Open research – Professional Amateurs – Science in Action

I recently wrote a post that touched upon openness of and elitism in education. I just wanted to express a few more quick thoughts on this, though it is something I intend to return to with a more in-depth look at open education and resources.

I feel the elitism of universities doesn’t lie with who is allowed to become a students, it is more related to the fact that resources are securely tied up within universities making those resources inaccessible to the majority. Resources in this context could be books or journals (hard copies or online with paid for institutional subscriptions), the academic discourse, the talents of faculty, the research equipment and facilities, past Ph.D. theses, etc. In addition, it relates to the subjects and specific topics that are deemed to be worthy of teaching or researching, or what the funders deem so.

Universities deal in the currency of degrees, a passport in society. Why in times of recession, such as at present, should it be that otherwise capable individuals are denied their chance of a degree passport because the government puts a squeeze on the number of places available in order to balance the books? A further point is the question of assessment, and is it really a useful measure, or is the ongoing presentation of someone’s work, either within a university or indeed outside it (informal learning), a better reflection of their capabilities and abilities? Indeed, evidence is beginning to accumulate indicating that those who present their work using social media place themselves in a more advantageous position for employment. And shouldn’t publicly funded research be in the public domain anyway? I’ve previously written about Open Notebook Science.

I can envisage how much of this could be opened up to greater access, but I was having a problem with scientific equipment and facilities and how that might be liberated.

There have been some interesting examples where institution based science projects have reached out to the public for assistance. There was SETI were you signed up and your computer were utilized while it was on (and you weren’t using it) to process data to search for extra-terrestrial life. Then I recall a project were public volunteers were called for to look for new astronomical bodies in tens of thousands of photographs of space; these were provided online and after doing a test to see how accurately you could assess the images you could process the live data. It was discovered that humans were much better at seeing differences in the data than if the processing was done electronically with image recognition.

Therefore, in a rather detached way people were participating in scientific research.

However, I then heard the repeat of the Friday 25 September Science in Action programme^* on BBC World Service at 4:32GMT on Sunday morning. (Sometimes I’m awake in the night or wake up early.) Listen to the programme. The significant part where this blog post is concerned is the DIYbio article. The article talked about people who are undertaking scientific research, bio-engineering in this case, in their own homes using inexpensive equipment, some bought secondhand on Ebay(R) for a fraction of its cost new to a research lab. They are able to design and create new biological parts, devices and systems. Integral to this approach is the support from online communities, DIYbio.org for example, sometimes with professionals voluntarily assisting these communities.

Clay Shirky has talked about the increase in mass amateurization, without being amateurish. This is the breaking down of the dichotomy between ‘experts’ and amateurs, with the creation of a new category – the Professional Amateurs or Pro-Ams. Charles Leadbeater in his book We-Think talks about how mass creativity has seen sites including Wikipedia and Youtube, and the Linux operating system rise in prominence and signal a shift in the way we and society can organise ourselves; participation becoming the key element.

All of this, for me raises the question, “Are universities, education systems and society more generally getting ready for the future of learning and research?”

^* This particular programme doesn’t seem to be archived, though you can usually listen to the previous two recent episodes, so I guess you’ve probably got a couple of week to hear it before the link is broken.

Subject Professor – Social Sciences and Arts

I first happened upon the Economics version of the “Professor” series of these Social Sciences and Arts sites, each of which has the subject preceding Professor. They include:

• EconomyProfessor.com
• PoliticsProfessor.com
• SociologyProfessor.com
• PhilosophyProfessor.com
• TheologyProfessor.com
• ArtProfessor.com

Each of the different sites is of the same format, generally with terms categorized into theories and theorists, or their equivalent for the particular subject. Each of the terms is then defined, in a similar way to that in a dictionary or glossary of terms. The definitions are trawled from primary or secondary sources, and you can suggest amendments or additions.

There also tends to be a couple of useful links out from each site, be that to a discussion forum or online journals, etc.

These appear to be useful sites to students of the subjects, however, these aren’t my particular subject areas, so, as always, you’d need to assess them against other sources to validate accuracy.

Video: Guide to Diigo Annotations

Yesterday I wrote about Google Sidewiki and its potential use for annotations. However, you might have gathered that I’m a big BIG fan of Diigo, and I mentioned its use for educational annotation in that same article.

José Picardo has produced a short informative video for his students about using Diigo annotations and sending a link to the pages including annotations.

iPods for 8 year olds

This is just brilliant.

At Burnt Oak Junior School in Kent, UK, they gave a class of 32 eight year olds an iPod Touch with a number of useful apps installed.

In their blog post there is an embedded video that includes interviews with the teacher responsible, the head teacher and children. I’ve reproduced the video here. Please take a look.

It ties in with the NSW laptop initiative.

Google Sidewiki – the Web just changed again

Google just yesterday announced their new facility, Sidewiki. It’s a plugin for Firefox and IE at the moment, Chrome is to follow (where it is anticipated to be in by default).

I’ve been using similar functions provided by Diigo (the bookmarking and annotation service) for some time now. Just part of what you can do with Diigo is comment on a whole page using a sidebar facility. And this is pretty much what Sidewiki does.

“Why does this change anything?”, you might ask. Well, even though Diigo is a fantastic service (which I’ve written about here and here, and talked about here), it just hasn’t got the penetration required (yet) to achieve its full potential. Whereas Google has the pulling power.

“So why is being able to leave or read other people’s comment significant?” Well, this makes every page on the web is collaborative. Every page has the potential for dialogue and discussions to take place, informing and adding to the original content; re-enforcing the premise or refuting it.

Every corporate page now had the potential to have consumer comments presented alongside. Every PR disaster can instantly be commented on, on your own website, by thousand or tens of thousands of disgruntled customers. And remember, customers trust each other and their opinions more than they trust the corporate stance; think of Customer Reviews on Amazon.

The renowned analyst, Jeremiah Owyang, has said that a Social Strategy needs to be developed, now. He highlights three point in his web strategy blog:

1. Shift your thinking: recognize that you don’t own your corporate website –your customers do.
   
2. Develop an internal strategy and ongoing program.
3. Don’t just hesitate or be reactive to negative content –embrace social content now.

But consider the potential for education. You can now have asynchronous discussions on topics in-situ with renowned experts in the area, from universities and industry, researchers, students, school children, or anyone who is interested.

Or is it a bad thing?

The Web just got a little bit more interesting.

Spezify search

Just had a v. quick play with Spezify, and new search engine just out of beta.

Certainly has the simplicity. And from first glance it appears to do a search of various media and provide a media rich response. First impression is that it could be good for finding out what other individuals are currently publishing, as we all increasing create content over a range of media avenues.

More investigation required.

What are your impressions of Spezify?

Google Apps

I came across a couple of useful things today relating to Google Apps.

The first is a student perspective on the ease of use of Google Apps for her course. She is very articulate and succinct in her responses, and shows a mastery of her digital environment.

If school children are demonstrating this level of knowledge, understanding and proficiency in using Google Apps then it seems out of step to be providing anything proprietory at university, particularly if it offers less functionality and required students then learning an unfamiliar environment that they won’t use again after graduation.

A teacher also talks about her use of Google Apps for her classes.

As a supplement to the above, there are some resources available at Google Tools for Educators including links to some useful videos.

Openness via Martin Weller

I really like Martin Weller’s thinking, and have referenced him during presentations in the past. I enjoy his ‘The Ed Techie’ blog, and his comments often get me thinking.

Today I had the pleasure of reading his Reflections on openness post. Whilst reading it and watching his presentation via Elluminate I typed the following.

Surely if you where going to start a university now, you wouldn’t do it.

Universities would seem to be institutions designed to perpetuate elitism. With open education are we really still tied into the promotional rewards of these institutions. Should the emphasis in reward come from the community and its valuing of the resources you provide to them, the time you invest, the quality of the discussions you initiate/perpetuate? I believe one has to question from a society perspective the value of closed environments for education now; when digital resources are enabling free access by anyone to some of the greatest thinkers in the world, and providing a platform for anyone with a well-reasoned opinion to be heard and entered into dialogue with. We no longer have to be told who the experts are, we can make a more valued judgement ourselves. I’m not foolish enough to believe that the openness presented to us by this digital world will lead to a free, utopian education for all, and the demise and dismantling of universities, but there are people willing to provide their time and effort to assist by freely sharing their time and resources without necessarily requiring re-numeration for their work. Creative Commons is showing us that.

Whilst accessing Martin’s post, I also had the pleasure of following Mark Smither’s link to his blog. Here is someone else whose writing are going to influence some of my thinking from now on.

I love this social web thingy, and the path of inquiry it can lead you on; a winding path for sure, but one with many places of interest.

I’ve been following Martin on Twitter for a while, and I’m now also following Mark.

A couple of other things occurred to me whilst reading the post and response:

Has the idea of a journal gone to the wall, when open information can have reviewed directly by the community – i.e. peer review?

The Cloudworks concept seems to be looking at unifying resources, a concept that I considered a couple of years ago and then abandoned. It seemed to me more appropriate to retain information on the open web and search for it there, rather than ‘close’ it down again; cloudworks  potentially is an elitist approach attempting to corral and vet information and therefore a philosophy I don’t necessarily hold with. Not even sure it will work. Howard Rheingold created something similar, and I found I didn’t have the time to engage with that. I’m personally moving further away from several Ning based communities for similar reasons or time and access.

Web 2.0 Teaching Enhancement

The use of Web 2.0, or Social Web, technologies leads to the development of communities of practice, focused on areas of interest, and culminating in networks of users. Becta’s Learners’ Use study showed examples of learners whose interests had led them to use Web 2.0 technologies in sophisticated ways. However, the majority of Web 2.0 use is for social purposes; its use for learning and teaching has yet to be fully exploited.

Within this Social Web approach we are beginning to see distinct boundaries of differing web spaces, which has consequences for using Web 2.0 technologies with our students. Three specific ‘spaces’ have been defined, personal space for messaging (me space) , group space including social networking sites with Facebook currently being the prime example (we space), and publishing space including blogs and social media publishing sites such as YouTube (see space).

Evidence from several consultations with students and questionnaire has provided feedback to indicate that students don’t want formal education mechanisms encroaching upon their social networking activities. However, the literature would suggest that group space within a defined boundary has great potential to support learning and teaching.

Unlike many UK universities, The University of Sheffield is taking a strategic and systematic approach to deployment of Web 2.0 services. The University has implemented uSpace as a Web 2.0 technology solution to fulfill certain learning, teaching, research, and administrative functions. Primarily, chosen for blog and collaborative document/wiki-like capabilities, uSpace also easily facilitates discussions and enables social networking activities in an environment that is distinctly different and separate to openly available products, e.g. Facebook. This allows uSpace to be positioned between traditional formal learning provision and more open networks, without the perceived encroachment from the student perspective.

Young people are defensive about … [their spaces], essentially the ‘me’ and ‘we’ spaces, as opposed to … the ‘see’ spaces. Hence, their discomfort with staff-initiated discussion groups in social networking space when they are at ease with those they set up themselves for study-related purposes. We have been told that there is considerable untapped potential for exploitation of this, effectively a third space within group space – somewhere between pure study/work and pure social – to support learning and teaching.

Higher Education in a Web 2.0 World

The majority of Web 2.0 use is simply consuming rather than participating. Part of what uSpace can do is to encourage breaking down of barriers and enabling participation. uSpace, therefore, has the advantage of being able to allow students to develop 21^st century learning skills, including communication, collaboration, creativity, technology proficiency, etc. to match the set of skills being required for employability in a changing landscape, but doing so within a secure and bounded environment. Although, it doesn’t have to be ‘tightly’ bounded, as permission setting within uSpace can allow externals (from outside the University) to comment and contribution if required.

The Library is promoting the importance of information literacies throughout faculty and students. This includes the ability to appropriately search, retrieve, evaluate information critically, and attribute sources without plagiarism.

Paralleling this, Computing Service is working to promote digital and new media literacies. In a digital world it is difficult to understand how information literacy is possible without knowing how to successfully use and implement new technologies, functions and facilities as they increasingly roll out on a daily basis. To achieve this, Computing Service initially looked at how students could be engaged in using and sharing knowledge. And following a successful SeeChange institutional project, the bluecloud space was initiated within uSpace. Following feedback from staff on campus after having the concepts underlying bluecloud explained to them, there was a demand for a similar resource for staff to increase their understanding of Web 2.0, digital and new medialiteracies. To enable this, The Knowledge Lab has been created within uSpace to tap into the knowledge of Computing Service staff and the professional interest and enthusiasm of other individual staff across the University to pass on their knowledge and discuss technology use at the frontiers of education.

Staff capability with ICT is a further dimension of the digital divide, and effective use of technology, ie to enhance learning, is as much of an issue as practical operation.

Universities’ realm tends to be predominantly … what is sometimes referred to as the ‘push-web’ in which they define the content and views to be received. Perversely, it appears that lecturers and teachers are not generally disposed to interactive communication online.

Higher Education in a Web 2.0 World

In addition, Computing Service needs to work in collaboration with library colleagues at the interfaces of these literacies; power browsing and its implications, for example.

It should be noted that there is currently a chasm between the openness of expression being seen amongst younger generations and now university students, where they willingly share and participate, and the guarded and introverted cultures of institutions. uSpace is an environment that allows this culture of openness to exist, but it will required continued education and exposure to enable the enthusiastic individuals within the University to encourage such a change to occur.

The Social Web has substantially changed participation for all. It enables greater engagement for students and encourages sharing. This has the potential to alter learner/teacher dynamics, and allow a shift towards increasing partnership between the two groups; and enable increased research-led learning to happen. The technologies have taken people into areas where their shared interest is the important factor, as opposed to their age or position in the educational hierarchy: the community of interest is the over-riding element. Web 2.0 technologies fit well with a constructivist approach to learning, as learners take part within a community, and focus on their learning interests.

Process or product – assessment and HE institutions

Following a private (DM) discussion on Twitter with @evestirling the following occurred to me.

If the product of students’ work is to be assessed then it’s appropriate for the HE institution to set the assessment environment and medium.

If process is the important factor, then the students should be allowed to work in whatever environment and media they want, and the institutions need to adapt their assessment processes to accommodate. The control should be with the student in the form of a PLE; not the HE institution.

Comments are very welcome on this.