In re-reading my post from last night, I can’t help but realise how dismissive I was of Joshua Kim’s sentiments. So this morning I’m realising how important it is that I change my stance on the matter, and wholeheartedly back him up.

Challenging the Status Quo

Certainly one of the prevailing views in education is one in which intellectual property carries critical importance, preservation of reputation and personal prestige are a currency to be guarded and sculpted under lock and key – as if knowledge and information were commodities that can be branded with a personal insignia – and that these things are often assigned far greater significance than the lessons and educational opportunities they might facilitate; and along with this, the view that access to information and knowledge can and should be controlled based on permissions assigned by an expert, with pre-requisites and an underlying “need to know” basis meaning that the few can dictate what the many can see, how they’re allowed to interpret it, discuss it, remix it, or adapt it – and indeed even when they’re allowed to declare “I understand this.”

Sure this might be the norm in higher education, and indeed most facets of formal schooling in general – but it doesn’t make it right. Just because the norm is to lock up content – thus inhibiting and constraining the learning process – doesn’t mean this reality should be blindly accepted, with unquestioning obedience.

So I want to change my tune about Joshua’s post. Educause should absolutely model Open Learning. In fact all conferences, and indeed institutions should follow suit as well.

Splinter and Crack

I firmly believe we are reaching a stage in education where the system and practice of formal education will either adapt and move forward as a whole, cohesive entity, or we will start to see it splinter and crack into different pieces.

In an informal, grass roots sense, this is arguably already the case. Networks and communities of practice have been seizing hold of the opportunities inherent in social technologies for years to come together with an ease and synchronicity never before seen.

So now, instead of isolated pockets of innovation rising briefly from the ether, only to eventually fade back into the mists of tradition in the absence of local interest and support – these pockets of innovation are starting to connect to one another, creating a web of progressive educators, whose efforts are openly visible and transparent for all who would care to access and engage with them.

Educators are reaching the stage – indeed we have reached the stage – where we no longer need institutions to function. We are able to go it alone if necessary; with or without our colleagues, with or without the backing of our educational systems. Not only is this an extraordinarily freeing position to be in, it’s one that is propelling action and engagement at an increasingly rapid rate and broad scale.

So for virtually every conference like Educause, traditional course or institution, there is an equivalent open version that is available to anyone. Sure, this model does not appeal to everyone, and in some cases not without its drawbacks – and many will prefer to remain with more traditional models – but for others this brave new world offers extraordinary potential and opportunity, in ways that the former model cannot possibly match.

Higher Education is in no danger of dying, or being eclipsed – but surely of losing elements of its relevance and monopoly. It’s starting to have competition, from the same subject matter experts and students who walk the corridors during the day, many of whom are beginning to turn their backs and explore other ways of doing things.

So organisations like EDUCAUSE need to decide whether education can and should move forward in a relatively unified fashion, in recognition of the changing atmosphere of learning and global inclusivity, or if its time to split at the fork in the road.

In a post on Inside Higher Ed this week (”EDUCAUSE Should Model Open Learning“) Joshua Kim writes of his concerns regarding the decision by presenter Jim Collins at the recent Educause conference not to allow the recording or release of his talk.

“EDUCAUSE should be taking the lead in providing access to the conference materials to as many learners and educators as possible. The model of open learning and sharing is one that many members of EDUCAUSE are advocating for on our campuses. We look to EDUCAUSE as both a resource and an example of best practices.”

While I wholeheartedly agree with the notion of forward looking organisations and conferences modelling the types of transparency, openness and sharing that we want to see in education, I don’t necessarily see Jim Collins decision as “a trend” in the sense that it’s a new habit.

Rather Joshua’s observations merely highlight the unfortunate fact that the traditionalist walled garden model is still alive and well in education today. In that sense I don’t see Jim Collin’s decision so much as “a troubling development” than just another example of the existing paradigm of content and information hoarding.

However, as with similar changes in the past, these advancements in technology have had a disruptive influence on certain aspects of society, with gaps in legislation, policy or social norms leading to a period of negotiation, debate and indeed sometimes lawsuits. Copyright, intellectual property rights and adherence to licenses and terms of use are a few such examples.

Given the state of the debate on sharing and reuse online, especially with respect to what constitutes “Fair Use” or “Fair Dealing,” it is very important that we each make ourselves aware of the legal obligations and realities we each face whenever we post content online.

In the context of this discussion, a presentation on “Web 2.0 and Copyright legal issues for Universities” by Aaron Magner, Legal Counsel for UNSW, is especially valuable. Please note this relates to Australia in particular and may not be relevant for different parts of the world.

I’m also not a legal expert, so rather than take this as the gospel truth please be sure to raise any questions with local experts.

So I’ve been tapped. Nothing to say – or at least nothing productive to say.

Yet amidst all this anarchy and chaos I’ve been reminded time and time again how valuable and indeed critical networks are to the nurturing of our lives, the empowering of our learning, and in times like this, even the preservation of our sanity.

People have instilled hope and optimism in me who I have never met in person; never had a phone call with or a coffee with. People thousands of miles away, in different countries and different time zones – and yes, people I associate with in person on a regular basis as well.

They’ve helped lift my spirits and give me something to smile about; shown me that my angsty, doomy and gloomy perspective was just that, a perspective – that perspectives can change, that they’re temporary, and more often than not, that they’re not indicative of the complex realities of life and that there are, in fact, other ways of seeing, believing and understanding.

They’ve helped me prepare for change, to welcome it, to embrace it, and indeed to seek it out. It’s made a world of difference and I’m grateful to all who have checked in to see how I’ve been and what I’ve been up to.

It’s been rough, but I’m getting better; thanks in no small way to people in my network – some of whom I’ve never laid eyes on before.

So now more than ever, it’s clear to me that digital, online networks in a very real and meaningful way, connect people, and build relationships – the exact same kinds of which we see in the flesh.

Google recently introduced a customisation option to their Google News service that enables you to add custom categories to your personalised page. This is a brief introduction to the service and an overview of how the new custom sections work.

Just when I thought I’d found the perfect use for Google Wave, the surf gods conspire against me.  The team I’m on has quickly become what my colleague has deemed “Wilful misusers of technology,” with email discussions commonly and rapidly deteriorating to one-line responses devoid of a greeting or farewell remark – even a name or first initial.

So musing that we’ve all begun to use email as though it were a group text chat (one-line responses and all), I suggested we try using Google Wave instead.  After all it nicely and neatly keeps conversations in a lovely, convenient single thread that doesn’t weigh down the inbox – and even enables you to engage in nearly synchronous communication.  What’s not to like?

Unfortunately that surboard may have pearled, with Wave having crashed at least 3 times on me in the last 30 minutes, culminating in the gorgeous and yet equally frustrating outage notification included seen above.

The moral of the story is, while I’m not certainly not ready to turn my back on Wave – it is still in the preview state – I’m now much more reluctant to rely upon it in any meaningful way.  Give it time though, Slater wasn’t built in a day.

Posted via email from Mike Bogle

Admittedly this is one of my personal hang-ups that I probably give too much power to than I should, but something about the term Web 2.0 seriously irritates me.  So briefly, here’s why.

In short, it doesn’t convey any explicit meaning and yet makes a tremendous number of unspoken inferences, many of which aren’t universally agreed upon.

“Web 2.0″ really says nothing whatsoever, above and beyond being the natural next numeric step up from “Web 1.0.”  The problem is, many people don’t understand the underlying idea behind “Web 1.0″ either.  As bold a statement as that may be, turn to your average academic who doesn’t spend many, many hours in front of a computer every day – and you’ll start to see the implications of this.

Having said that, I understand the logic behind saying “Web 2.0″ – really, I get it.  It’s a software reference that’s meant to imply a clear difference or change from a previous instantiation.  Yet as with other forms of software, this by itself says nothing about what you can expect from “the upgrade.”

Furthermore, there is also no definitive connotation behind “Web 2.0″ either, which is cause for a lot of confusion.  Some people use the term to refer solely to the new forms of platforms that have emerged, and the different or unique affordances that they facilitate compared to what previously existed – and the fact the common individual, without any understanding of underlying infrastructures, can engage online and establish their own space for personal expression and exploration.

Others however use “Web 2.0″ to also include the participatory, social elements – the networks, communities, grassroots movements, etcetera – that have begun to flourish in the wake of the software innovations.  So to them, Web 2.0 includes both CULTURE and SOFTWARE.

As with most aspects of communication, the language we use to describe the world around us, our perceptions towards it, the manner in which it affects us and our relationships, and the ways we engage within it is all very important.  We need to be prepared to say what we mean, and ensure it actually carries a meaning that will be clear to others.  If our language isn’t doing that, then what purpose does it serve?

According to the articles, state school teachers are now “banned from contacting students on Facebook, MySpace, YouTube and other social networking sites amid growing concern over inappropriate relationships.”

What is the most disconcerting though, is the fact personal sites are now expected to be kept “private and appropriate.”

More information required

Before I go any further, I should point out that I’ve tried to locate information that is of greater substance that the relatively superficial reports provided by the media – particularly the Code of Conduct itself – however thus far I haven’t managed to find any (if you know of any please post a link in the comments area).

For instance, what is particularly unclear is the question of what level of education the Code extends to. Certainly, I would imagine, primary and perhaps secondary school students; but what about tertiary institutions like TAFE and university?

Implications and Impact

Use of social media as a means of communicating with people is core and fundamental to what social media is. As such the prospect of restricting teachers in how they connect carries serious repercussions for the sorts of activities they can engage in, and indeed inhibits many valuable learning opportunities from taking place.

Personally I understand the concern about protecting students from “inappropriate relationships,” but frankly this is going about it the wrong way. Certainly it’s best practice to use formal communication channels when contacting students, however restricting all contact elsewhere will have wide-sweeping and adverse impacts – not simply to students either, but to professional development opportunities for staff themselves.

Severed Connections

In many, many regards, the perception of social media by policy makers as an ominous, threatening, dangerous menace is leading to horribly detrimental policy decisions. A key example of this is the virtually complete absence of professional opportunities for staff to learn about social media. Existence of filters that block access to sites make matters worse, since staff are completely prevented from even seeing the tools during the day.

Increasingly this has driven curious academics underground into personal hours to explore what social media is and how they might use it. However under these conditions, access to peers and experts becomes much more complicated, and harder to come by, since the institutions they actually work for are failing to provide the local support opportunities required. Left to their own devices, instructors are completely alone and have to turn outside the institution for help.

So it is not the least bit surprising that people naturally turn to existing networks to establish ties and connections. Yet it is the same social networks that are being targeted by the Code of Conduct which tend to be the first place people look to for peers and experts.

Unfortunately learning networks do not grow particularly easily when visibility and access are restricted – relationships and linkages are not necessarily reciprocated when people cannot see what new users are like, and what their interests are.

For instance, when Facebook profiles are restricted, or Twitter posts kept private, even if a new user finds a set of existing users with whom they see common areas of interest it is unlikely that their request for friendship (in the technical sense of linking one profile to another) will be accepted, or responded to in kind.

In these conditions it is entirely possible that we’ll begin to see higher rates of abandonment of social media exploration in the wake of frustration and confusion, in turn leading to a reduction in innovative teaching methods, diluted learning opportunities for students and the stifling of digital literacies that may become critical for students in post-school life.

…and we haven’t even broached how gross an invasion of privacy all this is.

posterous-mp3-test.mp3 (1275 KB)

Yesterday I discussed how you can use Posterous to easily disseminate podcasts both natively within Posterous itself, as well as on other sites and services using the very handy auto-post option.

In the wake of my post however I’ve discovered there are circumstances in which the audio player is not embedded in auto-posted instances.  For example the post I wrote yesterday features a player when viewed on the Posterous site, however when viewed on my primary blog (TechTicker) the player is noticeably absent.

There is a link to listen to the recording on the Posterous site, and another to download the file, but no way to play back the clip inline without leaving the page.

This post therefore seeks to determine whether this omission is universal and will occur anytime a Posterous post is auto-posted elsewhere, or alternatively if there are circumstances surrounding my initial post that may have caused the issue.

For example, by default the voice note tool on my phone uses the WAV audio file format.  If Posterous only wraps MP3s in the embedded player, it could explain why the player did not appear on my blog.  That said, if this were the case you would expect that the same result would occur on Posterous as well – however this is not the case.  The WAV file is formatted in a player on Posterous.

I should also note that all conditions in this test are NOT the same as yesterday.  Instead of recording the audio on my mobile using the voice notes tool, and then sending it via email via the same mobile) this time I recorded the audio on my desktop using Audacity, exported the file as MP3, and then used Gmail to attach the file and write the post text.

Posted via email from Mike Bogle