In addition to displaying RSS feeds, we offer this OPML file which lists all RSS feeds collected here.
In addition to displaying RSS feeds, we offer this OPML file which lists all RSS feeds collected here.
Registered Users & Guests Online
There are currently 0 users and 0 guests online.
This has been in the news for the last week or so. To me it suggests peer review is struggling to maintain its viability. Thee main scandal is a ring of people who manipulated the peer review system to support each others' works. I think personally that they are distinguished only by virtue of the fact that they were caught. Peer review is basically an insider's game. As if to underscore that, Nature Publishing Group has announced it will provide 'expedited' peer review for a fee. An editor has quit in response. "The flap shines a light on a fledgling industry where several companies are now making millions of dollars by privatizing peer review." Oh yeah, that will keep things honest! See also Retraction Watch, COPE Statement, Science. Via Academica.[Link] [Comment]
• Backchannel: • Go to http://www.downes.ca/chat • Select What is Innovation in Education?
--- OR ---
• Use Twitter hashtag #ghent2015 • • Slides: http://www.downes.ca/presentation/359
--- OR ---
• Slideshare: http://www.slideshare.net/Downes
Live Stream http://t.co/9s0nCpubIj, (Keynote) Mar 30, 2015 [Comment]
I've been at the Hewlett OER grantees conference in Sausalito the last few days and I find myself agreeing with David Wiley in this post: "The biggest surprises to me were the number of times the phrase “ high quality” came up, and what a strong, negative reaction I had each time I heard the word." Same here! "'High quality' sounds like it’ s dealing with a core issue, while actually dodging the core issue. The phrase is sneaky and deceptive.... when people say “ high quality” they actually mean all these things (author credentials, review by faculty, copyediting, etc.) except effectiveness." Wiley won't say this, but in my view it's a way for publishers to weasel into a position of being the sole provider of open educational resources, because of course nobody else could produce "high quality" materials.[Link] [Comment]
Report from Creative Commons on, well, the state of Creative Commons. A.k.a. "the Commons". The short version: we are up to 882 million CC-licensed works (I have maybe 30K of those, counting OLDaily posts and photographs). According to the table, more works are licenses as CC-by than of non-commercial variants (which I don't believe). And they continue (erroneously) to lable licenses allowing commercial licensing as "more open" (tell that to some poor schmuck staring at a paywall). I'm frankly this close to dropping support for Creative Commons over this issue. 14 countries (they say) have made national commitments to open education (according to this, Scotland is a country). Update Cable Green writes to state that the data are here. If we don't count each of 111 million Wikipedia articles as a separate item, the statistics look very different.[Link] [Comment]
One of the things I used to like to do was to read Thomas Hobbes's 1651 book Leviathan (original, and easier to read) to myself out loud, and using the spelling, imagine the cadence and the accent. So this article with videos of the pronunciation of English as it gets older and older is of interest to me. P.S. if you haven't read Leviathan you owe it to yourself to do so - it is the foundation of the idea of the social contract as the basis for society. And it is also one of the founding documents of modern empiricism.[Link] [Comment]
This article approaches the issue from a very different perspective, depicting Pearson as aggressively attacking the cheating problem, and acting to enforce its own copyright. "Pearson... has found more than 70 instances in six states of students posting testing materials on a public social media site, according to spokesman Jesse Comart," says the article. "'We are not delving into people's profiles. We are looking for inappropriate sharing of the intellectual property,' said Steve Addicott, vice president of Caveon, the test security subcontractor." This is a softball article suggesting that Pearson is responding to criticism with a PR campaign. But there are deeper implications: first, that the spying is widespread, and second, the extension of copyright into the enforcement of testing.[Link] [Comment]
Document circulated at the conference on Open Educational Resources I am attending (see http://halfanhour.blogspotcom for some content summaries). I haven't ready this in detail, but it appears to be an effort to create a single unified implementation strategy for the OER movement. I personally think such an effort would be misguided. Anyhow, it's on a Google Docs page and will probably change quite a bit by the time you read this. I hope people have a good look and leave their comments. More on this later.[Link] [Comment]
This report summarizes "an international workshop on 'Innovative efforts for universal quality education'." It states: "If education systems are to provide disadvantaged groups with quality education, the knowledge, skills and abilities acquired by students need to be relevant to the environment, improve their employability and be aligned with their work aspirations." Short PDF, most of the useful content is in the 'Highlights' on page 3.[Link] [Comment]
So as soon as I get a handle on things, there's a new thing. Today's it's this: "CMI-5, a soon-to-be standard which is also conformant to the Experience API (xAPI)." Sigh. This is a link to the GitHub version of the specification. The document basically defines "LMS Course Structure Import/Export [and] LMS course definition as it pertains to runtime data used by Learning Activities."[Link] [Comment]
I'm not enamoured of Creative Commons's recent initiative to license 'open business practices' as outlined here, because it seems to legitimize the nidea that business practices can be licensed, which seems wrong to me. But I guess it's becoming a thing, which is why it now becomes relevant to link to this item from SourceForge (I don't know whether the URL will work for you; it's part of an email campaign. The direct link is here and I don't know whether that will work either - it's all very private-like - or you can just grab the PDF directly from here and skip the marketing pitch, and if they complain I'll explain about the concept of SourceForge and sharing and all that). "Business Process Model and Notation 2.0 (BPMN2) is one of the best things to happen in business process management in a long time - and many people and organizations who could benefit from BPMN have yet to give it a try." It makes me wonder who is behind all this and what they hope to achieve.[Link] [Comment]
As a low-income student when I was a student, I can personally attest to this: "paying for event admissions, society membership fees, travel costs for conferences and for food and drinks at informal social gatherings. The second kind of success-cost is the loss of income or opportunity when there’ s inadequate time to both earn a living wage and earn extracurricular and volunteer experience, in other words, 'time' costs." I earned money every weekend working at the 7-Eleven in Cedarbrae - but that meant I wasn't participating in weekend events. It underscored for me how much the real purpose of university lies in creating connections and building networks.[Link] [Comment]
I long ago accused Wired of selling out to advertisers, and this column (not coincidentally authored by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt’ s Chief Content Officer) does not dissuade me of that criticism. Here is the argument, in one sentence: "If we do not get educational content right, students are less likely to gain the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in college and careers." If this were true, nobody would have succeeded before academic publishers came onto the scene. But in fact, almost any content will do if learners are motivated, and no content will do if learners are not motivated. And the reason why free can work and is working is that it's created by and for people who are motivated. That's why it's enough of a threat to an academic publisher that they felt compelled to write an op-ed in one of their captive publications.[Link] [Comment]
Robin Good is back and posts "I have put together and just updated a full categorised mini-directory of the best tools to find new, quality content, in just about any area you are interested in." Good list. I know many of the applications.[Link] [Comment]
There are days I wish I had focused more on making gRSShopper a commercial product. Then it would be more widely used and would be included in studies like this which look at the pedagogies employed by different MOOC platforms. It would probably have changed the conclusion, which (like so many other studies) reads "given
Kim Cofino shares elements of her current keynote at the ECIS technology conference in Munich. "When we learn with technology the way we live with technology, the classroom can be just as relevant and engaging as our everyday digital interactions," she argues. She surveys many of the elements - mobile, customization, social - that support this. And she says "We know students are also readily engaged by media rich experiences... So, why are we often asking students to produce two dimensional paper products (posters, reports, magazines, whatever the case may be), when we can encourage them to create multimedia and interactive demonstrations of their understanding?"[Link] [Comment]
Via Audrey Watters comes this post from Eric Hellman showing that most research journals allow advertising networks to spy on their readers. "I'm particularly concerned about the medical journals that participate in advertising networks," writes Hellman. "Imagine that someone is researching clinical trials for a deadly disease. A smart insurance company could target such users with ads that mark them for higher premiums. A pharmaceutical company could use advertising targeting researchers at competing companies to find clues about their research directions."[Link] [Comment]
Alan Levine writes, "On a personal blog, I am not finding much justification for cookies (one of my Holy Grails is a comment mechanism that eliminates comments). I really loathe blogs where the URLs are all crufted with Google UTM tracking cruft on the end. I always chop them off before sharing" (I've corrected a typo in this quote). I too always chop the 'utm' tracking in links I report. I have cookies for those who want to post comments, but that's it. I keep track of the number of times a post is read, but not of who read it. I have server stats using awstats but I think those are broken (I'm not sure).[Link] [Comment]
How do you get nuance in a world of binaries? David A. Banks argues, according to Frances Bell, that "the ‘ binaries’ of up-voting and down-voting are inadequate for dealing with ambiguity and divisive topics. They are a tool for polarisation not a means of going beyond it." She also looks at the binary of public/private, a binary that has dominated a lot of recent discourse. "The binary nature of much of our online participation like/not like, friend/not friend, follow/ not follow, click/not click, upvote/downvote, block/ not block might be seeping into our culture,as well as the platforms on which we enact it." Well, yeah. But 'binary' isn't the issue; choice is. Any set of alternatives reduces logically to a set of binary choices; even the analog reduces to the differential. And binary up/down ratings systems are by far the most usable and most reliable (some people 'never give five stars').
We need to think this through carefully. There are two questions: first, how many choices do we get to make, and second, how are choices combined to create a result. More choices are better, but we reach a limit to out capacity to make choices. Sometimes pseudo-analog devices, like sliders, can help, but they reduce accuracy, and in any case, limits are still reached. More importantly, how do we combine choices? Usually it's a case of 'the most votes wins'. But this presumes everyone is asked the same question. It's more interesting is we have diverse questions. It's more interesting if we eschew 'most votes wins' for votes on inter-related entities (this gives each vote an 'echo' effect). We need choice, but more, we need to understand a lot better what choice is.
I'm not really a fan of learning objectives either. For the record, here are Clark's seven reasons:
From my reading, these sever objections are really just one objection stated over and over. And an even more important point, to my mind, is that different people have different objectives. It takes a lot of presumption on the part of the teacher to state their objectives.
Bookmark iBerry !