Well said Simon. Do you keep a blog I'm not aware of? I'd like to be following this type of advice and insight.
Regarding very slight change all too slowly... The thing I am seeing more and more of in the institutions and the people like me that have been in them for far too long, is the adoption of the rhetoric but not the action. I am seeing many projects get funded based on their 'participatory' models, their openness, their 'action' research. But in reality they don't have anything near participation or openness, and as a result very little action to then research. Simple things like, a fella in charge of a project organising a public seminar to launch the project, in which 3 other fellas position themselves centre stage and proceed to TELL everyone what they have planned. Typically, they have not organised any back channel, their feedback loop (if they have one) involves sending an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] that gets no reply. And at the end of the seminar people walk out feeling ripped off that they missed their fav TV show to attend it and NOT participate. I'm sure this is the way it has always been, but today it is even worse because we have all the lobby and research that says participation and oppenness is the way, and the government and funding bodies are positioning their criteria for this, but the measures and accountability for participation and oppeness are not in place. As a result, millions of $ are being awarded to some projects for people who are simply good at wearing rhetoric without really changing their action. Their reports end up the same camelion output. I hope all this ranting is trikiing a chord your end, because I am seeing it more and more, and it is concerning me a great deal. So, your suggestion to get the grant and do it 'ourselves'. Would we do it any better? Given that to get the grant we have to adopt both theirs and our rhetoric AND be accountable to that? The projects I am a part of that have that accountability involve so many compromises that its easy to lose sight of what you were trying to do in the first place. How can we obtain resources and retain the freedom to act and react quickly and spontaneously like we have done so all along? Is this what the US ideology of free markets and corporatism is trying to tell us? This self organising principle based on a very simple funding arrangement of user pays and demand... I'm starting to wonder off and become incoherent (if I'm not totally that way already). In short, it seems that we ARE doing it already, and each of us individually dragging our institutional blobs and resources along with us. I have managed to position my job and its performance indicators so that my work with Wikieducator can be sustained. So in that way, the institution I am working in is changing, and I have the freedom to act and react in that new framework. When I started, they would have had me work in their LMS. So if we can get enough people doing that (positioning their job into this Wikied utility web service), we might start seeing more sustained resources into Wikieducator's participatory and open model, and the individual freedoms with that. At the moment, I suspect that most people are simply dabbling in Wikieducator and are doing so outside their job description and performance indicators. So either things like WIkieducaor continue on that path and be patient, CoL and other facilitators doing what they can to promote and develop it. And/or we find a way that will suddenly tip the balance in a Google/Youtube kind of way that involves us getting a large amount of money and working outside our institutions with a very to subverting them... On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 7:02 AM, simonfj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Leigh, Peter, > > Hope you don't mind me piping in. Just reading the conversation. "So > say all of us". You mentioned 'utility computing', which is a banner > that might grow legs if only wikieducator's (for one) global groups > might act as the hub for funding rather than your individual > institutions. I guess the hardest thing to believe for people who > mostly work in institutions is believing research AND development > should be funded through their institutions. > > If you read what major donors like HP are saying, they're struggling > to find ways that encourage the silos to collaborate. All the millions > flow out, and the only effect, especially in the Open Education > Resources Space, is the constant repetition of "me too" course > materials, marketed by babies, to a world overloaded with information. > > http://www.hewlett.org/Programs/Education/OER/OpenContent/Hewlett+OER+Report.htm > > The institutions will not change their habits, primarily because they > have people like you in them. If you were to walk out the door and > say, thanks very much but I can do a lot more with my global mates, do > you think things might change a bit faster? So never believe THEY are > going to change. They, and their routines, will become more or less > relevant as time goes on. That''s always been the way of institutions. > (I mean routines, not just architecture) > > So you can talk forever about your frustrations with them or you can > start working on a grant for funding, and what you would do with the > pennies. And if you are successful in achieving some goal, you'll > probably get more funding. That's just the way of the real world. In > the meantime, all we can do is talk and talk and talk and........... > > BTW Leigh, remember that silo called edna? They've just started a > thing called me.edu.au. I don't think they've realized that they've > started a learning account for all Aussies. But now they've let the > cat out of the bag, they can't put it back. Now if only i knew some > people who had the same type of account in different countries. They > might get the NREN's engineers to begin aligning their pipes to suit > their global groups rather than their National institutions. In the > meantime, we'll just have to talk here, with our heads in a cloud. > > On Apr 22, 2:13 pm, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Leigh, > > > > I'm not sure if you said ...jobs on the line... with tongue in cheek? > > but all the institutions I have worked for [colleges and universities > > (particularly recently)] have had problems filling IT positions. And > > when I consider global demand for experienced IT people I don't think > > job losses should be an issue. I think it's more conceptual and local > > competition between institutions. I just don't think the current crop > > of senior institutional management truly understand the concept of a > > national or regional shared service and the huge financial benefits it > > could provide. Well have to wait for a change of the senior management > > guard before we can make great headway... > > > > On Apr 21, 5:57 pm, "Leigh Blackall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > it would be hey James.. there must be organisations out there that do > that. > > > I heard that Apple Australia issue macs in a box to all their > employees, and > > > then it is up to them to work out how to get them running and keep them > > > running. > > > > > I think Utility web services with networked users and support is > clearly the > > > way to go.. why is it taking IT units so long to catch on? Oh, I know.. > jobs > > > on the line.. > > > > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:05 AM, James Neill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > Perhaps uni's provide minimal baseline IT service. Students and > staff > > > > then receive their proportion of IT budget to spend it how they see > fit. > > > > That would fun to see. > > > > > > Leigh Blackall wrote: > > > > > > Yes, that's precisely what I am thinking. Utility internet services, > > > > wireless, and individually owned units. And then some. > > > > > > Cost of ICTs is covered by institutional budgets, that are > suplimented by > > > > government funding, as well as student fees... so indirectly the cost > of > > > > ICTs affects student fees. > > > > > > So, from a campaign perspective, one would have to be careful when > > > > lobbying and then over seeing such a cost reduction proposal, that it > did > > > > indeed have a direct impact of student fees. A bit like global aid > money.. > > > > we have to follow the trail all the way to the end to make sure it > gets to > > > > those who need. > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 6:03 AM, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > > Leigh, > > > > > > > Upon reading this reply I believe we have considerable alignment on > > > > > this issue. A few questions on this topic as I believe them > imporatnt > > > > > to this conversation. > > > > > > > 1) Someone pays for access somehow. To say your institution > provides > > > > > access for free I would question this. Where is the cost for this > > > > > infrastructure covered? In student tuition fees? or internal to the > > > > > institutions budget? Or is it provided for free by national > > > > > infrastructure budgets? Other? > > > > > 2) No need to go on... But I wonder if NZ has an initiative to > create > > > > > an academic shared service for much of this infrastructure. One > thing > > > > > I have been advocating for is national (or provincial, as in > Canada) > > > > > shared service for many of the items you have listed. Just imagine > how > > > > > great it would be if there was a NZ national infrastructure for all > > > > > this. I could see at least six of these items moved into this > national > > > > > infrastructure and the costs shared among all the institutions of > > > > > learning that consume it. (that would be great savings for each > > > > > institution) Just think of the competative advantage NZ > institutions > > > > > could have in the global distance ed space if they pulled this off. > So > > > > > much more money would be made available for the development of > courses > > > > > not in dealing with infrastructure... > > > > > > > Then make a deal with ASUS and give every student an Eee PC 900 > with > > > > > very little (or maybe no) increase to tuition fees... > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > On Apr 18, 6:45 pm, "Leigh Blackall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > > In our institution, we provide access... > > > > > > > > This means: > > > > > > > > Terminals = NZ$2000 x 100s > > > > > > Support perosonel = $40 000 per year x 6 > > > > > > Internet provision = 10s of 1000s per year > > > > > > Software on terminals = $700 x 100s > > > > > > Maitenance = $500 per terminal per year (includes depreciation) > > > > > > Periphials = $500 - $1000 per terminal per year > > > > > > Servers = $15 000 > > > > > > Website = Team of 4 @ at least $40 000 each per year > > > > > > Server software = 10's $1000 > > > > > > Staff training = $100 000 per year > > > > > > > > should I go on? > > > > > > > > ICT is far from cheap, and is probably the single most expensive > cost. > > > > > > Rethinking the way we do all these things - such as FOSS, $500 > > > > > laptops, > > > > > > Wireless etc etc.. could save huge money > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Leigh, > > > > > > > > > I am curious why you think it is mostly about rethinking ICT > > > > > budgets? > > > > > > > At present the internet is pretty much a free and shared > service > > > > > > > available to all education. Once you have access, there isn't > that > > > > > > > much you cannot do for free on the web. I'll go back to the > > > > > beginning > > > > > > > of this thread and re-state, I believe it has more to do with > > > > > > > rethinking assessment (or support) and accreditation, and > making > > > > > these > > > > > > > two open... Are you suggesting the ICT budgets be moved out of > the > > > > > > > institutions hands and put elsewhere (funding access, or > further > > > > > > > funding the internet as a global shared service)? > > > > > > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > > On Apr 17, 1:37 pm, "Leigh Blackall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Free as in cost is something I'm interested in. Indulge me on > the > > > > > > > following: > > > > > > > > > > Music will survive long after its institutions die > > > > > > > > Journalism will survive long after its institutions die > > > > > > > > Education will survive long after its institutions die > > > > > > > > > > (Inspired by a recent post by George Siemens) > > > > > > > > > > Granted, there will be a lot of loses, but with that > impending > > > > > doom as a > > > > > > > > possible future for educational institutions, it is > interesting to > > > > > > > imagine > > > > > > > > how education might be post apocalypse? > > > > > > > > > > Recently, I have been looking at student debt in New Zealand, > > > > > their > > > > > > > costs of > > > > > > > > living, the sacrifices they have to make to get an > education.. and > > > > > then > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > cost to institutions for offering the education services. I'm > > > > > convinced > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > we could get the cost way way down, to a point where it could > be > > > > > > > conceivably > > > > > > > > free - so long as there is about 60% public funding behind > current > > > > > > > education > > > > > > > > services, as it seems there is in NZ. And that's without > changing > > > > > much > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > the way of education practice - most of it comes from > rethinking > > > > > ICT > > > > > > > > budgets.. we in this thread are only skimming the surface of > what > > > > > the > > > > > > > future > > > > > > > > may look like... > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 8:31 PM, vmensah < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > so it will not be called free in terms of cost, but "free" > in > > > > > terms of > > > > > > > > > access to materials. > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 26, 10:47 pm, "David Wiley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Peter, > > > > > > > > > > > > The content will be open to everyone, but enrollment in > the > > > > > school > > > > > > > > > > will be restricted to those in the state of Utah (since > the > > > > > state > > > > > > > govt > > > > > > > > > > pays the bills). > > > > > > > > > > > > D > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:39 AM, Peter < > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > David, > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is great to read. What an amazing step to put all > this > > > > > > > forward > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > > > an OER Highschool. You say it will be free to students > in > > > > > Utah, > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > > students outside of Utah still have access? Or will > all > > > > > this just > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > "open" within the state of Utah? And therefore be used > to > > > > > prove > > > > > > > out > > > > > > > > > > > the model... > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is one thing that jumps out at me from within > this > > > > > > > discussion > > > > > > > > > > > thread. Are we mis-using the word "Education" within > OER. > > > > > As we > > > > > > > seem > > > > > > > > > > > to have agreement that Education is the whole, where > > > > > learning is > > > > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > > you do with the resources. Education includes the > > > > > assessment, > > > > > > > > > > > accreditation, etc. that the educational institutions > > > > > provide. > > > > > > > > > > > Shouldn't we really be calling these materials Open > > > > > Learning > > > > > > > > > Resources > > > > > > > > > > > (OLR). My point being (in the context of this Bissell > > > > > article; > > > > > > > > http://learn.creativecommons.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/bissellbo. > > > > > > > .. > > > > > > > > > > > Don't we require Open Access Assessment and Open > Access > > > > > > > Accrediation > > > > > > > > > > > before we can achieve OER? Because this then makes > free the > > > > > whole > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > > Education. Wikipedia and Open Source have nothing > > > > > restraining > > > > > > > their > > > > > > > > > > > domain toward openness. OER has a huge restraint in > that > > > > > > > Assessment > > > > > > > > > > > and Accreditation are still closed. As we stumble > toward > > > > > OER > > > > > > > don't we > > > > > > > > > > > need to wrestle it (assessment, accreditaion) away > from the > > > > > > > > > > > institutions (like MIT, UNESCO, OU, etc) and also make > it > > > > > open > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > > > free? And not until we have wrestled it away, OERs > success > > > > > will > > > > > > > be > > > > > > > > > > > restrained. I wonder what Paulo Friere would have to > say > > > > > about > > > > ... > > > > read more ยป > > > -- -- Leigh Blackall +64(0)21736539 skype - leigh_blackall SL - Leroy Goalpost http://learnonline.wordpress.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WikiEducator" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
