Learning

Learning

Open source: The sensible learning platform

by

In my mind there is little doubt that open source software really makes the most sense for learning. Learning is messy and one size does not fit everyone. Whether you approach it from a socio-constructivist perspective, as a behaviourist or only focus on the anticipated return on investment, there is no one correct way to support learning.

This means that whatever path you take, it will not be the best for everyone at all times. I suggest that you hedge your bets and invest in people instead of technology. Open source software lets you do this. Whether the case be for training or education, your major investment should NOT be in your technology. You would be better served if you cobbled together some free, open source learning applications and then invested in people to deal with the core performance issues. This "how to" support would be worth more than any fancy graphical user interface within a corporate learning portal.

For instance, I recently came across some figures for the cost of portals. Costs for proprietary systems ranged from $10,000 per processor to $125,000 per server. Using free, open source software, you could easily hire two full-time workers people for the cost of the more expensive system. Perhaps one person to handle the technical issues and the other to focus on the learning processes. In this way you would have money to spare as well as a more flexible operating model. There may be cases where you will need to purchase software but this only should be in order to meet a particular requirement that is critical for your organisation. It could be a specific online conferencing utility or perhaps a scheduling system suited to your industry. Just remember to check out the open source options first.

In the learning business, if an application meets 80% of your "wish list" requirements, then it will probably do the job in the long run. In most cases there is a suitable open source application that can address your needs. Therefore, don’t waste the bulk of your budget on your technology platform but invest it in good tools, instructors, processes, peer support groups or anything else that will benefit the learners every day. There is too much shelfware [applications that sit on the shelf and gather dust] out there to really believe that any technology will address all of your learning needs. It’s about the people …

Change comes slowly

by

Yesterday we finished a strategic planning exercise at Mancomm and we had to decide what to do next. As the only New Brunswicker with this Montreal-based company, I’m usually far from the head office. I mentioned that we should put the strategic plan on our intranet as a wiki, so that we could continue to refine it. This seemed very natural to our group and the consensus was to publish the plan as a wiki..

On the other hand, I’m involved in a number of other initiatives where I receive dozens of emails per day, most of them prefaced by "Re:Fwd:Re:Fwd" etc. We all complain about email overload, but most of us still revert to the old patterns of ten years ago – just send an email.

I know that we don’t like to change and that many of us like our familiar patterns, but with technology changing like crazy we should all be trying at least one new business productivity technology every year. If not, we’ll look like those dinosaurs in the MS commercials that are popping up all over the place. So if you haven’t tried blogs, wikis, feedreaders, iPods, or whatever else, then get off your comfortable bottoms and try something new. You have nothing to lose but your antediluvian chains.

Open Source Content in Health

by

Last week I was discussing the challenges of using open source methods for the development of courses at the community college level. Here is an example of open content made available through Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health:

A Wealth of Knowledge Free to the World: JHSPH OpenCourseWare
The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health’s OpenCourseWare (OCW) project, provides access to the School’s most popular courses.
The Bloomberg School’s OCW:

  • does not require that participants register;
  • does not grant degrees or certificates;
  • does not provide access to JHSPH faculty

This can be the end result of open source content, but I’m still wondering if anyone out there has used open source development methods inside an organisation?

Putting your body and soul into your work

by

Here’s a slightly changed excerpt from a book that I think many working folks could relate to:

Of course, everyone spoke ill of his profession, but, basically, it was all a question of selling his time, like everyone else. Doing things he didn’t want to do, like everyone else. Putting up with horrible people, like everyone else. Handing over his precious body and his precious soul in the name of a future that never arrived, like everyone else. Saying that he still didn’t have enough, like everyone else. Waiting just a bit longer, like everyone else. Waiting so that he cold earn just a little bit more, postponing the realization of his dreams; he was too busy right now, he had great opportunities ahead of him, loyal clients who were waiting for him. . ."

Before you check out the link, ask yourself this question, "What is the profession of the subject of this story?" Make a note of it, and then go to Anita Sharpe’s post at Worthwhile.

Learning through Blogging

by

When you write a blog, your thoughts and comments, right or wrong, stay online for a long time. In reviewing what I have been jabbing about for the past year, I’ve pieced together some of my previous conclusions – warts & all:

Starting with learning in general:

It seems pretty clear; the basic unit of learning is the person. This person is indivisible. All learning activities, products and strategies must be centered around the person. We can then go on to develop environments for many people, but the individual is the building block – not the learning object, the course, the programme, or the institution. All of these are temporary organisations that the individual may use, or be part of.

And moving on to learning at work:

My conclusion for a while has been that knowledge cannot be managed, and neither can knowledge workers. It will take a new social contract between workers and organisations in order to create an optimally functioning enterprise. Adding management and technology won’t help either. This is the crux of everything in the new "right-sized, lean, innovative, creative" economy – getting the right balance between the organisational structure and the knowledge workers.

However:

Training without clear performance objectives, that are relevant to each learner, is useless.

And on the positive side:

What’s exciting about workflow learning is that the technology has caught up to some of the theory, and the globalized economy is making workflow learning (or something resembling it) a necessity.

Not only possible, but cheap:

An organisation’s entire KM effort could start with simple technologies. It could provide a blog to everyone, letting workers blog as they wanted. RSS aggregators could keep an eye on blogs of interest, and maybe even a blog rating system could be included in the performance management system. Yes, the better writers would get better rankings, but so would those who solve problems. A bottom-up approach to KM, at a minimal cost, makes a lot more sense than betting that some centralized system, with a huge training bill, will solve all of our problems.

Because:

What I like best about open source is that the development process is a real meritocracy, much like being an entrepreneur. In small business, if you don’t deliver, you can’t make an honest living.

And finally:

Informal learning, facilitated by the likes of blogs & wikis, works well for general education, and for continued learning outside of the "classroom". Informal learning (education in the broadest sense) is messy by its very nature. Training, such as how to drive a car, can use a more scientific method to
optimize training time, achieve the desired performance and reduce the risk of accidents. Training and education can even use the same tools, like simulations, but not the same approach. Education and training are complementary, but distinct.

Still a work in progress ;-)

Conference on Engaging in Open Source

by

The ACM Chapter at Dalhousie University in Halifax is hosting the Conference on Engaging in OS on 12/13 May. Invited speakers include folks from Sun and the Department of National Defence. Exploring the Business of Open Source by Brian Barry looks interesting. The organisers are still calling for papers, but I cannot find any information on how to register or the cost of admission. Anyone else know more about this?

I’d be willing to carpool if any New Brunswickers or PE Islanders want to head down for one or both days. Also would be interested if anyone knows the presenters, or has heard them before. For those outside of the area, you might want to attend this conference in Halifax on the Thursday/Friday and then head to Fredericton for the Monday/Tuesday Learning Innovations Symposium – a double header! Any comments from the Moncton LUG members or other groups?

Update: Registration info is now available, with fees listed as $75 + HST (On or Before April 28, 2005) or $100 + HST after the 28th.

Stock & Flow

by

Lee Lefever at CommonCraft has re-linked to a series of three posts that he made last year on stock and flow in online communication. There’s a neat graphic at the main link, summarized as:

Flows = Timely & Engaging (e.g. radio, speeches, e-mail, blogs)
Stocks = Archived, Organized for Reference (e.g. web site, database, book, voice mail)

Lee discusses the changes that are happening within television, as TiVo (TV on demand) changes the medium from one of flow (and therefore engaging) to one of stock (and therefore of less value). He also says that blogs are so engaging because they allow flow.

This got me to thinking about the whole notion of digital content in education. Fewer people are willing to pay for content which is just stock, such as self-paced online courses. Stock is like product – over time, price tends to zero. You need flow to provide value (context), enabled through social interaction. For instance, MIT’s open courseware initiative makes the stock available for free, but you have to pay to participate in the flow (class membership). On the other hand, flow without any stock could become noise; everyone talking but no one taking notes or referring to previous knowledge. I think that you need both stock and flow, especially in education. It’s just becoming harder to offer one of these alone for a fee.

On this blog, it’s the flow that keeps the conversation fresh, and the stock that gradually builds in value over time. To keep this valuable, you need to have steady flow and an easy way to access the stock that you may need. I’m going to work on a site redesign in the near future and see how I can improve both stock and flow.

The Tantramar Commons …

by

I had some great conversations over the weekend, mostly around the
ideas of The Commons Network, first posted by Rob
Paterson, and now being implemented with the Queen
Street Commons. This has given me the impetus
to resurrect the idea
of the Sackville
SOHO Society, though I think I’ll change it to
the Tantramar
Commons.

I’m going to start by getting a small group of people
involved in the design of our own Commons. We originally started in
2003 by meeting at the Bridge Street Cafe in downtown Sackville. The
cafe now offers free WiFi service, so it might be even more
attractive as a meeting place. Take a note of this if you’re driving
past Sackville on the
Trans-Canada Highway and want to go online.

Anyway, I’m planning on
heading to Charlottetown in the next few weeks and see how the Queen
Street Commons is progressing and find out what lessons they’ve
learned so far. As we progress (once again), I’ll post my thoughts,
and would appreciate any input or advice. Hope springs eternal!

Re-mixing the Cluetrain for Education

by

Regular readers knows that I often refer to The Cluetrain Manifesto. If you haven’t read it yet, take a look at the 95 theses, but I’d suggest that you read the whole book – online or in print. Scott Adams has taken the theses and re-mixed them for education. I’ve re-mixed a bit more, but don’t have the energy (yet) to address all 95:

  • Learning is conversation.
  • Learners are human beings, not demographic sectors.
  • What’s happening to education is also happening among learners. A metaphysical construct called "The School" is the only thing standing between the two.
  • To traditional educational institutions, networked conversations may appear confused, may sound confusing. But we, the learners, are organizing faster than they are. We have better tools, more new ideas, no rules to slow us down.

Go ahead and play some more – this is fun :-)

The Relevance of Grades

by

Are you a teacher, educator or trainer? What kind of evaluation method does your organisation use? Which one makes more sense to you?

Behavior-based grades = grades based on irrelevant behavior-related criteria.


Outcomes-based grades = grades based on knowledge competencies and what one has learned.

From Nine Shift, are a number of critical posts on the state of Western education.