A New Open Textbook on Philosophy

Intro to philosophy book cover.I got a notice of this last week. It looks like a good introduction to philosophy. I am looking forward to seeing the rest of the series:

Introduction to Philosophy: Philosophy of Mind surveys both historical and contemporary theories and debates around philosophy of mind to introduce first time readers to the field. The book covers dualism, functionalism, freedom of the will, and consciousness among other subjects, with each chapter written by different experts in that field. This is the first complete textbook from the new Rebus Community Introduction to Philosophy series, which will eventually include 9 introductory Philosophy textbooks in total.”

If you are not familiar with open textbooks (free, online, openly-licensed) there is a good explanation of open textbooks in this book.

Posted in education, opentextbooks | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Facilitating Online Discussions for eLearning

Communication imageThis is a post in support of a presentation I am giving for Columbia Basin College’s eLearning Days. One of the reasons the presentation part is so short is because I am using the presentation as a launch pad for both a broader discussion with participants on class discussion in general and then towards the end I want to finish up with discussion question creation and the challenges of online discussion. I am reproducing my “resources” page below the discussion. I would love to hear about any resources, rubrics, or discussion guides you found helpful. I think this is another gap in teaching instructors on how to teach online. When looking at the issues around online discussions, it is notable how similar the issues are with face-to-face class discussions – or at least SHOULD be! Let me know what you think in the comments below or in an email if you prefer.

Chen, B. et al. (2017). “Creating a community of inquiry in large-enrollment online courses: An exploratory study on the effect of protocols within online discussions,” Online Learning 21(1), 165-188. 

Designing Online Discussion Activities.” (n.d.) Office of Distance Learning. Florida State University

Generating and Facilitating Engaging and Effective Online Discussions.” (2016) Free to Teach. Teaching Effectiveness Program. Teaching and Learning Center. University of Oregon. 

Martin, Florence and Bolliger, Doris U. (2018). “Engagement matters: Student perceptions on the importance of engagement strategies in the online learning environment.” Online Learning 22(1), 205-222. doi:10.24059/olj.v22i1.1092

Orlando, John (2017) ”What Research Tells Us about Online Discussion.” Faculty Focus. Magna Publications. 

Simon, Edwige (2018) “10 Tips for Effective Online Discussions.” Transforming Higher Ed. Educause Review

Discussion Rubrics” (2017) Teaching Online Pedagogical Repository. University of Central Florida.

Posted in communication | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Everything New is Old Again: OER and Assessment

I have been commenting on “online homework systems” and testing in general as assessment via blog postings and Twitter from David Wiley and Clint Lalonde. Obviously, it is difficult to tease out any kind of real argument on Twitter, so I thought I would put down something here about my ideas around OER and assessment.

I will say up front that I am not a huge fan of testing. It can be a one dimensional assessment. Tests often measure what someone currently remembers, not whether they know how to use the new knowledge or information. One might argue that tests are practice except that the best practice is to apply the information in the context (i.e. a project that uses math vs. a quiz). With that said, my argument is not against tests per se: I have seen brilliantly scaffolded tests that require a focused application of critical thinking to work through the series of questions. I have seen tests that once you worked through the questions, you came away with a deeper understanding of what was being taught. And then I have seen what the online publishers produce. I have seen it all from publishers: wrong answers, questions not tied to any readings or lessons, misinformation, spelling and grammar issues that make the question unclear, and lots of rote memorization. Although it is not the only way to ensure higher order thinking skills, I can smell a test a mile away that was written without Bloom’s Taxonomy at least somewhere in the background. I also have had to bring tests with just plain old wrong information to the instructors who were surprised by the problem because they did not have time to review every question in the test bank for accuracy: right or wrong, they counted on the publisher for that.

I think from a teaching and learning perspective, from an instructional design perspective, there are better ways to assess what someone has learned than questions from a test bank. There are even better ways to practice. I am concerned about teachers who rely on tests as a sole measure of what their students have learned. It is an easy way to “teach,” we should be concerned. Promoting open textbooks along with test banks is not particularly a problem in itself, but what it does do is encourage the kind of thinking that conflates a textbook, “ancillary” materials, or tests, with a class. Instructors often use testing and test banks because they are “easier.” They are locked into that method of teaching because that is how they were instructed and that is what their departments expect.

There are alternatives, but they are hard to lock-down behind an LMS and hard to monetize. I read on Clint Lalonde’s blog about a report from Open Oregon called “Report on Lack of Homework Systems as a Barrier to the Adoption of Open Education Resources.” I understand this: if your project is to expand open textbook adoption, then creating a homework system might be a priority to do that. The other approach is to help faculty understand the need for authentic assessment in an open context along with open textbooks. I am not assuming, for instance, that Clint’s project is “drill and kill” or that it would be the only form of assessment in his courses – I appreciate the thoughtfulness that he has brought to this over the course of the three blog postings of his that I read. What I would hope from those in the open education field is that they ask themselves questions like: “How does this practice expand access to education?” “How is this work ‘open’?” It is okay if the answer is “It doesn’t, it will be locked into an LMS and available at an extra cost.” Great. No judgement. You then you are in business and not, at least in that moment, in education. Schools purchase all kinds of services that are not open: food services, janitorial, and building maintenance, for instance. The next question we should ask is: “Is there an open practice that does this better or as well?” If knowledge should be free, open and accessible, and there are practices that are, according to Wiley’s perspective, only possible given the so-called “5Rs,” then how does a testing system, locked in an LMS, reflect that practice? If I lack imagination, it is only because I can’t imagine how it does. If I am wrong- great. Let’s keep expanding access to education for more students.

These aren’t radical or new ideas: teachers and institutions have been looking at different kinds of assessment for years. For instance, I had really hoped that portfolio-based assessment would have been more wide-spread. (That was twenty years ago now!) There are some great programs out there that use portfolio-based assessment – especially in teacher education. One of the problems with portfolios is that as soon as people started the practice, the private sector produced a product. The practice is useful, requires self-reflection on the part of assessment, and provides a meaningful artifact for the student, but the products around eportfoilos are generally terrible. You can get a grant or investment for a product, and it is nearly impossible to get a grant to explore a practice.

And there are alternatives. There are a LOT of alternatives. David Wiley wrote a paper that addresses some aspects of alternative OER-based assessment  in “Defining OER-Enabled Pedagogy.” This article gives great alternative assessments. Again, in 2009, Wiley and Mott wrote an article called “Open for Learning: the CMS and the Open Learning Network” that says that the “…course management system (CMS) reinforces the status quo and hinders substantial teaching and learning innovation in higher education.” So apparently, that substantial teaching lies somewhere outside of the LMS.

Posted in OER | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Hypothes.is: The Web That Was Meant To Be

Hypothesis logoThis post is way over-due. I have been using the online collaborative annotation tool, Hypothesis, for a while now. I participated in the Annotating Engelbart Project which used Hypothes.is as the central tool/task for the project; I started using it for annotating an article I am writing; and I started annotating the #ianno19 conference program. This is an excellent annotation tool that I highly recommend. I think that this tool can represent a significant shift in how we think of online learning

What is Hypothes.is? It is an online tool that allows users to annotate online text and webpages. Users first register with Hypothes.is, copy the URL of the document or web page they want to annotate, and click on the “Paste a Link” and paste in the URL. Hypothes.is then loads the document or website in its shell. To annotate the website, users select text with their mouse, and then they can choose to highlight the text and/or annotate it. The “Highlight” option acts like a color highlighter over the text marking passages of interest to the user. The “Annotate” option allows users to add notes, comments, images, links, and tags in the right side margin that opens next to the selected text.

So far so good, but the interesting part is that users can decide if they wish to make their notes public or keep them private, and they can send their annotations by clicking the “Share” button and choosing to share them through email, social media, or with a direct link. When other users visit the link to the annotated website that was sent to them, they can click the “Reply” button beneath the annotations to add their thoughts. This is the real power of this tool is the collaboration that is possible.

Hypothesis is not another online tool looking for problems to solve. As many have already pointed out, this is how the web was meant to work. It turns the experience of being online from a place of passive consumption to a place of shared thinking. This was the dream of many who were shaping the early internet, such as Douglas Engelbart.

Hypothesis has a lot of possible uses in the classroom. 

  1. Research
    Hypothesis can be used to build annotated bibliographies for research projects. Sharing research allows students to get insight into how students are going about their research and help them discover sources and methods they may not have considered.
  2. Active reading
    Teachers can ask students a set of questions about a text – questions that can be scaffolded into an essay. Students can share their annotations with the instructor and other students. This also allows the teacher and student to gauge how deeply into a text student has gone.
  3. Group projects
    Studying and annotating a text together as a group helps encourage students to read closely and engage – it is too easy to see who is or is not engaged! Instructors can create private groups in Hypothes.is.

There are many  other examples online and at the Hypothes.is education site. They also have a plug-in for learning management systems and WordPress.

Research shows that student engagement is one of the leading factors in online student success and retention. There are still far too many online classes that are designed as one-way dumps of information. Building annotation into the curriculum, along with online discussion, and faculty presence in the course significantly increase that engagement.

One of the things that I find really exciting about Hypothes.is is that they are a non-profit organization that, in their words, are dedicated to the principles that it be “free, open, non-profit, neutral and lasting.” Why does that matter? It is not that I am against businesses in education but businesses can be bought, sold, absorbed by other companies. Businesses primary concern, in the end, is business, not education or the promotion of knowledge and research. I really hate finding tools that I like and then having them go away in a year!

I have used other annotation tools before but none of them gets the sharing and the interface right like this one. Most web annotation tools treat annotations as purely a personal thing.

Hypothes.is is not just for education. Their site goes into many examples of its use in journalism, research, publishing, and politics. It is a very versatile tool and an extremely useful concept. I detest websites and blogs that have the “Comments are closed for this post” notice. Not anymore!

Anything I don’t like? I love the tool, but not a fan of the WordPress plug-in. I had it on this site for a while and it opens, even when there are no annotations and covers the content of my blog. It should not open by default but open when the user wants to use it with a click. It could be my browser or a WordPress theme quirk. If I find out, I will comment below.

Are you using annotation in your curriculum? What tools do you use? Have you tried Hypothesis before? I will be writing more on this tool later so I would love to hear what you have to say in the comments or email.

 

Posted in education | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The Best Bots of My Generation Destroyed by Artificial Poetry

Robot poetry reading.

“Mecanismos 2” by Carl Wiens  CC BY-NC 4.0

The poets of the world can, for now, breathe a sigh of relief. Their jobs are in no danger of being replaced by artificial intelligence. Stephen Downes posted about AI generated poetry from https://talktotransformer.com/ from a post from Kevin Hodgson. Kevin fed the bot some lines from a poem and he thought the poetry was pretty good or at least interesting. Your results may vary, as did mine. I decided to throw the AI beatnick a few softballs – seed it with some really fine poetry to riff off of. The results seem a little hostile and paranoid. It is a fun exercise but it speaks to a deeper problem with how we define intelligence and how we define art. To be fair, the site just claims “See how a modern neural network completes your text. Type a custom snippet or try one of the examples.” It does not claim to create thought or art, but “…in February, OpenAI unveiled a language model called GPT-2 that generates coherent paragraphs of text one word at a time.” But the implication in Kevin’s exercise, and the whole AI project, implies things about intelligence, language and art that deserve a closer look. But first, a bit of poetry. Everything in italics below come from the bot.

Completion

Attempt 1: Ginsberg –  I have seen the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness

The man from Chicago is nothing at all! The man from San Francisco will come in at half-past three in the morning, I hope he is well!

I have seen our cities become dangerous battlegrounds

I’ve seen men of wealth, and power and wealth

I’ve seen the destruction of everything from my school to my home to a tree with an eyeball in its eye

I’ve seen the man who gave us peace destroyed by insanity!

I have seen our nation disintegrate beyond repair

The man from Chicago is nothing at all! The man from San Francisco will come in at half-past three in the morning, I hope he is well!

I have seen our nation dissolve outside our control

The man from Chicago is nothing at all! The man from San Francisco will come in at half-past four in the evening, I hope he is well!

But all of this comes too late to me…

It’s too late!

I’ve seen the destruction of our country come in like this!

It’s too late!

I can’t stay here!

I feel like our poet is stitching together Reddit posts from former residents of San Francisco who can no longer live there from the tech boom.

Attempt 2: Emily Dickinson- “Hope” is the thing with feathers.

“Hope” it is the thing with feathers,” †it is the hope. †Hope” †Is† the thing with feathers,‡ †that there is hope, with feathers‡.

‪[Prophecy]‚- ‪ [Prophecy]‚-

‪It is the hope” †‫․‪,‪‪‫․‪,‪‫․‪,‪‫“ ‪[Prophecy]‚- ‪ ‪‫․ ‪[Prophecy]‚ ‬

[Chorus]

‪[Prophecy]‚- ‪ ‪[Prophecy]‚

I found the above poem a little more sinister. It seems to really not like Emily Dickinson or punctuation in general. The bot that wrote this poem is definitely not opening the pod bay doors!

Attempt 3: Again with Emily Dickinson: Second attempt removing the parenthesis with “Hope,” which I suspect was giving the bot a minor stroke. 

Hope is the thing with feathers; it’s a good thing to have hopes in general.” I think this is a very reasonable statement, as we live in a world where we are constantly feeling the desire to improve our lives.

You also mentioned that you thought “I’ll be one day” from your earliest memories. Your story is quite interesting, the way your life has played out.

Of course for me when I was younger there were a lot of thoughts that I think may not seem like they really were a lot of years away, but that I actually felt very very much attached to and I also know that as an actor you always want to be able to be something you can always say you’ve done or something that’s been something, and always get that desire, that “I’ll be on that beach someday” feel when everything is connected to that future. So I think that was definitely an important factor, and there were definitely dreams that came up early in my life of things that would bring me to this stage, which is a bit ironic that these were those things I can’t live without now, those dreams that were not going to be. That was the thing with people. Those things would not be, so when the

And there it enigmatically ends. It is good to have hope in general.

Shakespeare: Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?

Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day? In winter time? And what may not thou say that there may the sun shine in thy shade? And is the ground thy couch or thy throne? And what shall not thou say, my son, that in the day that ye rise is the sun to shine? I will not, my child, deny that at the height of winter ye must be clothed in a garment, and at the height of summer thou canst drink milk to the heart’s content, for in the summer time thou must know of the coming of spring; for in the springtime thou must drink milk in honor of spring. Then let me go away, my servant; ye will not understand me. Let him call me, and let him come hither.

  1. When they had heard this, Moses answered the people and said to their fathers: Whence comest thou from thy brethren?
  2. But the people said to Moses: Why do ye call us brethren, and yet ye say, ‘Let us take thy garments.’
  3. Moses answered them: And when we took your garments, we said to them, Thus saith the Lord: Let your garments be a garment like unto ours,

Again, it enigmatically ends with a comma. Okay, I was not really expecting a robot Shakespeare but given the inspirational tip, I expected just a little bit more. It seemed to merely ransack the internet for “thee”s and “thou”s.

So I find all of this somewhat funny, except for the insinuation that poetry is somehow just random words strung together with artfulness imposed from the outside. There are layers of irony here around what art or intelligence might be. The whole project of artificial intelligence is suspect to begin with. I am not against the idea of writing code, data mining or what ever tools you want to use to analyze and present information, but it is not intelligence. We, and by that I mean educators, scientists, programmers. psychologists, and philosophers, do not yet have an agreed on definition of what intelligence or what thinking is. How do you make an artificial version of something you don’t understand? Superficial definitions of intelligence produce superficial art products. One of the reasons “it” does that is because AI is created by people who do not understand thought or art. Art is not a product, despite the high prices that it has fetched lately. Art is a response to the world. People who create art are responding and interpreting. Most importantly, it is created by people who want to create – who need to create. What algorithm can do that? Superficially copying the supposed language patterns of poetry is to poetry what motel art is to painting. Give me the bot that is not the algorithm’s slave, and I will wear him in my heart’s core.

I feel the same way about computer generated music and painting. If I invent a computer to make music, I am the one who created that algorithm and through it I am limiting the sounds and patterns that I will accept as music. It is still a method of composition and in an era of short attention spans, it is probably as acceptable as anything else. The computer did not want or need to paint, but someone was compelled to write code that could mimic certain kinds of music. Is that really enough to say computers are intelligent?

Again, I am not against advances in computer/data science, but defining this as “intelligence” can lead to some very rocky ethical waters which I think we are already navigating.

 

Posted in AI | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

20 Things to Do Before Accusing a Student of Plagiarism

This is not a traditional blog posting for this site. What happened is that I ran into writer and KPU Applied Communications instructor Arley McNeney on Twitter who posted a rapid -fire dozen tweets on addressing plagiarism, TurnItIn, and sound teaching practice. This struck a deep chord in me – I really needed to read this. It is a reminder of how important empathy and compassion are, not just for teaching but being human. I asked if I could post the tweets here and she said yes, with the caveat that some of the solutions are particular to her campus, but I think you will get it – the focus is on student support.

I empathize with faculty who feel like they don’t have the tools to address plagiarism, but Turnitin isn’t the answer. Here are some things you can do instead.

  1. Trust and respect students. See them as partners in learning.
  2. Book a session with our wonderful librarians.
  3. When a student plagiarizes, invite them for a conversation. Stress they’re not in trouble. Listen. Every time I have had one of these conversations, I have left with more respect for the student than when they walked into my office. Have the student revise the paper.
  4. Direct students to The Learning Centre or book a consultation with a learning strategist yourself. I am so impressed by the work that our colleagues at the The Learning Centre do. .
  5. Trust students.
  6. Ask your students how they learned to cite. Create a bridge between the citation practices they learned and what you want them to do.
  7. Take an Interculturisation Workshop.
  8. Lesley McCannell and others have developed a session on an intercultural approach to citation……She will come to your department meeting!
  9. Trust students.
  10. Involve students in creating assignments and rubrics. Are they valueing what you value in this assignment? Do they know what role sources play in the assignment?
  11. Use the skills assessment developed by Lesley McCannell, , Christina Page and others to find out what your students know about citation at the beginning of the semester.
  12. Talk to students. Get to know them. You will be surprised by the challenges they are facing.
  13. Trust students.
  14. Frame citation as an act of generosity. Someone gave us the gift of their knowledge or their words and we’re showing respect by crediting them. I forget where I learned this from (see? I am not perfect at citation and i teach it!) but it’s effective.
  15. Create assignments that are non-disposable and that draw on your students’ own experience.
  16. Have students practice paraphrasing and synthesis by having them write a scene where their sources are having dinner together. (I think this is a Peter Elbow exercise).
  17. Have students practice paraphrasing by having them read a draft of a peer’s assignment then explain the main point in less than 2 sentences.
  18. Have students bring in a draft and highlight quotes in one colour, paraphrasing in another and their own ideas in a third. This helps them identify places where they forgot to cite and also lets them see when they need to insert their own voice into the piece.
  19. Discuss how citation happens in your industry and why. When is it appropriate to use a colleague’s work? Focus on the decisions communicators make in the workplace. Not just how to cite by why.
  20. Trust students. Trust students. Trust students. Resist edtech. Trust students. How do you help your students learn citation?

Even the solutions that are specific to her campus describe a campus with a high degree of student support. It suggests a great model for student support. I, of course, would not dare attempt to speak for Arley, but what I hear in the phrase “Resist edtech” is that technology is not a substitute for teaching. I have written elsewhere about my feelings about TurnItIn on this blog, as well as trying to get faculty away from concerns about cheating and back to teaching academic integrity.

A special thanks again to Arley McNeney: the click-baity title is mine, everything else worth reading is hers. I would also be interested in your thoughts on this – technology can facilitate learning but it can also create barriers and false solutions (sometimes to problems that are created by tech in the first place!).

Posted in Academic integrity | Leave a comment

Shakespeare and Collaborative Learning

An Elizabethan dictionaryI am not sure what kind of post this is – a somewhat interesting note about the history of collaborative learning, authorship, and open practices. I am looking a bit into the history of collaborative learning as part of a deeper dive into open education practices. At the same time, I am reading a copy of “Shakespeare’s Beehive.” Sadly, it is not about Shakespeare’s coiffure choices. It is about this dictionary that these two book dealers found on eBay that they think the weight of the evidence strongly suggests that this book might be Shakespeare’s dictionary. It is an interesting book with compelling arguments, but I digress from my digressions.

Why the strange title? The dictionary is called an “alvearie” by its author, John Baret, because he sent his students out, like little bees, to comb the libraries looking for instances of particular words and then coming back and adding those citations to the dictionary. According to Wikipedia, “The materials for the volume were gradually collected during eighteen years by Baret’s many pupils, and he entitled it, on that account, an ‘Alvearie,’ or beehive. Every English word is first explained, and its equivalent given in Latin and French. Two indexes at the end of the volume collect the Latin and French words occurring in the text.” This is an important work, whether or not we have Shakespeare’s copy, because this dictionary is still used to trace the meaning of Elizabethan words and phrases that are now obsolete.

But I am also interested in that method of writing – many contributors over 18 years. Think of how many lifetimes it would have taken to create that dictionary without the assistance of the students? When many readers and thinkers are looking at a problem, we are able to take advantage of the diversity of perspectives that provides. This is also one of the reasons why students authored work is so helpful – it is authored by the intended audience! This is what makes open pedagogy so powerful: it is an opportunity to include a wide-variety of view points, backgrounds, and perspectives in the on-going work.

Some of these practices are nothing new. Collaborative learning, farming work out to grad students, cobbling the work of others into a new text, is not new. What is new is the open licensing that allows the work to continue long past 18 years. With open licenses and open pedagogical practices,  we can do this in a thoughtful and intentional way to not just produce a product, but further the work of collaborative learning itself.

Posted in collaboration | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Some Thoughts on OER or Why Capitalists Can’t Cook

Soviet school propaganda poster.David Wiley posted on his blog “From here to there: Musings about the path to having good OER for every course on campus.” Part of that path includes the fact that “This work will require us to invest time and energy in understanding publishers’ goals, business models, and operations.” Why would we bother doing that when we have models of teaching and learning that can produce OER from the community that uses the OER? It makes no sense unless your goal is to build a financial relationship with publishers. I have worked for educational publishers: Harcourt/Harcourt eLearning/Archipelago, etc. early in my career, and they were focused on creating and selling textbooks and ancillary materials for a profit. That was it. Anything else the publishers are doing is not meant to make the world a better place; its to figure out how to have an obsolete business model survive as long as possible. There is nothing wrong with that. America was built on that model. I have profited (mostly very indirectly) from that model. You cannot insult or vilify a corporation: they literally do not care – you can even fine them 5 billion dollars and they won’t break a sweat – as long as it does not touch the bottom line. I am not talking about good and evil here – this is how they work. Read Forbes.

I am not a hippy. I am not a communist. I do not want to see the fall of capitalism. I am not an idealist. I think there are things that capitalists do well and things that capitalists are lousy at. Corporations build great roads; they are lousy at health care. Corporations are great at raising money; terrible at caring for the environment. Corporations make consistent products like automobiles; they are terrible at education. I don’t want a home-made one-of-a-kind certified gluten free car. I want one from a factory that will work consistently, so there is one for capitalism. You may have been brain-washed already to think that corporations make good burgers, but they don’t. Come over to my house on a Saturday afternoon, and I will disabuse you of that delusion and throw in a frosty one to boot. McNuggets are cheap, uniform and consistent, but they are not chicken. They just aren’t. And so it is with education.

So what is all this about? As I responded on David’s blog: we need to bring OER out of the teaching & learning communities that use them, not the corporations. We have seen great examples of that in the past. For instance, the math textbooks that were being used at College of the Redwoods during Project Kaleidoscope. Publishers were not interested in that work because it grew organically out of the community – the purpose of the math textbooks and their online testing system were meant to solve particular problems in the teaching and learning communities of Humboldt County. They were also very successful in teaching the students of that particular community. If a company was really interested in teaching and learning, in student success, they should be looking at how projects like that are successful and seek to teach that process.

David’s post is overly-concerned with business interests. I think we need to get away from commercial publishing because of costs and that it is an out-dated and inauthentic model for teaching and learning. He warns us though that “If rates of OER adoption in high enrollment courses increase substantially over time (as, presumably, OER advocates hope they will), taking these adoptions and their associated revenues away from publishers could undermine publishers’ ability to create, maintain, and provide learning materials for upper-level and graduate courses.” I say good riddance. It is almost a threat from the publishers – that if we adopt OER at the undergrad level, prices will go up in upper grad. That will only lead to more OER in the upper grad levels.

He points out that the publishers are excited about OER because it will untie them from the royalty payments that they are currently obligated to pay. Plus, here is the really big one: “It must be true that publishers wish they could just assume that solid content is going to be there, doing a reasonable job of being content and an excellent job of being royalty-free, so they can get on with building the features and services they’re actually excited about on top of the content.” The next big battle will be to get students out from under commercial, online testing systems and ancillary materials, and online course packets. I don’t care what sauce the McNuggets are going to come with – McNuggets are still not chicken.

By focusing on justifications for commercial models, we do a great injustice to all of the great work that is being done in Open Pedagogy. I have been working in education a while now and what can happen is that corporations (big and small) with big budgets always attempt to define the problems and take over the narrative. It is easy for them to do because money equals power and access (journals, conferences, speaking engagements, etc.). A corporation that is handing out grants and stipends will always have an audience. As educators, we can’t let moneyed interests drive the narrative. Open education resources that are faculty and student driven work. It is something that is happening now. Questions about “is it sustainable?” should always be answered with “sustainable for whom?” Every community of teachers and learners has their own particular strengths, needs, abilities, and voice. These can and should be harnessed to build OER and learning experiences. I know many who feel the same way that I do – they are not mad or angry – they are passionate about teaching and learning. They are passionate about opening up the access to education to as many people as possible, and tearing down the barriers.

Is that sustainable? If sustainable is defined as corporate profits, maybe not.

Posted in openpedagogy | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The Creative Commons Certificate Course and Open

Stephen Downes posted some of his discussion about the Creative Commons Certificate Course from various corners of the web. I wanted to share the response I posted to his blog because, as he mentioned, someone wasn’t sure where his comment button was (hint: when you get to a post on his site, click on the title of the post or the “Direct Link” text below the posting and it will take you to the original post for comments).

Hi Stephen,

I agree with this. There should not be money attached to the certificate, at least not in this way. I think that there should be alternative pathways to the certificate that are truly open, but I feel that way about all education. The Creative Commons site does not call it a MOOC or even an “open course” – I am afraid that they probably had the same internal conversations about “sustainability” that organizations like Quality Matters fell into. This led QM to adopt what I call the “Amway Model” of sustainability where the cost of reviewing courses included covering a $400 stipend to course reviewers. This led, in my opinion, to faculty choosing QM because it includes a stipend which trumps pedagogical concerns. With Creative Commons, it seems that facilitators are paid for their time and to become a facilitator, you have to earn the certificate and get their facilitator training. Facilitators are paid $3000. I am not questioning the motives of those who want the certificate – gaining this kind of knowledge or “expertise” is important. People should be compensated by their time, I am just not sure if this is the right model. It turns teaching and learning back into a transaction. (That has done wonders for US healthcare!) I am just surprised at the methods CC is choosing when there are so many examples out there of very successful open practices including cMOOCs and courses like DS106. The CC website has a big button on it that says “Donate to keep the web free and open.” I would get behind that – I put my time and money where my mouth is. For instance, I am a UNESCO volunteer for “Open Education for a Better World.” There are no stipends – it is people who really believe in the work of open that they are willing to do it. I have a lot of respect for the organization, and I use CC materials all the time for my classes. But they are a non-profit that has fundraising campaigns – I would like to see them put more effort into that.

Thanks again for your tireless advocacy for open.

Geoff Cain

Posted in openpedagogy | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Brief History of the Future of Education

The classroom of the future

The Classroom of the Future!

This was a presentation that I did back in 2014 from the DET/CHE conference that I accidentally found on the web .

“The presenter will review the history of how education and technology has been viewed in the popular press from 1900 to the present to reveal some common themes and provide insight into how we think about the future, education, and technology. The presentation uses examples of the imagined future use of education and communications technology to comment on where we are now in education.

Play the presentation.

Posted in future | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment