Open-Content

After reading Brian’s post about mycorrhizal networks I went digging around through some older papers and found this, an exploratory piece by my doc student Erin Brewer circa 2003. (Erin was my co-author on the Online Self-Organizing Social Systems paper.) As we examined biological models (like self-organization) to explain what we saw happening in informal online learning communities, mycorrhizal networks caught our attention. I’d forgotten about the topic until recent discussions in the ed tech blogosphere brought it back to memory… ...

Yesterday I (very briefly) argued for a networked view of both knowledge and learning that Stephen characterized as logical positivism. It was interesting to say the least. He quotes a portion of my writing, “The entire edifice of ‘complex learning’ is built on the foundation of ‘simple learning,’” and then makes what seems to me an incredible leap: This is logical positivism. To put the history of 20th century philosophy in a nutshell: it doesn’t work… an educational theory based on the theory of knowledge you espouse will not produce the sort of complex knowledge we know is required as an adult. ...

Several of the disagreements with my recent post were with the (apparently low) threshold I set for learning. I continue to believe that if (1) I don’t know something, and (2) after engaging in some process I do know it, that (3) I have learned something. It doesn’t matter to me how insignificant the thing I now know may appear to someone else. It doesn’t need to be the fundamental theorem of calculus or a complex skill like driving a car to qualify as learning. Learning a person’s name is learning. Gaining the ability to successfully complete any kind of paired-associate task, whether matching a name to a face, or a capital to a state, or a country name with a position on a map, is learning - even if you can describe it using pejorative terms like “memorization.” ...

George has written a great response to my Feelings about MOOCs. He quickly zeroes in on my main argument about MOOCs, and elaborates. [David] suggests that MOOCs are a poor fit for people who aren’t academically prepared. It’s an important consideration. If, in our attempt to open education, we throw barriers in front of learners, we are defeating our goals. I’m not sure how David defines a “prepared learner”. By “well prepared,” I mean someone who has had the necessary prerequisite learning experiences and who has succeeded in those experiences. A person who is well prepared is ready for the current learning experience in terms of prerequisite knowledge and skills. ...

In George’s recent blog post on the pending eduMOOC I am cited as being the dissenting voice in the current, broad-based love affair with MOOCs. (This lack of faith was also mentioned in the recent Chronicle story on the same topic.) So, for some reason I’m not fully certain of, I feel the need to set the record straight. 1. Do I think MOOCs can be effective in supporting learning? Yes, absolutely. The MOOC is not terribly different from the learning I saw occurring in “Online Self-Organizing Social Systems” a decade ago, which we published an article about in 2002. I thought the possibility for informal learning in these settings was intriguing then. Add the new “Web 2.0 / social media revolution” that has happened since the article was published into the mix, and it’s downright exciting. ...

In my science fiction tale of the future of the open education movement, the OpenCourseWars, I predict a time when the federal government creates a funding pool to support the creation of open courses to which the public would have free access. Of course, that has already happened with the $2B Department of Labor grants. Later in that tale, some trouble is caused when a Chinese organization begins using US-produced OCW in violation of the NC clause of the Creative Commons licenses. Guess what the Chronicle is reporting today?

Most of us are familiar with the inspiring phrase attributed to Mahatma Gandhi: First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. For years, while we worked on creating open access to educational resources, research articles, etc., the various commercial industries ignored us. Then in press releases and on conference panels they mocked open educational resources as “low quality” and not particularly useful. ...

I’m really enjoying the writing of my friend and colleague Jeff Thompson on the idea of “work as calling.” The following quote in his recent post How Can I Find My Calling When I’m Stuck in this Lousy Job? really struck a chord with me: A calling is a particular type of work that one feels destined to do because of one’s personal gifts and unique opportunities. And the point of a calling is to bless other people. ...

This morning’s Chronicle of Higher Education reports on a survey of more than 1,000 university presidents conducted for the Chronicle by the by the Pew Research Center. What’s on university presidents’ minds? “We’re staring fundamental change in the face,” said Stephen R. Portch, a former chancellor of the University System of Georgia. “Our system is bankrupt, and we’ve got to have a new model.” “We should be worried,” said Nancy L. Zimpher, chancellor of the State University of New York system. “We are in a flat world. We are going to have to evolve.” ...

Proposal submissions for OpenEd11 are due on Monday! The Call for Proposals page on the website has all the information, but here’s a recap: The Open Education 2011 conference brings together people working in this broad diversity of contexts to discuss the state of the art in Open Education and facilitate creative conversations across a wide variety of perspectives. Open Education 2011 will feature conversations about innovative research and practice in all areas related to open education. This year’s conference strands include: ...