Reflections on the Knowledge Society

Research activities have come a long way. Publication of scientific output has been dramatically upscaled over the past decade through internal and external HE policies. So much so, that it has become a bubble that threatens to burst.

Everybody publishes – lots! When I say everybody, I mean entire institutions being loaded with publication duties that previously only had a teaching mission (FE colleges, teacher training or arts colleges, polytechnics, etc.). In the accumulative system, PhD students too have to produce multiple quality articles instead of the previously required (single) doctoral thesis. This adds tens of thousands of people publishing large quantities of academic papers across Europe. Furthermore, also established universities squeeze the last bit out of their researchers in order for them to remain intellectually visible in a flooded market. Papers have become the currency by which researchers and the intellectual capital of institutions are quantified and benchmarked. Hence, the more papers the better!

In the same way as the production of academic papers has exponentially increased, so has the publishing market. There are now oodles of journals that offer themselves as outlets for academic products (ranging from the unknown start-up to the dodgy scammer). And every week there will be more. In some ways, Open Access, which now finally has taken off in a bigger way, has complicated things. Authors have very little understanding where they could and should publish their stuff in order to satisfy four key demands: (1) be visible to the relevant research community, (2) not being charged for publishing, (3) providing open access to their works for others, (4) being quality assured in a transparent and accepted way.

The entire academic publishing field has been blown out of proportions and over-scaled to the extent where parts of the complex system are no longer functional and therefore prone to system failure. One of these components is the quality assurance from peer reviews. I used to get requests for reviews ever so often from established conferences and journals. I enjoyed it a lot since it forced me to read and reflect, it allowed me to help and support peers in their quest for knowledge and it kept me up-to-date. All in all a good system. However, this type of volunteer-ism and honorary work is not scalable to the extent that the present situation would demand. Reviews are unpaid extra work and lately have developed the tendency of follow-up procedures where reviewed articles boomerang back to the reviewer often several times. At the same time, my own resources should be spent on actively publishing not on reviewing (say my bosses!). It simply isn’t my job to be a full-time lector and editor, and I am sure I am not alone in this.

This situation of supply outstripping (a) demand, and, (b) resources leads, in my opinion, to a spiral of reduced quality. Part of this has to do with lack of thoroughness on part of the peer reviews and slackness in the quality selection processes. But also the relative inexperience with which some authors and reviewers approach the matter of academic publication is amplified by the lack of time for thorough feedback and support. Hence it becomes a systemic failure of the quality processes which are meant to control how much noise is produced and reviewed.

Fascinating, how fast industry jumps on the MOOC bandwaggon! However, it can hardly come more farcical than this example:

SIPX is yet another spin-off company out of Stanford “created to manage copyrights and deliver digital documents for the higher-education marketplace“. What SIPX identify as a problem is that content owners are faced with piracy that affects distribution and fair compensation. Equally, stretched library budgets to acquire licences hinders professors to prescribe digital materials and students studying them. All well known issues. However, despite their claim that they’re based on research from 2005, I see SIPX merely as parasitic squatters trying to occupy the middle ground between university libraries and students/lecturers (and charging for it).  Here is why:

According to their description, a professor offers a link to a SIPX registered resource, and posts the link. “A student, who clicks on such a link, is authenticated for applicable discounts, pays any necessary royalties, and then accesses the digital content for electronic reading, printing or both, all in a single, seamless user experience.” [link]

In the typical universities that I know, the university library already pays for the usage licence and receives a discount from publishers if available. Especially, if they buy large numbers of a book or buy more stuff from the same publisher. So, why, I ask, would the student now pay for an access licence again, plus presumably an additional charge to SIPX?

Neither is SIPX proposing to protect the copyright of authors or publishers. Despite their problem statement above, it is unlikely they’d go to court to defend the IPR of a content provider. This is typically the duty of publishers not of the brokers in the middle.

Even bolder is their statement on MOOC readiness [link]. With SIPX, “MOOC providers can enrich the student experience with a variety of readings that are otherwise difficult to clear for copyright”. What part in Massive OPEN Online Course (MOOC) did they not understand?

To me, companies like SIPX are part of the problem. The solution is quite simple: Open Access. Professors create their materials as OERs and OAI articles, and should only promote open access materials to their students. Even more so in a MOOC.

The entire debate about electronic learning, MOOCs and open education hinges on one central question: why do we need teachers? It is often sadly misunderstood what the added value is that teachers bring to learners. For this reason, they are increasingly put up to be replaced by technologies in different guises and roles, for example data algorithms that aim to substitute human judgement, or multiple choice tests instead of continuous qualitative assessment.

It’s time to think about the qualities a teacher needs to have and where they outperform computers, often by miles:

Psychology: especially where family relations are stressed or difficult, teachers are often the first (adult) advisors for children in trouble. Also in other cases (break-up relationships, uneasiness about oneself, etc), the experienced teacher is most likely to notice and able to put the finger on the problem.

Knowledge and Enthusiasm: computers and the Internet contain loads and loads of collective human knowledge (including also piles of unworthy garbage), but they don’t contain wisdom and competence to act on this knowledge. They are also incapable of enthusiasm for a subject discipline – hence they are unable to install excitement in the learner.

Gut feeling and empathy: “a feeling is worth a thousand datasets” (I don’t know who said that, but it should have been said by someone important). Even without being able to articulate and quantify the multitude of granular circumstances that play a part in a learner’s life, a good observant teacher in direct contact with a learner gets a feel for where they are and can pick them up from there. They are able to understand and factor in when and why a learner is distracted, puzzled, or otherwise limited in progressing. Teachers are able to show empathy and understanding for the situation and in most cases are able to mediate them. Note carefully that this complements and goes beyond the help that peers will provide.

Pedagogic qualities and qualifications, therefore, necessarily emphasise not only the knowledge and competences of a teacher in a given subject area, but also their interpersonal aptitude and mental stability. Teachers, nowadays more than ever before, need to be able to cope with criticism from parents, politicians and even CEOs and other outsiders. They need to be able to see through the eyes of the learner and balance their interests with the general context.

Given these demands, it’s clear that not everyone is suited to be a teacher. Allthemore concerning is the fact that these scarce human resources are not given the attention, opportunities and acknowledgement they deserve, in a world that’s drifting to become more like an industrial factory floor dominated by forms and robots than by human conversation.

Critical observations about the Internet and related technologies, about our increased dependence, and the consequences are spreading. Interesting is that these are not killer arguments by technophobes who reject any kind of innovation and technology. They are coming from people who live technology and reflect on the effect it had on their lives and that of others. Most of it is also scientifically well founded.

One book (NB: the old paper technology is a statement in itself!) that received much attention earlier was “Payback” by Frank Schirrmacher, a journalist who noted and researched how multitasking destroys attention and focus. More than simply a personal reflection it became popular reading precisely because many technology users identify with the issues stated.

Two more critical books are “Digitale Demenz” (digital dementia) by Manfred Spitzer, and “To Save Everything, Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism” by Evgeny Morozov.

The former, Spitzer, a well-known brain researcher and psychiatrist argues that outsourcing our memory and other brain functions to electronic systems has a similar effect as Altzheimer’s disease – it creates a socially defunct human being. This is, naturally, a criticism in the face of all those promoting the idea that people / learners should no longer learn any facts and figures or navigation skills as this can all be looked up on the Internet. The Internet, Spitzer argues, is a drug and people show symptoms of addiction. This is, of course, already well known and a recognised problem. However, it becomes more and more obvious that it doesn’t only affect some unfortunate individuals but our society as a whole (cf. e-commerce, e-government, etc.) and no-one has an antidote to it. Instead, we force technology upon ever younger children.

Morozov, says it all in the title: “Technological Solutionism” – I really like this word, it could become my personal favourite for 2013! Every problem that’s encountered, be it in education, medical, economic, societal, or political (e.g. in terms of party politics) is being responded to with a technical solution. Schirrmacher too criticises this as simplistic. The sad thing is that people aren’t even contemplating a personal human solution anymore! And yet, we see it day-by-day that technical solutions are often imperfect and inflexible, and that solving one issue raises ten more. Two examples: The EU 2020 strategy, which promises more IT will save our economy and job markets; and the education crisis – rise of the MOOC, where no-one seems to think of non-technological alternatives.

Not that one should put too much truth into Google trends, but here are a couple of interesting chronological comparisons I did on MOOC related topics (click on images to enlarge).

(1) Udacity vs Open Course Ware

I’m not sure how reliable Google Trends data is for the early 2000s, but, in any case, we do see a very sharp rise on Udacity (blue line) towards the end of 2012.

(2) iTunesU vs TED talks vs MOOC

iTunesU (blue) trundles along the bottom overtaken by MOOCs (yellow)  in 2012. TED talks (red) were and still are getting way more attention.

(3) Udacity vs EdX vs Coursera

Clearly, Coursera (yellow) is the most popular of the three MOOC platforms, followed by EdX (red)  and Udacity (blue).

(4) Coursera vs Khan Academy

Khan Academy (red) started earlier and is as yet still way above even Coursera (blue).

(5) MOOC vs Udacity

Udacity (red) outperforms searches on MOOCs (blue), which is a bit hard to understand if one sees Udacity as one of several MOOC outlets. More interesting, though, is this finer grained trend of recent development, where we see Udacity decrease and being overtaken by MOOC queries.

(6) Finally, Stephen Downes vs Sebastian Thrun

Thrun’s popularity (red) rises together with that of Udacity, not much surprise there, against the interest in Stephen (blue) that’s consistent over the years.

There has been much talk about the key skills and 21st century skills that young people should acquire to master their future lives well. Most often, these key skills were defined in terms of competences like numeracy and literacy. Interpersonal and communication skills are also frequently mentioned.

What I miss very much is a debate about attitudinal skills for today. I believe that what students require more than anything are the following competences:

• patience
• attention
• curiosity

These attitudes are critical to the acquisition of the said 21st century and any other skill set.

Here is yet another piece on MOOCs, called “the MOOC movement – learning for all”, this time from the EuroNews channel. And yet again, it contains all the wrong propaganda!

Walter Lewin’s message in the video that MOOCs are “as important as the invention of the printing press” because “we reach out now to millions of people” is wrong in historical terms as well as in the present context. The same accounts for his enthusiastic claim that ‘we’ are reaching out to people “who could never have dreamed of sitting in a classroom or getting an education, let alone that they can now choose one course from Harvard, one course from Berkeley, one course from MIT”. In historic terms this is wrong, because the outreach did not start with MOOCs, but is as old as the Internet for learning. What’s more, there have been specific outreach agendas from different governments and supranational organisations (UN, EU) that paved the way to widening access to higher education. This change in political mindset has often been negatively associated with the technology-enabled ‘industrialisation’ of education. But, as can be seen in OECD statistical analyses (Education at a Glance), it accounts for a much larger rise in education levels than MOOCs have done to date, and with more lasting success, I might add:

Over the past 15 years, tertiary type-A graduation rates have risen by 20 percentage points on average among OECD countries (Education at a Glance 2012)

Even more encouraging:

Across all OECD countries, “an average of 47% of today’s young women and 32% of today’s young men will complete tertiary type-A education over their lifetimes”. (OECD 21012)

Note that this talks about completion and graduation, not registration figures or certificates for individual MOOCs.

One reason why things did not reach people in the millions early on was to do with the limited access to networks and bandwidth, but also with limited awareness. And even today, the Internet and unlimited high bandwidth are still an exclusive asset, as are smartphones. Those layers of society that are distant to education are typically also socioeconomically distant from the essential infrastructure that would allow them to participate. For this reason, MOOCs still are very much a middle class thing and will remain so for as long as telecom cost models present financial barriers to access – no matter how open the courses are.

Apart from the wrong praises for outreach attached to MOOCs, I remember the late nineties when e-learning claimed unlimited access to experts around the world. The best in the field, it said! This early promise hasn’t come true to the learners and MOOCs are not likely to provide this either, at least not long term. There is little sustainability in a MOOC and it is only a matter of time until institutions realise the true cost of delivering MOOCs the way Udacity, EdX, and Coursera do. Already, some institutions like Santa Fe Institute ask participants for donations, realising that even the simple broadcast of videos and MCQ tests costs tens of thousands of dollars. Currently, support comes from foundations like Templeton, but this stream isn’t going to last.

Another issue with MOOCs is that they are like puzzle pieces in the ocean. Getting hold of one or two pieces is an achievement, no doubt, but doesn’t constitute a curriculum leading to a qualification. If you want to become a medical doctor or an astronomer you need more than a single 10 weeks course in basic physics or anatomy. What about those field trips? What about the practical dissection sessions? Will competitor institutions like the said Harvard, Berkeley and MIT allow picking and choosing courses at different institutions for awarding degrees? Even in Europe where a common currency like ECTS provides a theoretical basis for this to happen, students encounter great difficulties with mutual recognition.

A note on the side: If all those top world experts would indeed be accessible by MOOCs, what would happen to all those million lecturers who are not on top? In my experience, students are quite pragmatic. They don’t go for the top grades or top experts, they usually follow the most comfortable path that balances academic success with personal efforts and fun.

One other key attribute that qualifies for being part of a curriculum is reiterations. Every academic year, a new cohort is guided through a course module, which is only updated a bit. This reiteration is not sexy in terms of MOOCs and the media, albeit that it may be the only way the initial costs can slowly be recuperated – perhaps.

In summary, the title of the programme “the MOOC movement – learning for all” may just be a MOOC movement of the united press and media companies, who unanimously admire the newness of the old hat that’s displayed by clever university marketeers.

An interesting development as more organisations jump on the MOOC bandwaggon. It’s not comparable to the Hewlett grant that MIT received for their OCW some years ago, but the €250,000 from the Stifterverband der deutschen Wissenschaft and iversity are still a tidy sum to compete for on individual level.

The intro video is interesting to watch (video and site are in English) explaining their interpretation of MOOCs, and, yet again giving Stanford the usual (and erroneous) credit for “inventing” MOOCs. On the positive side, peer interaction gets a mention as being important.

Ten so-called fellowships at €25,000 each are up for grabs to help implementation of the submitted MOOC concepts. Although it’s an international call, five of the grants are earmarked for German institutions, which I guess is acceptable considering that the funding bodies are German. What I find less appealing is that the awarded fellows “must ensure … that the course can run on the iversity platform”. Hmmm! How does this go together with “openness”?

Ambient learning is the term used for learning that happens in the (natural physical) environment. It makes use of ‘ambient technologies’ such as sensors built into the environment or computer-enhanced interfaces on ordinary every-day items. A good example are speed traps that don’t produce fines, but rather use feedback loops to inform drivers of their behaviour. This type of learning builds on awareness and self-correction. However, not all areas of learning or subject disciplines are suited for ambient learning. Cognitive and discursive disciplines like Philosophy are more restricted than behavioural ones. Still, there are several valuable spaces where this can bring benefit.

Immersion teaching is one of the most powerful pedagogic methods ever invented. It is most successfully used in language learning, but also has a place in work-based learning and other settings. Ambient technologies can be used to create an authentic environment for immersive learning. While this sounds straight forward enough in theory, the practice is substantially different. When you’re trying to set up an immersive environment for yourself, e.g. in your home, you quickly encounter the limits of current technology and learning opportunities.

Firstly, the technologies available today are not sufficiently ‘ambient’ yet to allow proper interaction. Any learning that needs a keyboard or mouse to communicate is unsuited, as are resources that require staring at a monitor for longer periods (e.g. presentation slides). It is simply not convenient to look at a slideshare presentation on your fridge door, even if your fridge has an internet connection or if you use a projector to display it there. Secondly, there are too few channels that you can use to provide a continuous authentic experience.

One domain where it is relatively easy to create an ambient learning environment using ordinary technologies in your average living room is language learning. Immersion in language learning provides exposure to authentic language for your daily habits such as listening to radio or watching tv.

Using a mobile app for streaming radio while plugging the iPhone into a speaker set, allows you to listen to native target stations. It is important to note that the authenticity of immersion does not only lie in the language spoken, but also in the information content. That is why satellite channels like BBC World or Russia Today are of no real use in this, as they do not contain content from the target country. Instead, shows like “Focus on Africa” or “India Business Reprt”, etc. are specially moderated programmes for a foreign not a native audience. In case of doubt always opt for the original!

An audio-visual experience such as satellite tv and streaming radio, already do much to create a surrounding immersive feeling. Distribute a couple of target language newspapers or books round the room, and that is roughly where today’s state of the art ends. For developing ambient learning in the home further, we need communication technologies that seamlessly sit in such an environment, operated by voice control or gestures. Another thing that’s missing is interactive opportunities which provide feedback. I can, for example, imagine a listening agent that checks what you are saying (assuming you are talking aloud to yourself or others in the living room) and makes a boo noise when it detects the wrong language spoken. Of course, the first iterations of such a feedback agent would boo a lot, just like the first spell checkers did. But we are there to make progress and there is an awful long way to go!

This is interesting and at the same time bizarre: SocialSafe is a new application that returns control and ownership of data in social networks to users. It sucks out all your photos, posts, messages, comments, and contacts from your Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Google+ or Pinterest accounts and stores them on your computer.

This is indeed highly welcome and useful. The tool even allows you to export the data into a csv spreadsheet or xml file. Then, of course, the question is what to do with it after export, but at least from then onward it is yours forever.

What I bemoan, however, is that this is not a free-forever open source application! After a 60 day trial, one has to pay an annual licence fee of between $7 and $27. I’m not sure whether my data is going to be blocked after expiry of the trial period or just the synchronisation function disabled, so that no more updates can be downloaded. In any case, my interpretation is that you download the data from one proprietary network platform to another proprietary system that charges you! WHY?!