Knowledge & Content


1984

There is too much information in the Information Society! Un-vetted information that is. The readiness of available information leads to circular confirmation of misinformation or misinterpretation of so-called “facts”. There are a number of indicators for this situation:

  • information overload: people exposed to too many news sources suffer from anxiety of (a) missing something (like in a facebook news stream), (b) trusting the source, (c) trusting their own capability of evaluating information to sift out misinformation. It’s connected to the paradox of choice.
  • news loops: news publishers, especially on the internet, are challenged to provide up-to-the-minute news, which leads them to neglect their own analysis and research and instead copy-paste from press agencies. This is why news in all news outlets are to 80-90% identical – including their “own” opinion. Or have you not wondered why some geographic areas suddenly disappear from all news channels? It’s news going round in circles. China’s regulator even went so far as to decree the verification of news stories.
  • social media: up-to-the-minute info by news publishers nowadays references and takes for true postings on social media channels like twitter or facebook. The assumption seems to be that if many people (only the ones connected to twitter and facebook) express a strong feeling about something – then this must be a valid quantitative measure of satisfaction on political and other issues. However, as the run-up to the Brexit votum showed, manipulation and propaganda on social media is on the increase.

This kind of information society does not lead to more self-determination by individuals nor does it empower the powerless. It’s steering rapidly to a 1984 scenario where people are no longer able to distinguish truth from make-believe.

{lang: 'en-GB'}

This is sad news, as an e-mail notification from Santa Fe institute reached me this week saying:

“Complexity Explorer has been supported by a grant to the Santa Fe Institute from the John Templeton Foundation.  This funding is nearing its end, and in order to continue supporting our online education program, we will be changing how a few things run on the site.  Until now all of our courses have been completely open and free.  To offer you these courses, maintain the website, add new functionality, and create new courses and tutorials, we need to raise a quarter of a million dollars a year.  The Santa Fe Institute is committed to bringing complexity education to the world through the Complexity Explorer, but grant funding and donations alone cannot sustain us indefinitely.  We have a number of different funding avenues we are pursuing, one of which will be modeled with our Introduction to Agent-based modeling course. You may have noticed a lock on the course logo.  This lock is an indicator that the course session will be a paid session”

I very much liked their course! It was a true MOOC – open for anyone and everyone, free, and high quality. I regret the circumstances that led them to start charging, at least for some parts. But, it doesn’t come as much of a surprise that free open courses aren’t free for those who offer them. We have seen this many times before with MIT’s Open Courseware, or the Open University’s OpenLearn – both heavily funded by foundations with lots of money. In my previous university, we had to abandon the “good cause” in 2007 due to the adverse economic conditions associated with free open course provisions.

{lang: 'en-GB'}

images

This article may have serious ethical debates on its heels. Apparently, scientists succeeded in boosting or erasing individual memories of mice. As always, they tell us it is for our better future and for research into dementia and PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder). Quite likely also a remedy against Altzheimer’s disease.

Being slightly foresighted, I see further potential in the entertainment industry when it’s claimed that it would be possible to enhance pleasant memories!

But what would this mean for learning? Once we are able to erase or boost individual memories as it pleases [others], we factually destroy the process of learning and knowledge acquisition. Imagine what this does to “critical thinking” and you’ll see the ethical nightmare arising from it. Since our identities are shaped by our experiences – good and bad ones – meddling with memories will change us in what and who we are. Brainwashing has always been the desire of regimes that want “simple” and obedient people to rule over.

{lang: 'en-GB'}

I just read a very interesting article from the University of Waikato, New Zealand, describing a tool they developed at the OER Research Hub to facilitate formal and informal language learning. FLAX, that’s the name of the tool, stands for Flexible Language Acquisition. It compiles text corpora using open content from the OER world, MOOCs, and Open Access articles. The demonstration packs currently available include a collection from law texts and even video transcripts from YouTube and Vimeo lectures about law. They assure us that anyone can create own collections with ease.

image

These text collections are combined with simple language technologies like frequencies, collocations and Google ngram to detect key concepts and phrases in the texts. They can be enriched with linked data information from Wikipedia and Google, which allows learners to explore legal terminology, like ‘precautionary principle’, find their meaning and usage in sentences or phrases. In this way, it is hoped and hypothesised that independent learners will be able to improve their linguistic skills. A module for Moodle already exists and it is intended that FLAX will also find use in MOOCs to help with domain concepts and language issues.

FLAX is based on Open Source software from the New Zealand Digital Library Project and comes with instructions to set up your own collection.

{lang: 'en-GB'}

The EU has an ongoing row with Google over allegations that it manipulates search results in its favour and generally is becoming too powerful for the Internet market.

I noted recently that Google’s search results show YouTube links quite prominently placed on the first page. Not in a separate box, but among the result links and, hence, pushing other items out of the first page list. While YouTube links are indeed quite relevant in most of the cases, the suspicion arises that Google tries to further traffic to YouTube for reasons of generating advertising revenue.

The danger that the one-stop-shop (that users want) also becomes a manipulative engine in showing the results others want us to see was always evident. But, apparently, a new age may be dawning with Google under investigation and the demand from the Commission that it has to provide the possibility to “forget” and delete information about individuals on request. That will be a challenge and a half, for not only would it be difficult to establish that a request is genuine, but to distinguish between hundreds of John Appleseeds is near impossible.

{lang: 'en-GB'}

My colleagues here at the Vienna University of Education are involved in a series of interesting studies and projects that investigate the interface between the education system (schools) and sciences in real life and the home.

Divide

One rather shocking piece of evidence emerging from these is that youngsters behave in a very disparate way to the level of their knowledge! When project researchers in the appropriately called McKioto project tested 800 kids on their general school-informed understanding of biocultural diversity, climatic footprints, and healthy eating, the level of informedness was relatively well-developed and showed no significant divergence in pupils from differing socio-economic backgrounds. On the other hand, when asked about their daily habits (eating, physical exercises, etc.), kids from low income families showed little or no manifestation of that knowledge in every-day life. In a similar vein, according to many studies, the smoking behaviour in society has changed from originally being a high-class habit (gentlemen’s clubs) to a sign of poverty and poor education.

Not that these results provide us with totally new insights, but they raise many questions when one’s confronted with the evidence. Why does knowledge developed in kids stay merely theoretical and in school? Why is the impact on children’s lives so much greater at home (even where parents spend less time with kids than teachers)? Why is unhealthy behaviour so persistent in low-income families. Fact is that healthy eating, physical exercise, avoidance of unhealthy behaviour (e.g. smoking), or clima conformant activities (cycling) are often more affordable than their unhealthy variants. Still, there is a cultural divide that needs to be bridged urgently, and it is critical for the well-being of the next generation that schools play a shaping role in this change.

{lang: 'en-GB'}

I’d argue that most of the school beginners at the age of six or thereabouts are positively excited at the prospect of going to school. However, this attitude changes rather rapidly even in the pre-puberty stage. Something is clearly wrong that turns zeal to aversion. I believe that any good educational policy, national or international (like the Rethinking Education Strategy of the EU), needs to take note of this.

Looking at the prevailing policy objectives I find that the joy of learning isn’t represented at all, either through ignorance or by deliberate design. Instead efficiency, productivity and the compliance to satisfy labour market demands are the sole drivers of our education systems. Naturally, the stakeholders become increasingly dissatisfied with being pushed into a world that has only something to offer in industrial terms. Competences, knowledge and research are all directed towards growth in productivity – and nothing else! Technology plays its part in this, as can be detected in the role it is given as a solution to everything by the European Commission in its various strategies and visions of the future.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not at all promoting to integrate education into the entertainment industry (via Serious Games etc.). Education was always directed towards the labour market and its evolution, but there was something else too. We need to rediscover the values of curiosity and self-fulfilment as a purpose of learning. I’d even go as far as to say that these are our basic instincts as a species: the drive to discover and understand the world around us, not to make us more productive, but to make us more knowledgeable and wise. The satisfaction coming from the joy of learning (and working, for that matter) and the resulting improved self can be a very powerful driver for more and better learning and thus also more productive solutions.

{lang: 'en-GB'}

I have recently bemoaned the problems connected to the upscaling of academic publishing. There are now literally hundreds of new journals and publication outlets available and they continue to mushroom. As a consequence, I receive, on an almost daily basis, invitations to submit or review articles.

The concerning bit in these offers is the economy attached to it. For a freshly created educational journal with no track record and no citation index, I’m asked to offer my time and labour for free when it comes to peer reviews. The journal’s website simply states: “Payment: Volunteer job, no payment“! For publishing an article, on the other hand, they charge an Article Publication Fee of $100.

Most researchers these days are under pressure to publish. At the same time, my university does not operate publication budgets for departments to pay such publication fees. Therefore, this causes some serious friction. In some cases, one could pay publications out of third-party funded project budgets, but this would have to be eligible cost. In the current climate of cost cutting, there is little prospect of researchers being supplied with substantial publication funding, and, once again, small-budget universities will be hit hardest.

This current turbulence feels like a counter revolution to the open access publishing movement by flooding the market with no-name journals to cream off academic funding (a long tail economy), or if you want your publications to be visible and of status pay through the nose for established journals. We seem to be heading for a two-tier publishing economy.

I fear that a completely new dynamic will shake up the academic publishing market, where the more established journals charge fees that are essentially unaffordable, whereas no-name newcomers emerge everywhere, but leave you wondering about the viability, reach, and longevity of the series, and what effect your submission might have on your visibility and career.

{lang: 'en-GB'}

At a recent book sprint in London for an Open Education Handbook, I followed an interesting presentation by Phil Barker (CETIS) based on this article.

We all know about the many different interpretations and uses of the word “openness” and “open something” (open source, open data, open educational resources, etc. etc.). The interesting bit here is the moral interpretation of openness.

2013-09-12_111633

One key point to note is that openness can be commercial. Patents can be “open” in that they can allow other developers to build and innovate on them. This means, “open” does not directly equate to “free of charge”, although it can be. “Open” could also refer to the freedom to distribute. Press releases typically operate in this sphere, because their authors are interested in their texts to be copied, distributed, and even re-written by others, whose name will be on the published article.

Where moral interpretations of openness get really interesting is on the dark side of the law. According to this spectrum graph above, and as we all know only too well, the legalities of content are quite often ignored. On the simple most common scale people just ignore IPR and distribution rights. Sharing music and other stuff with friends is common practice (and has been for a long time). This type of (ab)use is very common in education when failing to reference the creator/author of items, or when using copyright protected materials in teaching.

Above and beyond this, producing illegal copies, counterfeit products and/or claiming someone else’s work as one’s own are definitely more serious forms of brute-force “openness” that equates to theft. However, it is quite common practice that in academia professors claim IPR over student work or putting their name on their articles without any major contribution.

 

{lang: 'en-GB'}

This is another very useful tool to manage your cloud and Web 2.0 accounts: justdelete.me

justdelete.me

If your accounts proliferate like mine all over the Internet, with more and more services that require registration just to see what they are all about and whether they are worth while using, then this service comes in handy. I typically use a throwaway e-mail, username and password for testing new sites, but since I do put in some content and profile data, it is useful to also have an easy way to removing them if no longer required.

Justdelete.me provides an easy traffic light (green-yellow-red) notation on how easy it is to delete an account in various services. Black signifies that deletion of your profile and account is impossible. The unpleasant surprise was that among these were services I value a lot, like wikipedia, myopenid and wordpress.com.

Interesting also the MOOC providers:

coursera justdelete.me

udacity justdelete.me

edX justdelete.me

Coursera has made it ‘hard’ to delete an account whereas EdX and Udacity have no facility to delete. Now this could also herald a new way of self-destruction after time-out, as has often been asked for in personal data management and privacy fora, where the Internet should be engineered to be able to “forget”. Unfortunately, in the days and age of Big Data, this is probably not what is happening to our data…

 

 

{lang: 'en-GB'}

Next Page »