Corporatism run amok

by

I am beginning to think that corporatism is the root of much evil.

It starts by focusing on profit above all else. There is nothing wrong with making a profit, as I even try to do this, so that I can feed and clothe my family. The problem begins when you do this “above all else”. When corporations were granted rights of persons, without any social or moral obligations, we started down a slippery slope as a society. Now we have too many people making their livings on behalf of a disembodied entity that only wants to make profit.

Add to this amoral mix the notion that ideas can be owned and patented. For instance, software programs, consisting of nothing more than lines of code, are ideas. So now we have an information society, moving into a knowledge society, where some greedy people think that corporations should own ideas and make profits off these ideas for a very long time. The problem is that we cannot grow as a society without the free flow of ideas. Patenting ideas will slow down our collective ability to learn. However, the US Patent Office thinks that it is a good thing to protect ideas, as do other national patent offices.

Take for instance a software company that has bought and borrowed ideas from multiple public sources (processes, code, how-to) and put a brand on it and called it a unique idea. So far, no one has taken the idea to patent the concept of zero and stop further development of any computer programs (see The People Who Owned the Bible, for another analogy). In the case of computer code or ideas, it is impossible to say where the original idea started. In the case of ideas, pretty well everything is based on some prior art.

I have been accused of being an “open source evangelist” for several years. My support of open source as a system for innovation and sharing of ideas stems from my short, but intensive period in the corporate world. Here I saw many cases of greed and arrogance wrapped in the corporate flag. I saw little original thought and many corporate entities had the capability to suck the humanity out of those who climbed the ladder. The open source community is transparent, rewards merit and gives everything back to the community. That cannot be said for any corporation.

Last year I asked, “Is intellectual property an oxymoron?“. Using property laws for ideas only serves the lawyers and the existing power structure. It does not advance individual freedoms nor the public good. Now I am certain that intellectual property laws must be changed if we are to advance as a knowledge society. We cannot have corporate interests defining the direction of our society by patenting ideas that belong to all of us.

This is a big issue; but we citizens, voters and taxpayers have to frame the conversation with our elected officials. Let’s start with one fundamental concept – Ideas cannot be patented.

Update: here is a new site, No Education Patents! that may become a rallying point for the learning community.

Sir Ken Robinson on TED Talks

by

Spend fifteen minutes and listen to Sir Ken Robinson speaking about education and creativity at this year’s Technology, Entertainment, Design Talks. Here are some snippets from his hilarious, but at the same time serious, presentation:

it’s education that’s meant to take us into this future that we can’t grasp

creativity now is as important in education as literacy, and we should treat it with the same status

if you’re not prepared to be wrong, you’ll never come up with anything original

we are educating people out of their creative capacities

suddenly degrees aren’t worth anything

our education system has mined our minds in the way that we have strip-mined the earth for a particular commodity

Blackboard Sues D2L over LMS Patent

by

Well I guess the rumours are true. Not only did Blackboard receive a comprehensive patent (US and other countries) on LMS technology, but they have filed a suit against Canadian company Desire2Learn – their main competitor in the academic market. The Inquirer has posted a PDF of the suit, filed on 26 July 2006, which states:

“… including but not limited to all D2L products based on the D2L learning system or platform, such as the D2L eLearning Technology Suite, which includes the D2L eLearning Environment, Learning Repository and Live Room, and all services supporting these D2L products, such as hosting services, training services, help desk support services, implementation and customization professional services, and content services.”

Personally, I don’t really care if one corporation sues another, as that seems to be in their nature. I’ve also noted in my last post that the course online model may have reached the end of its natural life anyway. However, there is still cause for concern. If Blackboard wins the suit, then some open source communities, such as Moodle, may be next in line.

It will depend on how generous the courts are in determining the extent of Blackboard’s patent. Blackboard’s claim is extensive, comprising 44 claims with the US Patent Office:

1. A course-based system for providing to an educational community of users access to a plurality of online courses, comprising: a) a plurality of user computers, with each user computer being associated with a user of the system and with each user being capable of having predefined characteristics indicative of multiple predetermined roles in the system, each role providing a level of access to a plurality of data files associated with a particular course and a level of control over the data files associated with the course with the multiple predetermined user roles comprising at least two user’s predetermined roles selected from the group consisting of a student role in one or more course associated with a student user, an instructor role in one or more courses associated with an instructor user and an administrator role associated with an administrator user, and b) a server computer in communication with each of the user computers over a network, the server computer comprising: means for storing a plurality of data files associated with a course, means for assigning a level of access to and control of each data file based on a user of the system’s predetermined role in a course; means for determining whether access to a data file associated with the course is authorized; means for allowing access to and control of the data file associated with the course if authorization is granted based on the access level of the user of the system.

2. The system of claim 1 wherein the instructor user is provided with an access level to enable the creation and editing of a plurality of files associated with a course.

3. The system of claim 2 wherein the course files comprise an announcement file.

4. The system of claim 2 wherein the course files comprise a course information file.

5. The system of claim 2 wherein the course files comprise a staff information file posted to all registered in the course.

6. The system of claim 2 wherein the course files comprise a course document file posted to all registered in the course.

7. The system of claim 2 wherein the course files comprise an assignments file posted to all registered in the course.

8. The system of claim 2 wherein the course files comprise a dropbox file.

9. The system of claim 2 wherein the course files comprise an asynchronous communication file.

10. The system of claim 2 wherein the course files comprise a synchronous communication file.

11. The system of claim 2 wherein the student user is provided with an access level to enable reading of a plurality of files associated with a course.

12. The system of claim 11 wherein the student user is provided with an access level to enable modification of a subset of the plurality of files associated with a course.

13. The system of claim 11 wherein the user is provided with an access level to enable creation of a student file associated with a file for which the student user is able to read.

14. The system of claim 13 in which the file that the student is able to read is an assessment file created by the instructor user, and the student file created by the student user is a response to the assessment file.

15. The system of claim 14 wherein the assessment file comprises a plurality of examination questions selected by the instructor user to assess the ability of the student user.

16. The system of claim 15 wherein the examination questions are selected by the instructor user from a predetermined pool of available examination questions.

17. The system of claim 15 wherein the examination questions are created by the instructor user substantially at the time of the creation of the assessment file.

18. The system of claim 15 wherein the student file is reviewed by the instructor user and assigned a grade.

19. The system of claim 18 wherein the grade is made available to the student user.

20. The system of claim 18 wherein the instructor user collates a plurality of grades obtained from reviewing a plurality of student files, and wherein the collated grades are made available to all student users associated with the course.

21. The system of claim 13 in which the file that the student is able to read is an assignment file created by the instructor user, and the student file created by the student user is a response to the assignment file.

22. The system of claim 8 wherein the dropbox file comprises a plurality of files transferred to the server computer from one or more student users associated with the course.

23. The system of claim 22 wherein the instructor user is provided with access to the files in the dropbox file, whereby the instructor user may download, edit and upload the files in the dropbox.

24. The system of claim 1 wherein a user is required to enter a login sequence into a user computer in order to be provided with access to course files associated with that user.

25. The system of claim 24 wherein the user is provided with access to all courses with which the user is associated after entry of the logon sequence.

26. The system of claim 25 wherein the user is provided with a web page comprising a plurality of course hyperlinks, each of said course hyperlinks associated with each course that the user has enrolled in.

27. The system of claim 26 wherein selection of a course hyperlink will provide the user with a web page associated with the selected course, the web page comprising a plurality of content hyperlinks to various content areas associated with the course.

28. The system of claim 27 wherein said content hyperlinks comprise an announcement area hyperlink, a course information hyperlink, a staff information hyperlink, a course documents hyperlink, an assignments hyperlink, a communications hyperlink, and a student tools hyperlink.

29. The system of claim 28 wherein selection of the announcement area hyperlink provides a web page comprising a group of course announcements.

30. The system of claim 28 wherein selection of the course information hyperlink provides a web page comprising information regarding the associated course.

31. The system of claim 28 wherein selection of the staff information hyperlink provides a web page comprising data regarding the instructors of the associated course.

32. The system of claim 28 wherein selection of the course documents hyperlink provides a web page comprising a listing of documents associated with the course.

33. The system of claim 32 wherein the listing of course documents comprise active hyperlinks to the documents.

34. The system of claim 28 wherein selection of the assignments hyperlink provides a web page comprising a group of course assignments.

35. The system of claim 28 wherein selection of the communications hyperlink provides a web page comprising hyperlinks to a group of communication tools comprising an asynchronous communication tool and a synchronous communication tool.

36. An method for providing online education method for a community of users in a network based system comprising the steps of: a. establishing that each user is capable of having redefined characteristics indicative of multiple predetermined roles in the system and each role providing a level of access to and control of a plurality of course files; b. establishing a course to be offered online, comprising i. generating a set of course files for use with teaching a course; ii. transferring the course files to a server computer for storage; and iii. allowing access to and control of the course files according to the established roles for the users according to step (a); c. providing a predetermined level of access and control over the network to the course files to users with an established role as a student user enrolled in the course; and d. providing a predetermined level of access and control over the network to the course files to users with an established role other than a student user enrolled in the course.

37. The method of claim 36 wherein at least one of the course files comprises a course assignment, further comprising the steps of: e) the student user creating a student file in response to the course assignment; and f) the student user transferring the student file to the server computer.

38. The method of claim 37 further comprising the steps of: g) the instructor user accessing the student file from the server computer; h) the instructor user reviewing the student file to determine compliance with the course assignment; and i) the instructor user assigning a grade to the student file as a function of the determination of compliance with the course assignment.

39. The method of claim 38 further comprising the step of the instructor user posting the grade to a file on the server computer accessible only to the student user with which the grade is associated.

40. The method of claim 38 further comprising the steps of the instructor repeating the steps (g), (h), and (i) for a plurality of student users that are enrolled in the course.

41. The method of claim 40 further comprising the step of the instructor user performing a statistical analysis on the grades assigned to the plurality of student users.

42. The method of claim 41 further comprising the step of making results of the statistical analysis available to the student users enrolled in the course.

43. The method of claim 36 further comprising the step of providing an asynchronous communication tool accessible to student users enrolled in the course for enabling asynchronous communication amongst the student users.

44. The method of claim 36 further comprising the step of providing a synchronous communication tool accessible to student users enrolled in the course for enabling synchronous communication amongst the student users.

Sorry about the long blockquote, but I think that it’s important to consider that these kinds of functions can be found not just in LMS but also LCMS and even some non-traditional online learning systems. Is there an online learning system, proprietary or open source, that does not include ANY of these functions?

Update: On reviewing these 44 items, I would say that Elgg Learning Landscape does not use any of these. So, I guess that makes your decision easy. Choose Elgg if you want a lawsuit-free learning system ;-)

Blackboard patents the LMS, but does it matter?

by

Via Stephen Downes, is this post by Michael Feldstein that Blackboard (aka BlackWeb) has been granted a US patent on the learning management system (LMS). My initial reaction was indignation that a greedy corporation was once again trying to stifle innovation in education. Then I read Brent Schlenker’s reaction to my post on the lack of open source learning applications, and Brent correctly noted that there are a lot of learning applications, just not that many “educational” ones;

My point is that we don’t need any specific open source learning applications. That would be just another thing that people need to learn…another interface to learn…another login id and password to remember. We are at our best when we evaluate the existing technologies and leverage them for the purpose of learning. We are at our worst when we try to create our own little system and call it the Learning thingy.

The Blackboard patent may become a defining moment for learning technologies. Let’s use this as an opportunity to cast off the classroom and course metaphors:

In yet another aspect of the invention, provided is a method for providing online education, which includes the steps of establishing a course to be offered online, offering the course to be taken online to a group of student users; and providing access over the network to the course files to a student user who has enrolled in the course. The establishment of the course includes an instructor user generating a set of course files for use with teaching the course, then transferring the course files to a server computer for storage thereat, and then making access to the course files available to a predefined community of student users having access to the server computer over a network.

Let’s use all those wonderful Web 2.0 tools for learning, not schooling. Blackboard spent a lot of time and money filing for this patent and they can have it, because it has no value. It’s no longer about online courses, it’s about learning and performing.

LMS? We don’t need no stinking LMS!

Where are open source learning applications?

by

I’ve previously discussed the use of open source for the learning sector as well as the business models that could work for learning applications. Matt Asay has posted his OSCON presentation on open source business models that shows how the field has developed and how different projects are at various levels of maturity.

200387413_cba1d83596.jpg

Now if you look at open source platforms in the learning space, my first take would put these on the curve:

  • Innovators – Elgg Learning Landscape and several others
  • Early Adopters – Moodle and a few others
  • Early Majority – nobody
  • Late Majority – forget about it

Read the rest of Asay’s presentation to see what strategies are necessary at these stages.

Informl Learning Unworkshop 3

by

Our next informl learning unworkshop, hosted by Jay Cross, with Judy Brown and myself, starts next week. We’re pretty close to full but there is room for a few more people. If you’re interested, check it out now, as the first session is on Tuesday August 1st.

This will be slower-paced than the last unworkshop, as it will be spread over almost two months, until September 19th.

Learning with Blogs, Wikis, and Web 2.0 Tools
An unworkshop for trainers, instructional designers, and learning managers

Army Knowledge Management

by

Federal Computer Week (FCW) reports how the US Army is implementing knowledge management at the operational and tactical level. Here is a prime example:

In this particular case, Iraqi insurgents placed an IED [improvised explosive device] behind a poster with anti-American slogans. A soldier noticed that the poster looked different from others he had observed, so he entered information about the suspicious sighting into BCKS. A threaded discussion developed online while specialists evaluated the potential threat. When they confirmed the soldier’s suspicions, the Army sent a message via the system to alert other units about the insurgents’ new method of concealing IEDs.

The article goes on to discuss the details of knowledge management activities that enable junior officers to share information based on the current operational reality. However, it seems that the Army hierarchy is not learning as quickly as the grass-roots:

The Army is a hierarchical institution in which a natural tension exists between junior officers and the Army brass, who want junior officers to follow Army doctrine to the letter. But junior officers who have been deployed in Iraq often feel that doctrine is out-of-date and that they know best based on their experiences on the battlefield.

A grass-roots movement to transform the service from the bottom-up has created tremendously valuable communities of practice, but Army doctrine has been slow to adapt.

There is a similar tension in large organisations in the civilian world. I recently tried to work with a large company in responding to a government Request for Proposals (RFP). Being outside the company, I knew who at the company had previous experience with similar projects, while the employees with whom we were working did not. I also knew the strategic value of this RFP, which was information not easily available to the employees with whom we were working. It seemed as if the company’s structure was designed to thwart us as we tried to develop a proposal.

In the end, it took over two weeks to get the information to the person who would have been interested and authorised to write a proposal, but by then it was too late. We didn’t respond to the RFP because it took too long to get the information up the chain of command. I wonder how many other opportunities have been lost by the company this year?

At some point in the future we will realise that our hierarchical organisational structures are outdated and do not work when you have cheap and easy communications and a relatively free flow of information. That will not happen until businesses experience great pain and, in the Army’s case, not until more soldiers have died.

chat_icon_01.png

For knowledge workers, where you live is not where you work

by

From NineShift is this interesting statistic:

Corporate offices in New York City grew to 602 last year from 274 in 1990. But while the head office is moving to New York, the average number of jobs in those head offices declined to 78 from 127. All the other employees are staying in cheaper locations. The NineShift lesson for today folks: business relocation in this century does not mean job relocation. Just like the CEO is moving to his/her favorite city today, more knowledge workers will relocate wherever they please. Disconnecting the job from the business location-wise.

Combine this with the other statistics I recently noted, that show how young people first want to choose where they will live, and then decide what kind of work they want to do and for whom. Location is still very important; just for different reasons.

As I develop the business plan for our Commons, I have this strong feeling that if we can make our community an attractive place to live and work then the economic development will follow. This is not a traditional strategy, particularly in the Maritimes, where our politicians are usually chasing larger companies to locate a plant or branch office here. I’m focused on people, not companies.

A key difference in a knowledge economy is that the workers truly own the means of production. Low cost tools, such as computers and other hardware, make the barriers to entry into the knowledge economy relatively low. Low cost hardware has been the prime reason for our recent economic growth, according to Mark Cuban:

It’s not the net, it’s the applications stupid !

Falling costs to create, host and deliver digital bits enable entrepreneurs to be entrepreneurial. Kids can save enough money these days to buy a computer and create applications their friends can use and maybe even buy year round for less than they can buy a decent lawnmower to mow lawns with only in the summer.

Our Commons will comprise a work commons, like the Queen Street Commons, but will also be open to non-profits in the environmental and cultural sectors. These are two areas that are of great interest, and passion, for many educated younger people. They are also the strengths of our community. I think that this combination of entrepreneurial work commons, combined with an active social sector, will help us to attract a critical mass of people. We have additional challenges, compared to larger centres, in growing our knowledge sector in Sackville (pop. ±5,000). My aim is to be a choice living destination for a few dozen more creative people, and I’m sure that we can do that.

The business plan development for the Commons is moving forward, and I hope to be able to post a summary of our business model here shortly. That should be followed with the announcement of a location, but these things always take longer than anticipated.

More inter-disciplinary projects

by

Dave Weinberger links to this report on what may be an indicator of the future structure of academia:

Ninety-nine “top” Harvard professors are calling for the ceation of a new coordinating committee with the power to hire 75 science faculty for research that doesn’t fit comfortably within a single established discipline, according to an article in the Boston Globe today. The committee would also have the power to allocate funding for inter-disciplinary projects.

This reminds me of The Medici Effect, where the author shows how exponential innovations that can occur when examining one field through the lens of another field.

In the 1960’s we saw the rise of inter-curriculum studies, such as Canadian studies, combining courses from various academic disciplines, but no major changes in the major disciplines. With the Internet and easier connections to colleagues in other fields, or even outside an academic field, will interdisciplinary studies become the dominant mode for higher education? And if so, what happens to the traditional disciplines?