Northwest eLearning Community Conference Keynote (10-07)


Published on

Northwest eLearning Community Conference Keynote (10-07)

Published in: Technology
No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Northwest eLearning Community Conference Keynote (10-07)

    1. 1. Confronting the Opportunities of Participatory Culture: Higher Education in Perpetual Beta : Northwest eLearning Community Conference Cable Green eLearning Director WA State Board for Community & Technical Colleges
    2. 2. Slides will be shared on the conference web site & SlideShare.
    3. 3. <ul><li>we will discuss current trends & technologies </li></ul><ul><li>which may seem like extreme ideas, unsettling, and far fetched…but, </li></ul><ul><li>we need to think about these trends if we want to leverage the power of Web 2.0 </li></ul>I don’t have the solutions, but…
    4. 4. George Siemens: Knowing Knowledge
    5. 5. <ul><li>“ We are in the midst of a technological, economic, and organizational transformation that allows us to negotiate the terms of freedom, justice, and productivity in the information society” </li></ul><ul><li>Yochai Benkler </li></ul>
    6. 6. <ul><li>“ I am not sure of what I absolutely know” </li></ul><ul><li>The King and I </li></ul>
    7. 7. How do we Deal with This? <ul><li>We are preparing students for </li></ul><ul><li>jobs that don’t yet exist, using </li></ul><ul><li>technologies that haven’t been </li></ul><ul><li>invented, to solve problems we </li></ul><ul><li>don’t even know are problems yet. </li></ul>
    8. 8. <ul><li>low barriers to engagement </li></ul><ul><li>strong support for creating and sharing </li></ul><ul><li>experience is passed along to novices </li></ul><ul><li>members believe their contributions matter </li></ul><ul><li>members feel social connection </li></ul><ul><li>not every member must contribute, but all must believe they are free to contribute </li></ul><ul><li>Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century – McArthur Foundation </li></ul>What is a Participatory Culture?
    9. 9. <ul><li>Anyone with access to the network </li></ul><ul><ul><li>still digital divide issues </li></ul></ul><ul><li>a Blog could reach 1.1 billion people </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Technorati tracking 70 million+ blogs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>120,000 new blogs / day = 1.4 blogs / second </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Citizen reporters in South Korea </li></ul><ul><ul><li>40 editors and reporters publish 200 stories a day written by more than 26,000 registered citizen journalists </li></ul></ul>Who can Participate?
    10. 10. <ul><li>Text here </li></ul>Title Here
    11. 11. Introduction to Web 2.0
    12. 12. Web 1.0 <ul><li>Web pages as information silos </li></ul><ul><li>Information was fixed </li></ul><ul><li>Changing content meant calling the webmaster </li></ul><ul><li>“ We” could not participate </li></ul><ul><li>Static / read only data </li></ul><ul><li>e.g., Britannica Online </li></ul>
    13. 13. Web 1.0 vs. 2.0 <ul><li>Web 1.0 Web 2.0 </li></ul><ul><li>Ofoto Flickr </li></ul><ul><li> Kazaa </li></ul><ul><li>Britannica Online Wikipedia </li></ul><ul><li>personal websites blogging </li></ul><ul><li>publishing participation </li></ul><ul><li>content management wikis </li></ul><ul><li>directories tagging </li></ul><ul><li>(taxonomy) (“folksonomy”) </li></ul><ul><li>stickiness syndication </li></ul>
    14. 14. <ul><li>Web 2.0 is the network as platform, spanning all connected devices; Web 2.0 applications are those that make the most of the intrinsic advantages of that platform : delivering software as a continually-updated service that gets better the more people use it , consuming and remixing data from multiple sources , including individual users, while providing their own data and services in a form that allows remixing by others, creating network effects through an &quot;architecture of participation,&quot; and going beyond the page metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experiences. </li></ul><ul><li> - O’Reilly October 2005 </li></ul>Web 2.0 Definition
    15. 15. Key Point <ul><li>Systems that harness the network effect become more valuable as more people use and contribute to them. </li></ul><ul><li>Do we enable these types of systems, for students, in higher education? </li></ul>
    16. 16. <ul><li>Participation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Every aspect of Web 2.0 is driven by participation. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>blogging, social networks, and image and video sharing </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>allow easy content creation and sharing by anyone </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Standards </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Common interfaces for accessing content and applications are the glue that allow for integration and innovation. </li></ul></ul>Web 2.0 Characteristics
    17. 17. <ul><li>Decentralization in architecture & participation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Power and flexibility from distributing applications and content over many computers & systems, rather than maintaining them on centralized systems. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Spirit of Openness </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Developers and companies provide open, transparent access to their applications and content. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Modularity </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 = many modules designed to link and integrate with others, together building a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. </li></ul></ul>Web 2.0 Characteristics
    18. 18. <ul><li>User Control </li></ul><ul><ul><li>People control the content they create, the data captured about their web activities, and their identity. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Identity </li></ul><ul><ul><li>We can increasingly choose to represent our identities however we please, across interactions, virtual worlds, and social networks. </li></ul></ul>Web 2.0 Characteristics
    19. 19. Principles of Web 2.0 Apps <ul><li>Web as a platform </li></ul><ul><li>Data as the driving force </li></ul><ul><li>Network effects: architecture of participation </li></ul><ul><li>Innovation in assembly of systems </li></ul><ul><ul><li>features from distributed, independent developers </li></ul></ul><ul><li>End of the software adoption cycle </li></ul>
    20. 20. <ul><li>Aggregation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Bringing multiple content sources together into one interface or application . </li></ul></ul><ul><li>API (Application Programming Interface) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A defined interface to an application that allows access by other applications. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Embedding </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Integrating content or an application into a web page, while the original format is maintained. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Folksonomy </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Rich categorization of information that is collectively created by users, through tagging . </li></ul></ul>Web 2.0 Methods
    21. 21. <ul><li>Mashups </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Combination of different types of content or data, usually from different sources, to create something new . </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Remixing </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Extracting and combining samples of content to create a new output. The term was originally used in music but is now also applied to video and other content. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>RSS (Really Simple Syndication) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A group of formats to publish (syndicate) content on the internet so that users or applications automatically receive any updates. </li></ul></ul>Web 2.0 Methods
    22. 22. <ul><li>Tagging </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Attaching descriptions to information or content. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Tag cloud </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Visual depiction of tags that have been used to describe a piece of content, with higher frequency tags emphasized to assist content comprehension and navigation. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Widget </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Small, portable web application that can be embedded into any web page. </li></ul></ul>Web 2.0 Methods
    23. 24. Web As a Platform <ul><li>Build, Share, Track your own Widgets </li></ul><ul><li>Google Docs and Spreadsheets </li></ul><ul><li>Zoho </li></ul>
    24. 25. <ul><li>Digital immigrants (Prensky 2001) come from a world in which documents, technologies, and life events come with a permanency, a date certain, a final version. Web 2.0 is the epitome of the digital age. It is all about accelerating change; constantly striving for improvement; expansion, inclusion, leveraging existing resources in new ways. When confronted with the ever-shifting sands of Web 2.0, many immigrants are uneasy, off-balance; some even say nauseous. </li></ul><ul><li>Adapting to the Web 2.0 environment means casting off the security of stability, while retaining the excitement of daily discovery and constant change. Those who have made the leap of faith to Web 2.0 have come to terms with the concept that our tools will be different (newer and better) next semester and the semester after that. In fact, with RSS applications, the semester never really ends (Schroeder 2007). </li></ul>Lesson #1: Perpetual Beta - Ray Schroeder
    25. 26. <ul><li>move from “knowledge for all” to “construction of knowledge by all” </li></ul><ul><li>a priori solutions often aren't the right ones, emergent ones are </li></ul><ul><li>Why? Because as everything becomes digital, and storage and distribution costs go to $0, everything will be accessible to anyone with access to the network; and individuals will create new, unexpected combinations of information with democratized production processes. </li></ul>Lesson #2: Students are the Producers
    26. 27. <ul><li>Yes, it's a mistake to romanticize consumer creation. Web 2.0 harnesses the stupidity of crowds as well as its wisdom. </li></ul><ul><li>You get the good with the bad, but the point is we get to choose… and you never know who will want what. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Trick is to use post-filters, search , and user driven reputation systems to find the “good” stuff! </li></ul></ul>Lesson #3: Don’t Worry about the “Garbage”
    27. 30. <ul><li>you either become an efficient and honest contributor, or people will go around your traditional business models. </li></ul><ul><li>RIAA vs. PTP file sharing </li></ul><ul><li>NBC requesting video be removed from YouTube </li></ul><ul><ul><li>people continue to do it, and it promotes NBC shows </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Record Labels vs. Internet Radio </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Pandora demo & story </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Eventually, the masses will win politically, economically, and educationally . </li></ul>In a Long Tail World…
    28. 31. <ul><li>Higher Education: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>can never completely know what students need or want </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>does not have unlimited resources </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>cannot develop fast enough to keep up with user demand or global innovation </li></ul></ul>Lesson #4: Content Development 2.0
    29. 32. <ul><li>Harness the collective intelligence of students: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>co-creators of content </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>if we get out of their way, students will turn web 2.0 applications into new educational platforms </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Solution: provide open systems to leverage the collective intelligence / mass student contributions by providing open architectures for them to build on. </li></ul>Lesson #4: Content Development 2.0
    30. 33. <ul><li>Text here </li></ul>Title Here
    31. 34. <ul><li>How long will students put up with content development 1.0 and information sharing 1.0? </li></ul><ul><li>Higher education produced content is only part of the learners mashed up educational eco-system </li></ul><ul><li>Students will use open APIs & widgets to manipulate their data as they see fit </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Harvard Crimson Connect / Controversy </li></ul></ul><ul><li>HE will need to integrate with students’ chosen systems, provide our own APIs & widgets. </li></ul>Content Development 1.0?
    32. 35. <ul><li>Can traditional organizations can even conceive of how these new freeform platforms work? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>institutions firmly grounded in the 20th century struggle to understand the power shift under way.  </li></ul></ul><ul><li>These platforms are no longer under anyone's control for the very reason that the Web is a system without an owner , except all of us together. </li></ul><ul><li>This is a major rub for HE = we are the traditional organizations. </li></ul><ul><li>We need to talk about this. </li></ul>Paradigm Shift?
    33. 36. Why does it matter? <ul><li>seamless connection of people, resources & supply chains </li></ul><ul><li>digitization of content </li></ul><ul><li>virtual, mobile, personal </li></ul><ul><li>application-to-application work flow </li></ul><ul><li>global platform for collaboration </li></ul><ul><li>outsourcing </li></ul><ul><li>open-sourcing </li></ul><ul><li>blurring of boundaries </li></ul>
    34. 37. <ul><li>Students who wield Web 2.0 tools and processes will be able to leverage global resources, supply chains, knowledge, and creative talent </li></ul><ul><li>Friedman describes three types of people who will keep their jobs in a flat world: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Special </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Specialized </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Adaptable lifelong learners </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Gartner term = “versatilist” </li></ul></ul></ul>Why does it matter?
    35. 38. <ul><li>Friedman’s warning to traditional institutions: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>“ No institution will go through fundamental change unless it believes it is in deep trouble and needs to do something different to survive.” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>What will it take for HE to realize it needs to adapt to these trends before it will change? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What if the New York Times became an accredited, degree granting unit? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What if Wikiversity was accredited and granted degrees? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The Self-Directed Student Toolbox: 100 Web Resources for Lifelong Learners </li></ul></ul>Are we in Deep Trouble?
    36. 39. In a flat world, the artists, the synthesizers of ideas will rule. And they will use web 2.0 software standards, and practices to distribute their ideas.
    37. 40. <ul><li>Play: experiment with one’s surroundings as a form of problem-solving </li></ul><ul><li>Performance: adopt alternative identities for the purpose of improvisation and discovery </li></ul><ul><li>Simulation: interpret and construct dynamic models of real-world processes </li></ul>21 st Century Literacies in a Flat World? McArthur Foundation: Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century
    38. 41. <ul><li>Appropriation: meaningfully sample and remix media content </li></ul><ul><li>Multitasking: scan one’s environment and shift focus as needed to salient details. </li></ul><ul><li>Distributed Cognition: interact meaningfully with tools that expand mental capacities </li></ul><ul><li>Collective Intelligence: pool knowledge and compare notes with others toward a common goal </li></ul>21 st Century Literacies in a Flat World?
    39. 42. <ul><li>Judgment: evaluate the reliability and credibility of different information sources </li></ul><ul><li>Transmedia Navigation: follow the flow of stories and information across multiple modalities </li></ul><ul><li>Networking: search for, synthesize, and disseminate information </li></ul><ul><li>Negotiation: travel across diverse communities, discerning and respecting multiple perspectives, and grasping and following alternative norms. </li></ul>21 st Century Literacies in a Flat World?
    40. 43. <ul><li>Take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly, and try another. But by all means, try something . - FDR </li></ul><ul><ul><li>remember “Perpetual Beta?” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Give students open platforms to innovate & listen to them </li></ul><ul><li>Watch other industries for best practices </li></ul><ul><li>Read the daily blogs of thought leaders </li></ul>How do We Move Forward?
    41. 44. <ul><li>Students participate in producing, altering and commenting on content. </li></ul><ul><li>Reputation is the lubrication that makes cooperation among strangers possible. </li></ul><ul><li>We need to make it easy for students to rate the quality of, comment on, and contribute to content and the structure of it. </li></ul><ul><li>Social media must facilitate two-way discussion, discourse, and debate with little or no moderation or censorship.  </li></ul>What should HE understand about Participatory Media?
    42. 45. <ul><li>Honesty and transparency are core values.  </li></ul><ul><li>Track and Foster Diverse & Emergent Feedback Loops </li></ul><ul><ul><li>RSS, web analytics, social networking, trackbacks </li></ul></ul><ul><li>It's all about pull, not push </li></ul><ul><ul><li>people are in control of the conversations, not the pushers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>HE has traditionally been push.  </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Distribution instead of centralization </li></ul><ul><ul><li>HE has traditionally been centralized creators of content – we need to open up – access global knowledge </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Encouraging conversations on the vast edges of our networks, rather than in the middle. </li></ul></ul>What should HE understand?
    43. 46. <ul><li>Look for Ways to Convert Present Knowledge into Deep Memory </li></ul><ul><ul><li>auto archiving like Wikipedida </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>create deep memory that members of an organization or system can rely on to guide future actions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>establishing the “shadow of the future” (Robert Axelrod) increase the opportunities for cooperation and the likelihood of a positive outcome. </li></ul></ul></ul>What should HE understand?
    44. 47. <ul><li>Organizing knowledge networks has traditionally been the role of higher education. </li></ul><ul><li>Higher Education will shift from organization as silo, to organization as node. </li></ul>Shift to Node
    45. 48. <ul><li>Connectivism : George Siemens </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Knowledge is held distributed within a network </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Competence / learning occurs through network creation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Technology performs “grunt cognition” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Networks extend & filter </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Value point of education is in connections / conversations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>creating networks to manage information deluge, capturing/filtering key ideas…providing foundation for learning beyond classes </li></ul></ul></ul>New Theoretical Approach?
    46. 49. Groups vs. Networks <ul><li>A group is a collection of entities or members according to their nature; what defines a group is the quality members possess and number </li></ul><ul><li>A network is an association of entities or members via a set of connections; what defines a network is the extent and nature of this connectivity </li></ul>Stephen Downes’ 9-25-07 : eLearning 2.0 in Development
    47. 50. Groups vs. Networks <ul><li>Groups require unity, networks require diversity </li></ul><ul><li>Groups require coherence, networks require autonomy </li></ul><ul><li>Groups require privacy or segregation, networks require openness </li></ul><ul><li>Groups require focus of voice, networks require interaction </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>
    48. 51. Why Networks? <ul><li>Nature of the knower: humans are more like networks </li></ul><ul><li>*** Quality of the knowledge: groups are limited by the capacity of the leader *** </li></ul><ul><li>Nature of the knowledge: group knowledge is transmitted and simple while network knowledge is emergent and complex </li></ul>Stephen Downes’ 9-25-07 : eLearning 2.0 in Development
    49. 52. Openness <ul><li>In the end, this all boils down to openness. </li></ul><ul><li>Openness in business practices. Openness in classrooms. Openness in software and applications. The more we share, the more we benefit. </li></ul><ul><li>Give away some power, some information, and get back so much more. </li></ul>
    50. 53. Why do we Need to Share? <ul><li>According to a 2005 GAO report, College textbook prices have risen at twice the rate of annual inflation over the last two decades </li></ul><ul><ul><li>since Dec. 1986, textbook prices have increased by 186% </li></ul></ul><ul><li>At 2-year public institutions, the average cost of books and supplies per first-time, full-time student (’03-’04) was $886 = almost 75% of the cost of tuition and fees </li></ul><ul><ul><li>$898 at 4-year public institutions, about 26% of the cost of tuition and fees </li></ul></ul>
    51. 54. <ul><li>Open Content </li></ul><ul><li>Open Standards </li></ul><ul><li>Open Source Software </li></ul><ul><li>Video </li></ul>Open Educational Resources: a Participatory Model for Learning
    52. 55. <ul><li>Create…co-create…re-create </li></ul>Open Content
    53. 56. <ul><li>OpenCourseWare Consortium </li></ul><ul><li>OCW – MIT </li></ul><ul><ul><li>China Open Resources for Education has translated 109 MIT OCW courses into Simplified Chinese. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Rice Connexions </li></ul><ul><li>MERLOT </li></ul><ul><li>Openlearn (UK) </li></ul><ul><li>OCW Finder </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>Open Content
    54. 57. - JSB
    55. 58. <ul><li>We must get rid of our “not invented here” attitude regarding others’ content. </li></ul><ul><li>Content is not a strategic advantage </li></ul><ul><li>Nor can we (or our students) afford it: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Why can’t we develop open textbooks? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How many different Algebra 101 courses do we need? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Are we all so unique that we can’t use one another's courses? </li></ul></ul></ul>Hey Higher Ed!
    56. 59. What happens when… <ul><li>Students set their own tuition rates for accessing content based on the value they perceive? </li></ul><ul><li>Radiohead’s New “Album” </li></ul>
    57. 60. <ul><li>Interoperability breeds Innovation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Colleges and students must be able to move data freely between teaching and learning systems. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>IMS common course cartridge </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Bb: “When will you adopt the IMS common course cartridge as an export tool in the Bb Academic Suite?” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Community Solution: Bfree (open source software) – get your Bb content out of your Bb course. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>OKI (Open Knowledge Initiative) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Standards for how applications talk to one another </li></ul></ul><ul><li>OAI (Open Archives Initiative) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Standards to share content between federated object repositories </li></ul></ul>Open Standards
    58. 61. What about Copyright / IP? <ul><li>Creative Commons </li></ul>Click
    59. 62. Open Source Software
    60. 63. <ul><li>SourceForge & SchoolForge </li></ul><ul><li>Read: David Wiley (2006). Open source, openness, and higher education. </li></ul>Open Source Software
    61. 64. <ul><li>Richard Stallman ( 1996 ), founder of the Free Software Movement, defined FOSS as follows: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>&quot;Free software&quot; is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of &quot;free&quot; as in &quot;free speech,&quot; not as in &quot;free beer.“ </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Free software . . . refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Freedom to copy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Freedom to modify </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Freedom to redistribute </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Freedom to redistribute modified versions. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Stephenson (2005) includes a fifth &quot;obligation to contribute back to the community.&quot; </li></ul>Why Open Source Succeeds
    62. 65. <ul><li>Because when we cooperate and share, we all win – exponentially. </li></ul><ul><li>Reedʼs Law: Networks grow exponentially by the number of nodes. </li></ul><ul><li>Reedʼs Law is the link between computer networks and social networks. </li></ul>Why is “Open” Important? Institute for the Future whitepaper: Technologies of Cooperation
    63. 66. <ul><li>“ Reedʼs insight emerged as he pondered the success of eBay and realized that it doesn't sell merchandise—it provides a market for customers to buy and sell from each other.” </li></ul><ul><li>“ eBay won because it facilitated the formation of social groups around specific interests. Social groups form around people who want to buy or sell teapots, or antique radios … I realized that the millions of humans who used the millions of computers added another important property—the ability of the people in the network to form groups.” </li></ul>Why is “Open” Important? Institute for the Future whitepaper: Technologies of Cooperation
    64. 67. <ul><li>Higher Education will “win” when it provides an open, global marketplace for learning and sharing of ideas. </li></ul>
    65. 68. <ul><li>Liberate content and services via a public, open API. </li></ul><ul><li>Content should be separated from the experiences that mediate access to it; this makes adaptable experiences possible. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>RSS readers let users consume content in the ways they choose and have control over.  </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>XML separated content from form. </li></ul></ul>What might Higher Education Do?
    66. 69. <ul><li>Britannica model is not scalable </li></ul><ul><li>“ Wikipedia has two employees and well over a million articles in multiple languages. We need to learn this lesson if open education is really going to reach out and bless the lives of people.“ </li></ul><ul><ul><li>- Stephen Downes </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Syndicate as well as use Web services to open up data. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>i.e., syndicate content & provide widgets </li></ul></ul>What might Higher Education Do?
    67. 70. <ul><li>Make it legal to reuse content. Don't cripple unintended uses. </li></ul><ul><li>Diligently build trust and credibility . </li></ul><ul><li>Expect the unexpected. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Others will dream of ways of using your data and services in ways you couldn't imagine … to achieve something that wasn't possible before </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Be prepared for extreme situations; monitor your feeds and open services </li></ul></ul>What might Higher Education Do?
    68. 71. <ul><li>Encourage the unexpected = provide “skunkworks” environments (or at least time: Google 20% rule) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>faculty, staff students can play with software, standards, content, and social networks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>give permission to “fail”! </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Institutions that don't do this are at a competitive disadvantage to Colleges that do open up.  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Main reason: openness creates the potential for unintended uses. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>This creates value and students will migrate toward more open systems of learning. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Walled gardens just aren't a viable model any longer. </li></ul></ul>What might Higher Education Do?
    69. 72. <ul><li>Libraries have to buy journals back from publishers containing the content their institution’s faculty produced = broken cycle. </li></ul><ul><li>New Models </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Non-exclusive right to publish online in addition to journal publication </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>6-months – then publish online </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Publish in a peer-reviewed open content journal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Creative commons attributions </li></ul></ul>Open Publishing
    70. 73. <ul><li>In a recent article in PLoS Biology , Eysenbach ( 2006 ) describes the benefits of open access (OA) publication: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>OA articles compared to non-OA articles remained twice as likely to be cited in the first four to ten months after publication (April 2005), with the odds ratio increasing to 2.9 ten to sixteen months after publication (October 2005) = network effect. </li></ul></ul>Benefits of Open Publishing
    71. 75. Examples of Open Publishing <ul><li> Open access to 438,783 e-prints in Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science, Quantitative Biology and Statistics </li></ul><ul><li> – public library of science </li></ul>Self Publishing
    72. 76. <ul><li>Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition </li></ul><ul><ul><li>International alliance of academic and research libraries working to correct imbalances in the scholarly publishing system. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Developed by the Association of Research Libraries </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Stimulates the emergence of new scholarly communication models that expand the dissemination of scholarly research and reduce financial pressures on libraries. </li></ul>SPARC
    73. 77. <ul><li>SPARC Author Rights </li></ul><ul><li>Open Access </li></ul><ul><li>Addendum to Publication Agreement </li></ul>SPARC
    74. 78. <ul><li>“ One of the key mechanisms underlying the success of the open source approach has always been at the core of higher education's workings and values - peer review .” </li></ul><ul><li>“ Most academics are familiar and comfortable with blind peer review of their research. Non-blind review of the teaching practices and materials of instructors, as would be typical of open source protocol, is likely to be another matter .” </li></ul>Future of Openness in Education David Wiley 2006. Open source, openness, and higher education.
    75. 79. <ul><li>“ As uncomfortable a proposition as this new openness may be for some, I believe it is the future of higher education.” </li></ul><ul><li>In web 2.0, everything is public & higher education needs to get used to it. </li></ul>Future of Openness in Education David Wiley 2006. Open source, openness, and higher education.
    76. 80. Technology Transformation Task Force (WA CTCs) <ul><li>Comprehensive study of the CTC System to explore these issues and plan for the future: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Study will lead to an overall technology plan and a budget request for 2009-2011. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>What do we have vs. where do we want to go? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Focus is on eLearning technologies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>How can we better leverage technology, services, and content across the 34 CTCs? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Draft in January ’08 / Final report in March ‘08 </li></ul></ul>
    77. 81. What Can Legislatures Do? <ul><li>Support shared eLearning technologies and support services initiatives </li></ul><ul><li>Support projects that share content (courses, degrees, textbooks) among all Colleges and Universities </li></ul><ul><li>… so more of our citizens have access to more educational opportunities to better compete in a global economy. </li></ul>
    78. 82. Want to help me figure this out? <ul><li>Come to my breakout session this afternoon. </li></ul><ul><li>1:00pm: Moving forward with Participatory Learning: What’s Next </li></ul><ul><li>We’ll take good notes and share everything we create </li></ul>
    79. 83. Q&A Dr. Cable Green [email_address] (360) 704-4334
    80. 84. Tools for Faculty <ul><li>TOP 100 TOOLS FOR LEARNING 2007 </li></ul><ul><li>TOP 10 TOOLS FOR LEARNING 2007 </li></ul><ul><li>The Fifty Tools </li></ul>
    81. 85. Web 2.0...The Machine is Us/ing Us - Mike Wesch
    82. 86. Teachers / Faculty as Concierges <ul><li>Curt Bonk explores an interesting theme - teachers as concierges : &quot;We need to push students into the many learning possibilities that are ripe for them now. Concierges sometimes show you things you did not know were available or possible.“ </li></ul><ul><ul><li>- George Siemens Blog (10-08-07) </li></ul></ul>