had the goal of making money by creating a system which would save time for users. Still others wanted to use learning objects as a way to create more precise instruction, but in order to do so they had to be very specific and time-intensive in what information about the learning objects they required. These systems inevitably were closed rather than open because of their highly specific nature.
Of all of the directions that learning objects could have taken, open educational resources are the most useful way to go if your goal is to spread education. David Wiley mentions this in his presentation. Learning objects needed to go in the direction that people actually do things already to make them easy enough and simple enough. What are people doing to sort and find information on the web? Tagging and Google. Why are people doing this? Because it is easy and simple. Open educational resources are the new learning objects, and they are now easier to find and use. Now learning objects are created as open as possible to allow for use in a variety of systems and are created by universities to share educational materials for free.
If your goal is to create an automated learning system, then open educational resources have not fixed any of the problems that learning objects had. The idea of vendor lock-down comes to mind. Learning objects did what many software vendors do. They locked people into a certain system and method of use. We are still where we were years ago with our systems that piece together learning objects in a instructionally effective way. These systems do not work well with humans, and require a lot of work.
I recently read an interesting chapter in the book, Lessons in Learning, e-Learning, and Training by Roger Schank. The chapter was about Artificial Intelligence and its use in training. Schank mentions that Artificial Intelligence could be used in a training solution to give learners a proper story (Schank loves stories) at the proper time to help learners handle a situation. The intelligence, as I understand it, would provide for more appropriate resources being given at the correct time to help a learner learn. At the beginning of the chapter, however, Schank makes the point that if we can create great training already, why use Artificial Intelligence anyway? I tend to agree. Too many new technologies have come and gone with unfulfilled promises for education.
Some innovations, however, have good uses and have fulfilled some promises. If such an intelligent system would work well, then why not use it. The problem, Schank says, is getting there from here. The costs right now are too expensive to create such a system for the average instructional design group. When the cost of production is less than the value of what is created, then these systems will be a good idea.
David Wiley talked a great deal about infrastructure in his opening speech at OpenEd 2007. He gave the example of roads being an infrastructure for all kinds of innovative activities such as food delivery. He mentioned that open educational resources are a kind of infrastructure and that all kinds of innovative activities can be built upon them beyond what was ever intended by their creators. I think some innovative activities to come include the “learning with media” and not from that Thomas Reeves often talks about. Instead of using open educational resources as the instructor and purveyor of information, students can take the resources to remix and make something new out of them. Students can take the resources and use them as cognitive tools to scaffold their learning experiences. Task-centered instruction could make use of open educational resources to help students complete a task. There are many great ways that resources could be used by students to help them learn. We have the infrastructure of openly licensed resources, now we need the people willing to build on that infrastructure.
Something that I heard in David Wiley's Presentation troubled me. He said that it is not possible to make a piece of instruction more effective for everyone in every culture and this is why localization is so important. Yet there are those in the field who would say that instruction is a science and you can do certain things that will improve instruction universally. M. David Merrill would be one of these people, his First Principles of Instruction is a work that attempts to combine prominent instructional theory into a universal whole. I could not readily find any work attempting to compare the effectiveness of first principles as a model of instruction to other (perhaps more culturally relevant) methods of instruction in a culture or place very different from the United States or Europe. Or in other words, does localization work better than First Principles?
Of course the answer would depend on a lot of factors. Some cultures do instruction very different from the ones in which first principles originated. Storytelling and experiential learning are two examples but I am sure there are more. First principles methods of instruction may not work in cultures that have rich traditions of pedagogies that differ greatly from first principles. However, it may well be that introducing such a culture to first principles would result in more effective instruction.
What about accepted laws dealing with human learning. Thorndike's law of exercise and law of effect come to mind. Would building these into open education guarantee a more effective learning experience? Should M. David Merrill put an asterisk on his first principles linking to fine print stating that they only work in the United States and some places in Europe?
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
OpenEd week 10: Comments
In week 10 I commented on other's blogs instead of posting on my own. But, realizing the error of my ways, I am posting many of the discussion points from the week now.
Elisa talks about a problem with copyright, "In Italy, the situation is not at all better than it is in the States. I will talk of the case of Beppe Grillo, a popular Italian actor and comedian. After the great impact on the public opinion of Beppe Grillo's ideas about political and corporate corruption in Italy published in his blog, ranked the ninth most visited in the world, some government members have proposed a bill that claims that anyone with a blog or a website has to register it with the ROC, a register of the Communications Authority, produce certificates, pay a tax, even if they provide information without any intention to make money. If you want to know more about this, click here. It seems that the bill will be modified, but this example suggests how, once again, as Lessig shows in Free Culture, the copyright law is used to check the access to the mass media and the critical positions and going up stream ideas of people."
I hope that this bill does not pass. Too often copyright is used for unintended purposes such as the suppression of valid points of view, and at the same time the most important uses of copyright are forgotten. In the constitution it says that congress has the power to promote the progress of science and useful arts through copyright. Not to help businesses become monopolies or suppress technologies.
Some comments on my own post led to a discussion of Lessig's percieved vs. actual personality as indicated in the Lessig/Valenti debate:
Thank you for the Lessig vs Valenti debate in mp3 format, I had never heard their voices before. :-)))Apart from the enjoyment of the humour and wit of both their conversations, I am on Lessig's side in the interpretation of the USA founding fathers' intention in their establishing the duration of copyrights. My impression is that Valenti was sometimes in trouble in refuting Lessig's statements. However, wasn't Lessig a bit too aggressive in his choice of words, or was it just an impression of mine?
November 1, 2007 9:24 AM
Karen Fasimpaur said...
Great post, Greg, and thanks for the link to the Lessig-Valenti debate.
Elisa, yes, Lessig is *always* "a bit too aggressive." I actually agree with a lot of his points but find myself bristling at his extremeness. I think he'd have a better reception with a more logical and less emotionally charged demeanor.
November 3, 2007 6:02 PM
Silvana said...
"Education must strike a balance between meeting the needs of the institution (test scores, learning objectives etc.) and meeting the needs of the student (expression, desire to learn a certain topic, etc.)."
I quite agree with you and try to set that balance right for my students. However, I'm not ready yet because in the context of informal learning I can't respect deadlines myself -I finished reading Free Culture an hour ago!
Silvana
November 5, 2007 12:29 PM
Greg said...
Speaking of Lessig, "I think he'd have a better reception with a more logical and less emotionally charged demeanor."
I find this comment interesting because he said himself that his one mistake when going before the supreme court was that he was not appealing to the political (or emotional) side of the debate. So either Lessig incorrectly views himself as an unemotional reasonable academic, or we have him incorrectly categorized.
-Greg
Erik featured a tribute video to me on his blog, I will follow suit by placing a tribute picture on my blog for him.
I also commented on Yu-Chun's blog "...I have often thought of the peer-production model that has even been adopted by major businesses as an efficient way of producing products. I agree with your statement about granularity. Certain subjects in Open Education do not work well with such small pieces of instruction. It seems that Open education course management systems should keep this in mind and allow for different categorizing methods for different subjects.
2007年10月30日 下午 8:36
Elisa's comments were pertinent on this same topic:
I like your points about granularity and consistency very much. Writing a set of recipes or the entries of an encyclopaedia on the Web is not the same as writing a scientific treatise or a novel. Some key concepts about granularity should be re-interpreted in the light of different kinds of OER projects.
Elisa talks about a problem with copyright, "In Italy, the situation is not at all better than it is in the States. I will talk of the case of Beppe Grillo, a popular Italian actor and comedian. After the great impact on the public opinion of Beppe Grillo's ideas about political and corporate corruption in Italy published in his blog, ranked the ninth most visited in the world, some government members have proposed a bill that claims that anyone with a blog or a website has to register it with the ROC, a register of the Communications Authority, produce certificates, pay a tax, even if they provide information without any intention to make money. If you want to know more about this, click here. It seems that the bill will be modified, but this example suggests how, once again, as Lessig shows in Free Culture, the copyright law is used to check the access to the mass media and the critical positions and going up stream ideas of people."
I hope that this bill does not pass. Too often copyright is used for unintended purposes such as the suppression of valid points of view, and at the same time the most important uses of copyright are forgotten. In the constitution it says that congress has the power to promote the progress of science and useful arts through copyright. Not to help businesses become monopolies or suppress technologies.
Some comments on my own post led to a discussion of Lessig's percieved vs. actual personality as indicated in the Lessig/Valenti debate:
Thank you for the Lessig vs Valenti debate in mp3 format, I had never heard their voices before. :-)))Apart from the enjoyment of the humour and wit of both their conversations, I am on Lessig's side in the interpretation of the USA founding fathers' intention in their establishing the duration of copyrights. My impression is that Valenti was sometimes in trouble in refuting Lessig's statements. However, wasn't Lessig a bit too aggressive in his choice of words, or was it just an impression of mine?
November 1, 2007 9:24 AM
Karen Fasimpaur said...
Great post, Greg, and thanks for the link to the Lessig-Valenti debate.
Elisa, yes, Lessig is *always* "a bit too aggressive." I actually agree with a lot of his points but find myself bristling at his extremeness. I think he'd have a better reception with a more logical and less emotionally charged demeanor.
November 3, 2007 6:02 PM
Silvana said...
"Education must strike a balance between meeting the needs of the institution (test scores, learning objectives etc.) and meeting the needs of the student (expression, desire to learn a certain topic, etc.)."
I quite agree with you and try to set that balance right for my students. However, I'm not ready yet because in the context of informal learning I can't respect deadlines myself -I finished reading Free Culture an hour ago!
Silvana
November 5, 2007 12:29 PM
Greg said...
Speaking of Lessig, "I think he'd have a better reception with a more logical and less emotionally charged demeanor."
I find this comment interesting because he said himself that his one mistake when going before the supreme court was that he was not appealing to the political (or emotional) side of the debate. So either Lessig incorrectly views himself as an unemotional reasonable academic, or we have him incorrectly categorized.
-Greg
Erik featured a tribute video to me on his blog, I will follow suit by placing a tribute picture on my blog for him.
I also commented on Yu-Chun's blog "...I have often thought of the peer-production model that has even been adopted by major businesses as an efficient way of producing products. I agree with your statement about granularity. Certain subjects in Open Education do not work well with such small pieces of instruction. It seems that Open education course management systems should keep this in mind and allow for different categorizing methods for different subjects.
2007年10月30日 下午 8:36
Elisa's comments were pertinent on this same topic:
I like your points about granularity and consistency very much. Writing a set of recipes or the entries of an encyclopaedia on the Web is not the same as writing a scientific treatise or a novel. Some key concepts about granularity should be re-interpreted in the light of different kinds of OER projects.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)