Ceaseless Idleness

http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume45/QuestioningtheFutureoftheOpenS/209247

Questioning the Future of the Open Student, Vicki Davis

Interesting article – the questions at the beginning frustrated me initially but the more I thought through them the more they made sense. Also, the questions at the end are pretty critical.

The questions at the beginning:

How can sources of open content be vetted, rated, and evaluated?

Do they need to be? Can’t they be left as a disorganized mass – sites will pop up that will aggregate them and eventually these can be reviewed openly by individuals who use them. I think this is much more likely to happen when open content sources as used to meet specific outcomes like exams, assignments, projects, or other ‘validated’ educational ends. I know for myself there are lots of things that I would like to learn, and there are lots of other things that I actually need to do – when the educational content is between me and the goal, I use it. If it was part of a system that as soon as I used it it let me rate it, I’d probably do so, especially when it’s helpful. I found a source like this for repairing our washer – I repaired it myself based on instructions I found online. If I could rate that or give it props somehow, I would. So I guess I just turned around – it would be nice to have somewhere these places are organized, if nothing else to do some sifting. It would also need the bits of code or regulation that don’t let people who upload content overload their own content – but I suppose that’s inevitable at some point. There are people selling things in the Amazon reviews, too, but I still use those to make comparisons.

Do students have the skill sets to use these learning environments?

This needs to be a function of the environment. The environments they can use (the environments that have enough to offer and are easy enough to use) will be used, and the others won’t. There’s a natural evolution to many sites on the Internet, and generally the good (or useful, or popular, or profane) will out

Are the dominance of the English language and the lack of accessibility for those with disabilities creating additional hurdles?

Yes. But again, the impetus won’t be there to convert them to other languages until they’re on the path to something more beneficial and specific. If materials that help people learn to pass a driver’s license test are in English, the impetus to convert them will be created.

Can learning through open content be validated?

Depends on the structure of the content. If content is structured with ‘knowledge’, then assessments that let you test how you did, and the ability to review them and do it again, it would easier to validate them, especially as they approximated some outside assessment. But not all open content learning leads to a specific goal, some leads to general betterment of knowledge in a content area due to curiosity of the individual, which is great, but more wishy-washy to validate. Those types will be validated by use, ratings, etc from the type of aggregator I described earlier.

Can content area experts emerge from open content environments?

Sure, why not. I’m thinking of that guy who makes videos out of his apartment and uses those cool multicolored markers to draw science concepts. I thought I bookmarked it but can’t find the link.

Can colleges and universities continue to fund open content initiatives without receiving compensatory payback for their contribution to learning at large?

Probably not, but they can tie open learning initiatives to their own learning outcomes and help their own students, which is part of their mission, and would be a form of compensation.

Should future technological innovations that more closely connect humans with the rote knowledge of the Internet redefine the content that is being delivered?

I think the best innovations technologically on the internet connect people to content that is generated by other people, and make it easier for people to generate content, so that the web isn’t made up of a series of Experts, it’s made up of a bunch of small experts.

Overall I think for a leaner approach that allows multiple paths to the same destination, like open content, with little investment on the part of the learner, I think the next step is to make outcomes, objectives, and evaluations for skill sets more accessible. For example, if to be hired as an engineer you did not need to pass 8 courses, you just needed to pass the 8 assessments in those courses, and the assessments were affordable and available outside the university system, then you could find your own way to get there. If you want to do so in a university, that’s fine, if you want to do it through lectures, podcasts, and contacting tutors, or other people trying to pass the test as well. But you don’t have to pay anyone to get together with these people, you just go somewhere where people who are trying to take the test go. Like a carpool center for learning – they’re all heading the same place, they’re going to share the ride. I think that’s one of the chief values of open content – the sooner they’re means to an actual measurable end to which they can be and end themselves (and not a supplement to an existing system) they’ll be curated and rated against each other more quickly, because they’ll be used critically by more people.

Hooray for Twitter.

I’m going to start documenting the path so all get their due, but it may be awkward starting out. Here goes.

Item 1:

Tweet via Jim Groom> Transcript: Rush Limbaugh show.

He talks about the rising costs of tuition. He blames it on the ‘Left’, which I disagree with, but that’s not the point – he’s actually talking about it! He quoted Anya Kamenetz (possible from DIY U), who said of being quoted:

My take on Rush: Student loan & tuition outrage transcends Right vs Left. Gov’t, lenders, privates, publics, and for-profits all to blame.

It’s nice to find things that people on both sides can agree on.

Item 2:

Tweet via Kevin Riley > Blog via Joanne Jacobs > News Piece CC bachelor’s programs grow in Florida (Community College Spotlight)

Here’s a practical approach – it’s cheaper to finish off the degree at the community college than to spin up a whole degree at the university. For students it’s a win – they get the degree (though the name may matter to some) in their field completely from the community college. Linda Hagedorn’s concern is interesting and probably accurate – could community colleges creep out and could potentially replace universities for many degrees, creating competition? Would competition in this situation be bad? There may be issues at a state level (why fund more than one school doing the same thing, maybe?) but that happens anyway. What doesn’t appear to actually exist, and what I’m interested in, are true alternatives. You want a certain kind of job but you want more than one way to get there – ‘acceptable’ alternatives to college for employers.

Clark Aldrich (via Stephen Downes, who I read often) talks about how a high-quality MBA will eventually be produced that will cost about $1,000. His argument comes down to this: 1) We have stuff now we never thought would be this cheap, like computers and cars (cars? cheap cars? that run? really?). 2) There’s a huge need for it in every country with a growing business sector with middle management that lacks MBA-like skills, and 3) the technology is on its way, if not there. Aldrich is a big proponent of (and consultant in) simulations, which are one way parts of mass, cheap education could be done. They’d be distance courses, he predicts people would flock to them en-masse, and to stay valued they’d have to be high-quality, so would take an initial investment.

The reason I like this is it’s a solution to a problem that has “winners” financially on both sides. The MBA school makes money, the MBA students get a good product for a good price. The reason I like scenarios like these is that they’re more likely to happen. In this reality.

There seem to be two kinds of educations, to bifurcate it for simplicity’s sake. There’s the kind you can put on your resume, and the kind you can’t. The kind you can put on your resume may have stuck, but it may not have – you pay your money, you get your degree, but the information’s useless. But you have your degree, and your job will probably train you on what you actually need to know, which may or may not be related (probably not) to your degree.

The kind you can’t – I learned how to properly drain and smash a coconut for neat consumption over the weekend, via our dear Internet. I have friends that can do whole jobs that they aren’t paid to do, but they don’t have the degree. They’re experts at geneology, or cooking, or painting, or building, but their degree is in computer science or finance or education. You can’t put that on a resume, you can learn all you want about it, but it’s got to come from you. There’s not outside validation. So, you head to school and get a degree and go through the expensive, often inefficient steps to learn, and if you’re at a research school (with a good reputation) you’re often not taught by instructors but researchers who definitely know the stuff but would rather be reading about it than teaching it.

My ideal would be inexpensive, rigorous tests that everyone can take. You think you know the stuff? You put together your own curriculum strung together with Youtube videos, blog posts, and free articles on Google Scholar? You bought a second-hand book from the library book sale and went through the problems? Pay $20 and take the test and get it done. The test may be written, it may be multiple choice, it may be performance. Whatever it is that you have to do on the job for the degree you want. Want to take it again? That’s fine, another $20. That’s the first idea.

This article made an impression on me – I need to follow up on some of what they’re doing. It’s a summary of different people doing cool stuff with innovation in education, brought on by technology. I heard Wiley speak when I was a grad student and was pretty impressed, now I want to follow up on Western Governors University – this question about focusing on competencies and exams ties in with this piece in the NY times talking about the End of the University. It does match the problem I see – few people, as much as we talk about how great it is to have information online, wants the degree without accreditation.

I don’t know about the term EduPunk. It’s cool, I like punk and everything, but I think it diminishes…well, I take that back. I’ll have to chew on it.