Sunday, August 24, 2014

Beyond Institutions: Personal Learning in a Networked World

by Stephen Downes

Presented July 9, 2014, Network EDFE Seminar Series, London School of Economics. For audio, video and slides, click here

Introduction: What learners Need

The talk is called "Beyond Institutions Personal Learning in a Networked World" and I want to begin with a story that came across the wires recently and I thought was very appropriate for this venue. This was a manifesto that was authored by economic students demanding that the way their profession be taught be changed.

They made observations about things like the global economic collapse and global climate change and other things not really being addressed by current economic theory. They suggested, not so much that current theory is wrong, although current theory is wrong, but that they should be given alternatives or different ways of being able to look at the world. They wanted, in other words, from my perspective, more control over their education.

Professors, meanwhile, far from embracing this Renaissance of student-led learning, are sticking to the tried-and-true traditional way of lecturing in the classroom to the point where they want laptops banned from the classroom. Dan Rockmore, in an article in the Atlantic as I recall, New Yorker, said, "These digital assistance are more suitable for play and socializing."

Not getting the point that learning today is about play and socializing. It's interesting to the study he cites, there's a little study that says, "Taking notes by hand creates better memory recall than taking notes by typing.'' Again, completely missing the whole point of what learning is about. Learning is not remembering.

Pretty much anything works better than the lecture method that traditional institutions defend. It's funny we're doing the lecture method here. Actually, what we're really doing is we're in the process of creating a learning resource that we hope will be used, shared, cut, clipped, and otherwise abused by people around the world through the years that follow.

This isn't so much about the content of this talk and you remembering what I say as it is about creating the possibility, the potential for dialogue and interaction. Iyadunni Olubode: “Everyone knows that learning is growing at an increasing depth and an increasing breadth, so you need people who can constantly learn and bridge that gap, even when they're in their current jobs.”

This is the shape of learning in the future. Not learning where you go to a lecture, you remember the gospel wisdom that your professor has told you, and you go out forth in the world and propagate it. It's a world where a person is constantly learning before they get to university, while they're in university, after they're at university.

It's a world where the content, the nature, and even the means of learning is changing almost on a daily basis. Look at the setup that we have here which really would have been practically, not technically, but practically impossible five years ago. Five years from now, it will be different again.

People are looking for learning that isn't so much the repetition of their professors' ideas, but learning that they can apply, that is a part of their life, whether it's part of their life in work, part of their life in their hobbies or their avocations, or part of their life just in what interests them. They expect universities to be flexible.

We were having a conversation this morning in the Director's Dining Room, which, if you haven't been in there, isn't as posh as it sounds, although the walls are very nice. I love the wood panel walls, the little sandwiches, anyhow, eggrolls. We were talking about how the university is structured Bachelor's, Master's, PhD, maybe a couple of other names for these degrees. That's pretty much it. That's not what people are looking for. In survey after survey, they want learning that is directly and immediately applicable to what they're doing.

One of the discussions that came up yesterday... there's all kinds of surveys about what students want. You can go out and site surveys of students saying, "We want the lecture method." The discussion centered around the idea, at least my discussion did, that you can survey students, but students are the people who are already being successful using the current method. If you're going to survey what people need from education, it's important to survey both those people inside the institutions and those people outside the institutions, particularly those who the institutions did not serve well, those who failed, who dropped out, whatever.

Economists, on the other hand, have their own view of what academia needs. We've been hearing a lot about it, both here in Europe as well as in North America. The economists, those paragons of virtue (that's cynicism) when they say something is good, I really begin to worry. What they are talking about these days is the destruction of the university at the hands of the massive open online course. As one of the people who invented the massive open online course, I feel a little personally involved here.

It wasn't our intent, I just want to be clear about that now, it was not our intent to destroy universities. That's not why we did it. We want to change universities, and we want them to work for the better.

Thinking in Models: for Design, for Learning…

A large part of this talk is about that change. It's interesting. We go from the first slide about people wanting to be relevant, wanting universities to be relevant, all the way to the last slide about what's going to replace universities, without doing all the thinking that we need to do in between. We need to do this thinking in between.


Let's begin our thinking with where the current trends, we're told, are going. We're told there will be tiered service models at universities. We're told there will be analytics and data-driven management. We're told there will be alternative credentials. To a certain degree, all of these three things are true.

To a certain degree, none of these three things are going to work themselves out in the way that the economist or economists or education reformers predict. When you look at that, basically it's like they have this model or design in their head of how we could rebuild the university system, wipe it all out, start over, and we'll have a new model.




Figure 1 - workflow process employed to assist LMS selection

This model of accountability and cost frameworks and all of that will solve all the problems that the current system has. Models are popular in education too. Here's a model (Figure 1) of a workflow-processed employee to assist LMS selection. You can't really read the small writing there. It goes from enrollment to program administration to learner interactions to content creation to assessment.

It's a fishbone diagram. If you're in economics or business, you're probably familiar with it. Models of how to select educational technology including customized lists of LMS features, a way of picking among those 305 features of a learning management system that you might want to solve the educational problems at your institution.

Models of how to do learning, learning design patterns: Grainne Conole has done a lot on this. Diana Laurillard, who I really wish had been there yesterday because I really wanted to have a chance to discuss some of this she's been working on. If you get the pedagogy right, that will solve all the learning problems.

Best practices for typical learning tasks: this is a reference to a paper that talks about the conditional release of materials, what we used to call back in the day programmed learning. You do some learning, you do a test. If you pass the test, you get to see the next learning. You still see the old professors with their overhead projectors and their slides and their little piece of paper that they slowly work down the slide. Goodness, you can't have people reading the bottom of the slide first. It would be just wrong.

Even models of how to offer courses, there's all kinds of discussion like this in the literature. The model of online, hybrid or traditional models, of course, is broken down into things like the types of tools, whether you're using discussion boards or white boards or websites or videos.

There's the selection matrix. Out the other end comes, again, it's hard to read on this, level two decisions. You have all of these inputs and outputs. It's very much a system's theory kind of approach. You get the system, the process right and everything flows out the bottom the way it should.

In these models, these designs are being implemented as educational technology. This is what education reform is about. Wow, as I said yesterday. It's also about making a lot of money for some people. It's about standardizing and rationalizing the educational system to fit into a certain set of models or designs. We have Google coming out with Classroom just as part of Google apps.

It's Google apps for teachers. It does all the really useful stuff that teachers need to do like marking and scheduling and assigning learning tasks and all of that sort of stuff. It's education done by software application, basically. It's being commoditized and being standardized and being packaged and delivered. This is education of the future.

It's interesting. The MOOCs that came out, not the ones that we did, but the ones that came out after us, are, again, very much in that same model. Get some videos, get some exercises, get some tests, step them through it week by week by week. You don't even need a professor. It's nice to have them to do the videos, but otherwise you just deliver this as a content package.

Everybody gets the same thing. That's what works. It's Dan Willingham and Paul Kirschner and they say, "There are no individual differences in how we learn. The way we learn depends on the content, not the learner." That's a pedagogical approach that I feel is incorrect. I think it is obvious that people learn differently. Learning styles, as a theory, and especially as a design theory, may be wrong.

Models are not Reality

The fact is that people learn differently, that they have different objectives, different priorities, different goals, different times that they want to learn, different pets sleeping on their keyboard, all of these impact how people want to learn. That's immediately obvious to anyone who actually looks at people learning. Even as I look around this room, he's on an iPad, she's typing, she's writing on a notepad, he's asleep. Everyone learns differently.

This is more from Google. This is the work of education, creating and collecting assignments, making announcements, asking questions, and, of course, a folder, school folder for each assignment and for each student, which aside Google will mine. They've said they will no longer mine student data for commercial purposes. They recently came out with that pledge. They did not say they will no longer mine student data. They just said they won't do it for commercial purposes anymore. Interesting.

With models, again, maybe I'm talking to economists here, maybe I'm not. I'm not sure, but this was actually the subject of my Master's thesis, which maybe three or four people have read. The model is not the reality. That's my 235-page thesis in one sentence.

The model is not the reality. The model has never been the reality, and worse, when you're doing any kind of research, if you use a model, typically the answer to the questions you're researching have been defined by the employment of the model in the first place.

That's what happens here. If we use these models, or other models, any kind of model design predetermines structure to define how we're going to understand what learning is, we've predefined what the outcome will be, but learning needs to be open-ended.

Learning needs to be an exploration and a discovery, not the output of predefined, standardized products. The adaptation of these models to computerized learning is no more effective than the use of these models in the classroom.

New Versions of Old Models

If your teacher walked in and spoke from a script and answered every question in the same standardized way, we would not consider that effective education. The same is true if it's done on a computer.

Again, we're told that these MOOCs are a new pedagogy. We're told that the stuff that's being done at Stanford, MIT, EdX, the rest of it, is going to change education, but it's a continuation of the same models and the same strategies that have defined education for decades, despite the fact that people are asking for something different.

It's not even that the new models are the old models with new names. The new models that we're seeing today being done on a computer are the same models we saw being done on a computer a decade ago and two decades ago.

Audrey Waters talks about Fathom. Fathom had a plan. What their plan was, to take learning materials, put them on a computer, and make them available, even openly, to people who wanted to learn.

That was 20 years ago, well, not quite 20 years, but almost 20 years ago. People talk about EdX and Coursera and the rest of them as being new. It's like they've written off the previous experiences. Interestingly, the president of Coursera is the president of Yale who had the wonderful idea of putting courses online and charging money for them.

Guess what he's going to do at Coursera. It's the same model being repeated over and over and over again. Universitas 21 was invented something like 15 years ago to monetize online learning. It's one of many initiatives to take a course, charge university-level tuition for it, and sell it online.

It's not what people want, and these initiatives continuously fail. Even LRMI (Learning Resource Metadata Initiative) is a system of standardizing the descriptions of learning resources, but it's a clone, in many respects (I'll talk about a way in which it's not a clone in a number of slides) but it's a clone, in many respects, of the standards-driven efforts that have come before. AICC, (Aviation Industry Computer-Based Training Committee): they had a set of learning resource metadata standards in the 1990s. IMS, Instructional Management Systems. IEEE, which is the IEEE, learning object metadata. Shareable coursework, object recognition model.

Again, over and over and over again we see, you take standardized resources. You create standardized descriptions, standardized search mechanisms. The standard is the golden standard of learning, it seems, and it's always though if we could just get this precise standard right, it'll all work.

The results have been, over the years, pretty much what you expect. Here's LRMI again, a Phil Barker presentation on LRMI. He listed the institutions - there's something like six or seven institutions using LRMI. As with all of these standards initiatives, the easy part, although you'd never know by listening, is to define the standard. I've designed dozens of standards. The hard part is getting people to use the standard, because everybody does these things differently.

Even the terms within the standards, you have a term, title, or no, even better, author. You'd think, author, how could you go wrong with author? But you get everything from people, lists of people, organizations, associations, sometimes pets, sometimes nothing at all. Right now, I currently have an issue with my own system because people are putting hypertext markup language inside the author field in their RSS.

Why they feel the need to put markup in what should be a simple string of characters, I don't know, but they put anything and everything inside the author tag. New versions of old models don't produce new results. I'd like to go down to Canary Wharf and tack that onto one of the buildings. If you do the same thing, even if you do it on a computer, you're going to get the same result. The same result, even the people who are producing the result say, isn't sufficient.

The Right Model is No Model

I criticize Coursera. I criticize the Stanford MOOCs and all of that, but when Norvig and Thrun launched their artificial intelligence MOOC, in the first week, 150,000 people signed up. Overall, I think it was something like 250,000 people signed up for one course, a really hard course that's really difficult to understand, in artificial intelligence.

Forget the fact that a lot of them dropped out. A lot of them didn't. Tens of thousands finished. This, by itself, indicates that the old model wasn't working. There was such a pent-up demand for upper-level university courses in artificial intelligence that, when one was finally made available, people knocked down the doors trying to get to it.

George and I launched our MOOC on connectivism, which some of you may have heard of. Most of you may not have heard of it. If you talk about a niche subject, this is as niche as it can get. It's an unknown theory in the field of educational technology.

Try going out onto Fleet Street and advertise that. No, nobody's interested. We got 2,200 people without advertising. That was our first MOOC, and that was when we realized we were onto something, because again, people were beating down our doors.

Not as many people, but they weren't very big doors. You see that offering these courses to 10 or 12 people at a time in a seminar, whether it's online or offline, isn't going to work. Here's where I go meta. The right model is no model.

The right model is to do away with the models. Think of non-standard-based systems. Think of non-standard designs. Think of courses where there are no defined learning objectives. Think of a learning environment where there is no common core of content. Think of a conversation where you and I have not first established a shared understanding of the meaning of all of the terms.

That's reality. That's this room. There is no model for what's happening here. If there is, I'm probably breaking it, although I'm probably following...you can come back after the fact, look at what I did, and say, "Oh, yeah, that's part of the model."

The slide, because the article that I'm referring to referred to Sugata Mitra ( Sugata Mitra has almost been commoditized these days) – but the concept, the idea behind what he did - and also, too, there's been a lot of criticisms because people went back years later to see these computers, and what they found were nothing but holes in the wall. Computers had been vandalized, the Plexiglas stolen.

That happens. It doesn't mean he was wrong. It just means that that experiment for that time was finished. People were looking for a model that would always work, but things don't always work. They work for a time, then move on to something else.

That's what worked with what Mitra was doing. There were no roles. This is David T. Jones, with a cameo by Michael Jackson. "What's missing," he says, "in the standard-based models is what we used to think of as BAD." BAD. (Bricolage, Affordances, Distribution).

Bricolage: I remember when IMS Learning Design first came out and they did a tour to promote it. They used, in their documentation and in their presentation, the metaphor of actors on a stage, and the teacher, of course, would be the director, and then everybody would play their roles.

My question was, because I'm from Canada and we have these, you probably have these here, too, improv, I said, "What about improv?" You can't do improv. That's what's missing with these models.

Affordances: When people built the Internet, they did not intend to design a system that would store, I forget the exact number. I referred to it yesterday, 680 million cat photos. I think that's the number. That was not their purpose, and had anyone anticipated in the 1950s and '60s that they were building a system for storing 680 million cat photos, first of all, they would have thought it's ridiculous.

Then they would have thought, "Who would want such a system?" That's the beauty of the Internet, is that, although it was designed for academic research and to survive nuclear wars and things like that, it turns out to be the perfect place to share your cat photos.

That's what makes it beautiful, the affordances, the possibilities of technology that come up that you didn't plan on ahead of time that you can use for other things. History is full of these things, from the first person to use duct tape for something other than to repair ducts. The misuse of technology is what makes technology great. I wish I could think of more examples, off the top of my head, because there are dozens and dozens of them. I can't, because I'm in the middle of a talk, but you can, so you should.

Distribution: The idea that you have to be here to get my wisdom is ridiculous. What new technology, new learning allows is for this to be not only here, but available online to web video-streaming people (Hi, web video-streaming people. I always like to make sure the video people know they're important) (Actually, that's not true, that’s something I started yesterday). Also, the audio-recording people. Hi, audio-recording people, who are enjoying a less than perfect experience, but still, you're there. The idea that things don't have to be in one place anymore.

Content

We need to question the presumption -- and it is a presumption -- that there's too much content, too much data. We have information overload. It has to be organized. It has to be standardized. It has to be categorized. Must be delivered in packages.


Figure 2 - Apple pie recipes

David Weinberger says, "We do not, interestingly, feel overloaded by the effects of 1.3 million apple pie recipes or 7.6 million..." (He is dramatically underestimating. I searched yesterday. I actually checked). "7.6 million cute cat photos."  (Or maybe he was just referring to the subset of cat photos that is cute, but clearly, it's much larger than that). It's interesting. We're not overwhelmed by it at all. I don't walk out in the world, wondering, "What am I going to do? I got so many cat photos."

When we talk about learning, it's almost the first thing people say. We started our MOOC. What we did is we got people to bring in content, suggest content to us. We brought in content. First thing people said was, "There's too much content. How am I supposed to remember all of this?"

I wish I'd had the cat photos line back in 2008, but he didn't say it until 2014, so I couldn't. Not without time travel. You're not supposed to remember all of it. That's the old way of thinking that you're supposed to remember the content that the instructor is delivering. For all kinds of reasons, not the least of which, you won't remember it, anyways, you're not supposed to remember it.

The whole idea of our course, any course, this course, this talk isn't to get you to remember what I said. Just so you know it's OK if you forget every word I've said. It's to stimulate in you the sort of mental experience that will create in you the sort of mental structures that will, at some point in the future, be useful to you.

It's to stimulate this environment and this sort of interaction. That's why we want questions and discussions after, and that's why we want the real reason people are here, the wine and cheese (I'm assuming cheese) at 4:30 (I was told there would be wine). We're not expected to master every one of the 1.3 million apple pie recipes. Mastering one will actually be enough. Mastering three to five will be more than most of us ever do.

Actually, mastering one will be more than any of us ever do. The main point is we pick and choose them as we need. The interesting thing is take a room full of 50 people, and 1.6 million apple pie recipes, people will choose, not all the same recipe, but different recipes, because they look different. They seem different.

They appeal to us in different ways. I have a whole talk on this. How you will read "Perfect Apple Pie Recipe" from Pilsbury.com, and that will set off one set of mental associations for you. Someone else will read it very differently. Maybe you have a favorable impression of Pilsbury, or maybe you think of the dough-boy and say, "No, that's not for me."

Maybe taste.com.au appeals to the Australian nationalists in the room. No American would use that one. Australian apple pie isn't as American as apple pie (at a certain point, my talks devolve into nonsense; I'm sorry, it happens).

Personal and Personalized

I want to draw a key distinction here, and it's a distinction that the model builders don't get. It's the distinction between personal learning and personalized learning. It's the same difference as pretty much anything like this. Custom tire, customized tire. Chocolate, chocolatized. Maybe that metaphor doesn't quite work.

The idea here is that personalized learning, personalized anything, is you take something that's off-the-shelf, and you tweak some variables in it, and that has thereby made it personal. That's what's offered in programmed learning. That's what's offered in customized learning solutions, personalized learning, adaptive learning. Any of these design-based systems, they're personalized. Really, it's one package with a bunch of options in it.

Personal learning is made to order. Personal learning is even learning you make yourself. Personal learning is where you build your learning, not from a kit, but from scratch. See the difference? People don't want customized, necessarily. Sometimes, they do, but typically they don't. They want personal. They want custom.

That's the expensive part of learning. We were talking yesterday about the Oxbridge model. "The Oxbridge model is so much better," said the Deputy vice-chancellor at Greenwich. Why is it so much better? He has a point. It is better, in many ways, because it's personal.

The problem is it’s also really expensive. To provide that for everyone would cost more money than there is in the world, but boy, it sure is nice having learning that's tailored exactly to your needs. If you can build it yourself, that's better. If you can design your food or choose your food from an infinite array of choices, that's better than going to McDonald's. Even if they offer to take the pickle off for you.

Institutions, I would argue, understand personalized. They don't get personal. There's so many ways in which this is manifest. Even in some of the discussions over the last few days about personal websites by institutional staff. The first response that comes up is, "But will they follow institutional standards?" The answer, of course, is, "Well, no."

There's the concern that widespread adoption of social media brings shared interactional practices that do not match university arrangements for learning. They talk about classes to people who aren't in the class. That's just wrong. You can have a personalized class, but it's still this thing in a box. Something that's personal can go beyond the box.

Autonomy vs Control

Autonomy, for many reasons, rather than control, is essential in education. This is a bit of a digression, but I want to be really clear about what I mean here (by the way, I'm a huge Bill Waterson fan). Autonomy does not mean no structure. It means choice of structure.

Think of touring a city. The way the autonomy-versus-control thing is typically sketched is, if you're visiting a city for the first time, either you wander around with no idea of where anything is or where you are, or you're taken on a guided tour. If you actually want to get someplace in the city, you pretty much have to do the second. You can't do the first, because you'll just wander around aimlessly.

That's a dumb distinction. Those are not the choices that are given to people. If you're visiting a city for the first time, you have a number of choices. You could -- and I do this frequently -- wander around, aimlessly, not knowing where you are. Or you could wander aimlessly around with a map on your phone.

Or you could wander aimlessly around with a dead battery on your phone, but using maps that are put up in the city. Or you could ask someone for directions. Or you could, as I did this morning, take the train, which will drop you close to where you want to go, although you might have to ask for directions to do that, too. Or you could get on one of those hop-on, hop-off buses.

Or you could get a friend to drive you around the city and show you things. They offered to do that for me in Greenwich. Or you could join a guided tour. That's choice. That's autonomy. The other option is they kidnap you and take you around the city, no matter where you want to go. That's control. Those are the real choices.

Ironically, we do education the second way. Control, really, is an illusion. Really. When you manage and control a work for outcomes, they tend not to result. This is the interesting thing about these designs. They're really abstractions of the actual process. They're not useful, as prescriptions of what should be done. If they're useful at all, they're useful as descriptions of what was done, but only partial representations of what was done.

The personal, by contrast, is not designed. It's based on -- and the photo of the murmuration should a big clue here -- based on self-organization.


Figure 3 - Murmuration


It's based on the idea that people can manage themselves and manage their interaction with others, including learning, for themselves. The murmuration. They've done studies on the murmuration, and of course, there's no head starling. What's interesting is there's no mass communication, either.

It's rather more like a mesh network, in which each starling is reacting only to the seven starlings around it. Anytime a starling changes position, the seven starlings around it change position. That's what produces the cohesive movement of the whole.

It's interesting, because when you think of it -- and that's not even in this article -- when you think of it, a murmuration is a perceptual system for starlings. It's a way a whole flock of starlings can magnify the perceptions, say, of a hawk, by any individual starling. The great wildebeest migration, same sort of thing.

They're not actually going somewhere. We think they're going somewhere, but they're not. They're just searching for food and water, and their migration follows the natural patterns of the climate and the environment. It takes them around in a big circle, over time.

Complexity, Cause, and Murmurations

It's interesting. This whole concept of design, organization, planning, et cetera, suggests that we can cause these events to happen.

But for anything that's remotely complex, there is no cause, properly, so called, of the event. Landmark ideas are created not necessarily -- not at all, pretty much -- by individual people, but by societies, by this large murmuration of people interacting with their community.

The modern technological world is giving us new examples of that. The hashtag is a way of creating self-organizing networks. Imagine if we tried to plan the Internet so that we could account for and index and abstract all of the conferences that will happen from now on, before they happened. It'd be ridiculous. Couldn't happen. A new speaker series like this would be impossible to anticipate. Hashtag networks can be seen as self-organizing ideas. The hashtag is a murmuration of tweets (that's a neat line; I'll have to remember that).

Mary Meeker -- if you're not familiar with Mary Meeker, you should be, if you're at all interested in education technology and markets -- has observed the proliferation of apps, not just in education, in everywhere. What the app world does is facilitate this kind of network interaction. What she's noticing is that the edge, which is jargon-speak for the link between two nodes, is more important than the node, where the node is the person, the computer system, the learner, the starling, whatever. It's the connections that are interesting. That's what's interesting in education, as well.

The starlings, in education, are the students. The university, the learning institution, properly conceived, should be organized like a murmuration. Should be a self-organized assemblage of students. But then, of course, you don't need that institutional structure, at all, and it becomes really difficult to justify a $20,000 or 9,000 pound tuition rate.

A Reclamation Project

It's happening. There was a critic at yesterday's talks saying, "Do you know there are no students involved in these conferences?" I did a search. The search for "student panel" actually yielded 199,000 results on Google. The search for "ed tech student panel" in quotation marks, so it's the union set of those words in that exact order, yielded 2,000 results.

The students are doing this. They are organizing themselves. Audrey Waters says -- and I think she's quite right -- "The future of educational technology is a reclamation project." The idea here is that we, the learners, the people who need to learn need to reclaim the management and organization of learning for ourselves.

It's interesting. It's like the whole Facebook thing. Facebook has taken over conversations with our grandparents. They're using it to run tests on emotions and to sell stuff. We need to reclaim our conversations with our grandparents. We need to reclaim our interactions of Plato, Socrates, and the person next door. We have to reclaim control of the data, the content, and the knowledge we create.

The idea that this belongs to the university that it belongs to the institution is ridiculous. The idea that the university has any say over what students or even its professors would produce in this Internet is absurd. Lucy Gray does what I do. She puts her presentations up on Slideshare. One day, Slideshare deleted everything. No explanation. No recourse. She couldn't even contact them.

She had to tweet it to get any attention from them. No notice. They were just gone. That's why we have to be the owners of our own education. I read this morning -- I didn't have a chance to put it in the slides -- there's a guy who started a course, a Coursera course. Went two weeks into the course, and then he deleted the entire course. It was, he said, "An experiment in causing confusion." (It’s not the first time this has happened).

One of my colleagues, Ben Werdmuller, is creating something called Known. Known is an application where, as he says, you can still share selfies, make friends, listen to music, et cetera. Put up cat photos, very important. But in a space that's yours and that you get to have control over.

Ben Werdmuller, with Dave Tosh, built a thing called Elgg a while back, which is now widely respected as a social networking environment for learning. They also built something that really should have been much more successful than it was, called Explode, which was a similar sort of thing to Known, except I think Known will be better produced. David Wiley gushed when he heard of the "publish on your own site, syndicate elsewhere" anti-model, it's called model in the article but I'm calling it an anti-model because it's not really a model.

There have been (if you check out the #indieweb hashtag you'll see) indications of this, from Diaspora (disclosure: I invested a hundred dollars in it - that was my only investment; I'll never see a return on it) to App.net, which I actually pay money to as well.

Even to syndication itself, it's this idea that what’s today a silo (which is learning) is going to become the syndication end point. These applications, these services, these resources, are the things we reach out and touch but not where we invest our entire lives.

Reclaimed learning is network learning

Jim Groom has been running something called, "Reclaim your domain." There have been various other wordings, "Reclaim innovation, reclaim learning." Starting now, he writes, “a technology that allows for limitless reproduction of knowledge resources, instantaneous global sharing and cooperation. All the powerful benefits of digital manipulation, recombination, and computation.”

That was the potential of the Internet twenty years ago and it was basically stopped by the institutions that decided it should be organized a different way. The idea of "reclaim all of this stuff" is to bring back that idea of the Internet. That begins with personal control over your own resources and your own access to external services including leaning.

I've outlined the model in our discussion earlier today. It used to be the case that you would go to one institution, maybe two institutions and you did all your learning there. It's changing now so that you access learning from multiple institutions. Not just multiple universities, but multiple types of institutions, from colleges and universities, potential employers, current employers, past employers, to pet food stores, to fringe networks, to special interest groups, to hobby groups, to the government, to whatever.

They're all sources of learning. The idea is, you are at the center of this network of learning. Reclaimed learning is network learning. Reclaimed learning is having access to the tools and the mechanisms to freely author and create your own learning and share it with others and to access and use learning that was created by others and shared with you.

It's your mechanism for talking to the starlings that are nearby (I really love that murmuration example. I'll try not to beat it to death, but just happen to be beating a starling).

That's something like what we were building when we were building the first MOOCs. Our MOOCs are called "connectivist MOOCs" or "cMOOCs." What makes them distinct is that the people, the individuals are at the center and the learning resources are all distributed.

You might think, "Well, how do you build a course where the center isn't your course?" What we did is, we pointed students to mechanisms on the current internet where they could build one of each. We said, "Create a blog on Blogger. Create an account on Delicious and do that. Put photos on Flickr. Add videos to YouTube. Create a Google group." Do any of these things.

In the future we'd say, "Use your own personal web space to organize and coordinate your resources and then tell us what these resources are." You create your space, we'll create a space like this too, and then we'll join them together.

That's what we did. It wasn't a course where we had a pedagogical model in mind where we tried to step people through. It was this ridiculous no-rules mess that turned into a murmuration, that turned into a MOOC, that turned into something that can attract hundreds of thousands of people.

Technology Behind the Reclaimed Web

Some of the technology behind the reclaimed web, technology that allows us to have comments on our sites without having to author a comment management system...

There's a tool set these days is called the distributors' developers stack, where you can build your own website and access external services like storage. The old stack was called LAMP - Linux, Apache, MySQL, and Perl. Perl's programming language. That would be where you manage all your data. Today, the stack is your website, but then all the remote system that you can access with your website.

Making it easier for search engines to index (and this is the promised clarification of LRMI) is Schema dot org, where you manage and create your own metadata. You don't have to adopt and adapt IMS or IEEE or whatever. Schema is being set up by the search engines. The search engines are saying, "Here's what you can do. It's almost like tagging with tags for websites.''


Figure 4 - Bitnami Apps

Or this is one called Bitnami, it's an app store for server software. These are all different apps. Again, they're kind of hard to see. But Word Press, Joomla, Redmine (which I don't know anything about), WAMP stack (Windows something, something, something, probably Python) Moodle, Magneto, for e-commerce, just to name some of them. There are actually 50-60 different applications.

You want to run a survey. The old way to run a survey on your website is you download and install software like LimeWire, configure it, set it up -- and hope it works -- and launch your survey.

The modern way to do it is you get an account with Amazon web services or something that will give you some Cloud hosting. You use the app store you rent a LimeWire for $1.99. It installs in Amazon web services, you put a link to it, you have a survey ready. You're not even using any disk space and Amazon is taking the hit for all the traffic. It cost you a little money but it so much better than Facebook.

Take your data back from Google. This will be a thing, a personal web server, preloaded with open-source software that lets you run all of your web services from home, your home website.

If you don't think it's going to be a thing, think again. People use to go to the Western Union Wire Office to send messages to each other, then the fax machine was invented, and Western Union installed a fax machine on each one of their offices and figured, "This is great. Now, we can charge people for sending messages, and now they can send facsimile images too."

But what happened instead is, people bought fax machines and put them in their homes. You would think who would put a message sending device in their home? Now, we carry them in our pockets.

This is the future of this technology. The personal learning that I've been talking about isn't just personal learning in a conceptual sense, it is personal learning in a concrete hardware sense. Your university will be a box in your living room.

The modern web is distributed, interactive, murmuration of services and people -- 2RCode, OpenSearch, Windows Live Tiles, touch icons, RSS and even a thing called human dot text. All of these are little pieces. Your flavors will all be different as they should be. The idea that every website must be exactly the same is absurd. Only an economist would come up with that.

Social Networks and Neural Networks

This changes learning. This is what George and I are getting at is of the theory of Connectivism. “Connectivism repositions media as type of content” - but content is, remember, the McGuffin; it's the thing that gets us talking to each other.

We use media. We use our own services. We use our interaction with each other to create links with each other. These links with each other, these connections between people, between neurons, between concepts, between ideas. That's the actual learning. I could go on. I have two hour long talks about that, which I won't do.

One question that's always asked is what is the connection between social networks and neural networks? What is the connection between tweeting each other, or sending email, or skyping, and learning, where learning is the formation of connections between your neurons? Learning is, manifestly, the second. What is the link between this and the first?

There are two ways of looking at it. Connectivism embraces both ways. These are not alternatives, although they're alternatives, but they're not exclusive alternatives.

George's answer is that it's a multi-nodal extension. What that means is when you learn it's literally the formation of connections between your neurons. You have a network in your brain. This network extends out of the brain and into devices, into the Internet, and, eventually, through to other people. It's an adaptation of the old McLuhan idea that a communication system is like an extension of the body. An information system is an extension of the mind. Pretty smart.

My answer is just as smart. My answer is pattern recognition. My answer is that neural networks and social networks are, in fact, ontologically different, and one is not an extension of the other, but they're related.

They're related by, first of all, a common set of underlying principles described in the mathematics and the methodology of networks. I talked about underlying network principles like autonomy, diversity, and that sort of thing.

The other aspect of it is that networks learn by pattern recognition. The learning in a network is literally the formation of connections. A society learns by forming connections between its people. A human learns by forming connections between their neurons.

What these connections are actually doing is creating a capacity on the part of the network, as a whole, to recognize characteristic patterns. Just like a murmuration of starlings can recognize a falcon. Not because it has falcon-like content in its collective mind (when you put it that way, it's pretty absurd, right?) but, because it, as a whole, is a system that can react to the presence of a falcon.

(I'm assuming that falcons predate on starlings. I could be completely wrong, but I assume a murmuration would move away from a falcon. Anyhow, I don't know a lot about starlings, but you get the idea, right?)

The same principles underlie social networks and personal networks. A social network is a perception mechanism for a society. A neural network is a perception mechanism for a person. Persons can recognize patterns in society. Societies can recognize patterns in persons. The interaction begins to flow.

You can see that the Downes answer and the Siemens answer are really two sides of the same coin. Different ways of seeing the same topic. That's really common in network learning.

Even if we're examining the same thing, we're all looking at it from a different perspective. Our understanding of it is never going to be the content of any individual's mind. Again, that would be ridiculous. Rather, the combination, the pattern created by the multiple perspectives that come into play as we all look at this common object.

If I put a chair in the room, our understanding of the chair is the totality of our perceptions of the chair (which is why Wittgenstein was right and Moore was wrong - but that's an aside).

Network Learning

Connectivism can be thought of as a learning theory. Personally, I don't care whether you call it a theory or not. But, it accounts for existing theories, it explains where we are, and it we can make predictions.

One thing I do a lot of is make predictions. The predictions based on connectivism can be tested. I've got a history of making predictions, and I'll continue making predictions. One response of connectivism was the MOOC. We built a course in this network style. What we discovered (and frankly, we did discover this, we did not know this going in this) was that building a course as a network allows you to accommodate a lot of people with very few resources.

We had a budget for our first MOOC of nothing, yet we still managed 2500 people. I shouldn't say nothing - George wrangled the free Elluminate account. What we were doing is we were testing connectivism by using connectivist theory to create a course, and that course resulted in the MOOC. My verdict is the experiment was a success. Participants seemed to agree.

Creating networks, developing professional connections, studies of MOOCs - This one is a study done by a couple of my colleagues, Helene Fournier and Rita Kop. The people who actually took these MOOCs report that the really important part wasn't the content, because the content was just the stuff that George and I sent, but the creating of networks, the developing of connections, the networking, building on the affordances of this particular network.

Where are we going? Here comes the prediction part. Although, it's not just me anymore. I've been talking about personal learning and personal learning environments for a number of years ago.

The Aspen Institute - they're actually one of these right-wing think tanks, but we'll leave that aside - even they are saying learning has to be personal. Learners have to be empowered to learn any place any time. The idea is to use networks to support and guide learners and, most importantly, build operability across learning networks. Grain of salt: they're thinking of this management design perspective. You can't do exactly what they say, but they have the right in saying learning needs to be personal. Learning needs to be connected. Learning needs to be networked.

Learning control is moving beyond computer-assisted programs “towards authentic learning context, mediated by technology.” If you think about it, if learning is a network and not an on-site event-based kind of process, it can happen anywhere. It will happen anywhere. It will happen and be managed and controlled by people using their own devices, wherever they happen to be. The devices that are implicated in learning will multiply.

This is an interesting one. I love this one. Reading and networking will become one and the same thing. This is not exactly what Steve Pettifer is saying. Steve Pettifer developed a program called Utopia. It's an Adobe Reader, but when you read it, a sidebar opens up and gives you all kinds of resources from other services.

We built something similar to that, called Plearn. It was an in-house proof-of-concept project that we did between 2010 and 2012. I've seen similar sorts of things in Microsoft Word. The norm will be to have, if you're consuming (terrible word) consuming content, the norm will be that you have a sidebar experience. Even watching television. It used to be you just sit there (and watch). Remember that? But now, we have what they call the second screen experience.

Reading, watching television, all of these things will be, are becoming networked experiences. In the workplace, connective learning is already changing the workplace. It is going to really change the workplace when our learning becomes present in our devices. I used to talk about the fishing rod that teaches you how to fish. Now, recently, I saw an advertisement for a tennis racket that teaches you how to play tennis. Somebody actually built it. It exists. I wish I had the link for it. You have internal sensors. The internal sensors know what a good swing looks like. Feeds back to your device. Your device says, "You really ought to work on that backhand." Or whatever.

Cooperation

Teams and collaborations will be transformed. The old way, the design way, the management way, the control way is to form teams and collaborations, and put people in groups and get them all marching to the same tune, singing the same song, et cetera. The new way is to connect, to interact, but to work autonomously. In software development, they're calling the oscillation principle, where you get together and connect, and go away and do your thing. Get together and connect, go away and do your thing.

Cooperation is basically defined as a set of interactions in a problem space. The problem space might be anything. The idea here is that you can achieve results without actually having all the overhead of a collaboration. A murmuration is cooperation. Each starling is autonomous. Each starling decides for itself where it's going to go. There's no shared vision.

"Hey, let's have this really neat kind of amorphous mass." It's like one starling's saying, "That's a falcon," and making its own decision. In cooperation, we don't share models. We don't share designs. We don't share goals. We don't share objectives. Axelrod talks about cooperation. All cooperation requires is a durable relationship.

All the overhead that we typically associate with managing activities on the web, including learning -- things like centrality, commonality, learning objectives, learning management, controlled outcomes, even trust -- all of these are unnecessary for self-organizing systems. They're overhead. They make the institutions rich. They don't do the kind of job that the students need.

Cooperation means working with others. Working with them directly, without the overhead. Doing away with the negotiations, the discussions, the accommodations. All you need is to be able to interact and communicate with people. That doesn't mean you can't have negotiations, discussions, and accommodations. A lot of people like that stuff, and it's OK. But it's like the guided tour. A lot of people like the guided tour. If you want to get on the guided tour and share an experience with people, you can. The point of cooperation is we can run a society where you don't have to.

The new skills, therefore, both in teaching and learning are network skills. The new skills, pretty much in any discipline now, are network skills. This is a reference to Coding For Journalists so that journalists will understand the real meaning of things like lists, loops, and application programming interfaces. The whole idea here is to understand the concept of how individual entities are related to form patterns, data structures, and entities.

People forget about things like Codeacademy, which have proven, very successfully, through millions of users, that people can do things like learn to program on their own, without being told how to do it. It's like I mentioned at the beginning of the talk. The model for learning is like socializing and playing games.

A New System of Learning

If you've ever been to the media center, I visited the media center once at MIT, the Media Lab - it was a really interesting experience, because the place is a mess. It's utter shambles. It's probably a fire trap. But it's brilliant because people can interact any way they want, using whatever kind of device they want. If you want to build a robot, that's cool. It's all play, but I'm sure it's not all play.

We have these models. One model is called the super-university. It's going to respond to government directives or commercial imperatives. It will be designed. It'll produce outcomes. It'll create jobs. Economic development. Employment for graduates. Even manage immigration. Commercialize research. This is a line; people have told me this: "It isn't innovation unless it's been commercialized."

Again, if you're in economics or business, you've probably heard this. I really don't think that's true. You might say it's not innovation unless it's used, but that's something distinct. That's the one model. That's the kind of thinking that (is typical of) the people's that are saying, "There will be 10 universities left in the world." That's the kind of thinking that goes into that sort of model, that sort of design.

They talk about the importance of universities because we need them. They don't talk about what it is, in fact, we need. Think about the topics I've talked about in this presentation. Do we need more models and more designs? Does the world really need another theory of learning, honestly?

Do we need more standards and more measurements? I showed you half a dozen ways of standardizing learning resources. I could go on about standards and measurements. Do we need more centralization and control? Are the people out there yearning, "Control me! I don't know where to go." Do we need, quite frankly, the same mistake repeated again?

We're able now to rebuild our system of learning. Why on earth would we do it the old way? What is it that we need? What we need is the mechanism to support learning itself. When you ask the people what they want, they don't want immediate economic development. They want better lives.

They see things like learning - All of those people who went to the artificial intelligence course, all of those people who flooded into our MOOC, they're doing the same thing that the people of Leiden did when they opted for a university instead of lower taxes. They're doing what the people of Tublingen did, when they said, "We want a university, not industrial development."

We have an alternative. We do have an alternative. There is a model. It's not a model. I shouldn't call it a model. We have an anti-model. Maybe I should be anti-anti-model and call it...Never mind. I won't go there. We can, as they say, reclaim learning.

We can have a way of looking at learning where learning is not structured, designed, and set up to create outputs, but rather run, operated, and controlled as an unorganized, unmanaged system by individuals. I say we're moving beyond institutions in learning, toward a cooperative model, toward a knowing society, based on network knowledge. That's the model of the future.

It'll be based on software, technology, resources, systems, interactions, communities, and the rest that take learning well beyond formal education. People talked about, "What is the role of formal education and institutions in all of this?" It (the role of formal education and institutions) is to serve that.

Institutions need to adapt and get out of the mindset that they control and manage learning, and now think about how they can serve many different people in many different ways, with the resources, the learning, the coaching, the mentoring, et cetera, that they need when they need it.

We're going to get the opposite of these large, control-based universities. People say, "This is the death of the university, these MOOCs." It's not. This is the beginning of the university. The shift of the university from something big and large and available only to a few, to something much smaller, much more nimble, much more independent, a lot like community music artists -- that line was for George Siemens -- that will cater to specific learning needs. They will number in the hundreds of thousands, not the tens. They will be everywhere.

I thank you for your time and your attention. We do actually have a little time for questions, but I won't say how little. Thank you.

Peter:  Thank you very much, Stephen, for that. We do have time for questions, therefore the floor is open. We do have a microphone for those of you who do have questions. That's so that the feed can get you, and we can keep you on tape forever. The floor is open for questions.

Male Audience Member:  Reclaiming the web. Reclaiming learning. Given that the Internet has been around for a while, how come the institutions took over? Why hasn't this happened already if your predictions...? You have been making those predictions 25 years ago, right? What went wrong?

Stephen:  14 years ago. The predictions I made back in 1998, and you can check them, they're online, have come true. This is new. These are the predictions for 2014. It's not that the predictions I made back then are wrong.

Back in 1998, I wrote a paper called "The Future of Online Learning." I predicted a device that would be widely used by students. It would about this big by this big. It would cost around $300, and it would be called the "PAD."

Male Audience Member:  I suppose what I mean is we're all part of institutions, so we're part of the problem.

Stephen:  Oh, yeah.

Male Audience Member:  Why do institutions come about if what you're saying is so brilliant?

Stephen:  Why was there 2,000 years of history before there was the Internet? Why didn't they have the Internet back in creation? That's the logical structure of the question, but I'll be a bit more charitable.

If you look at the Internet, and by look at the Internet, I mean look beyond Facebook, and look beyond Twitter, and look beyond your universe in the intranet, you see exactly what I'm describing.

You see a billion web pages, 10 billion web pages. I'm not sure the exact count. You see tens of thousands of Google Groups of people getting together. Google Groups, Yahoo Groups, other groups. People getting together to talk to each other about the things that are important to them. You see informal learning like crazy.

You see things like the Khan Academy before Microsoft bought it. Where some guy just creates a whole bunch of videos.

Male Audience Member:  Microsoft did buy it though, didn't they?

Stephen:  They bought that.

Male Audience Member:  Wouldn't it be the case that all of these things will get consumed.

Stephen:  They bought that, but not the 90 other things. What you're doing is you're focusing on the big media thing, and you're missing the other 90. The reclaim the web thing is ignore the big media thing. It's the other 90 that are important.

There's another thing too. It's hard or has been hard to setup things like your own web server. It's much easier to simply sign on to Facebook, but the technology is being developed. It used to be really hard to publish a book. It used to be the only books that ever got published were published by publishers. Now, anyone can publish a book online. Yeah, there are still publishers, and they still exist.

You can say, "Why are there still publishers if anyone can publish a book online?" Because there's still a business model there. People still make money off of it. That does not negate the fact that anyone who wants can publish online.

Do you see the point? Are you happy with it?

Male Audience Member:  I think it's part of a larger discussion. I'll resign to the argument.

Stephen:  Good enough.

Female Audience Member:  If I may challenge you on a rather distinct hypothesis. Namely that people really want to restructure their own learning, or do want to define their learning in the first place. I have made the experience that a lot of people, in general, in life are actually quite happy to have control, to a certain degree, taken over and that they can rely on structures that have established themselves as successful in the past.

Even though I, personally, very much agree with you, and I'm doing a PhD, so I actually am in that position that I can restructure my learning. I can sit here and not somewhere else. I still believe that there's a lot of people who don't want to do that and actually find it very stressful.

Are you not basing, in a way, your very argument on a very small, I'm going to say, elitist group? Basically, saying that this is not very representative of everybody.

Stephen:  This is why I was really careful and even used the extended analogy, and I felt very badly at the time for going on so long about it...The analogy of touring a city.

You're quite right. Even apple pie, right? Many people would just rather buy the pie from a store that produces pies. That's kind of where I'm at. Other people if they're actually going to make a pie, fools that they are, would rather follow the directions. Then, there's this small set of people, this miniscule, elite set of people who wing it and design an apple pie for themselves by scratch.

The argument is not that everyone wants to design a pie by themselves by scratch. The argument is that people want the choice. If the only way in your life you could have an apple pie was to go to McDonalds and order an apple pie, you would find that limiting. Even if you like McDonalds apple pie...For me, the only thing I'll eat at McDonalds, the very few times that I go in there, is the apple pie, because it's good, and it's delicious, and it's got this nice hot filling.

But, if that was the only way to have an apple pie, I would be up in arms and so would everyone else. You see the difference? It matters. The nice thing about doing a PhD is you're willingly putting yourself under the direction of people who are experts in the field. It's a powerful experience, and I know you're enjoying it.

If that was the only you could do to get a job, period, now, all of a sudden, your willingness to do this takes on a different character. That different character is what people are worried about.

Male Audience Member:  On that point, I was just reminded about Chomsky's lecture "Education for Whom and for What," which was talking about the stratification, political side of things. I'm reminded of Zizek's problem solving and creative thinking or thinking as he makes the distinction. Institutions and economies depend on people executing...It's like serving the Industrial Age. You need to read the manual, so you can operate.

Psychologists come to diffuse dissent. Urban planners come to organize cities, so the dissent doesn't erupt and can be contained. Nobody really wants thinking in a political sense in our institutions anyway. Let's assume that's the case. You said perception on a collective level is somehow sort of uncorrupted or sort of clean.

What about perception of society? BBC shapes opinions in this country. Private's use a reason. Public's use a reason. CNN...It's like holding up a cardboard [inaudible 1:31:01] instead of [inaudible 1:31:03] , which is not a real [inaudible 1:31:05], but they react in a certain way. I applaud your idealism. I'm part of it.

I had the privilege to talk to Richard Storman about privacy not far from here at IET at Savoy, and he was using a MacBook for his publishing. He had to succumb to all the issues he as partially against in some ways. We have to obey gravity, I guess.

Stephen:  A lot of people say, "I applaud your idealism, but it could not possibly work." Yet, at least, in my life, it has worked. It's not a sample set of zero. When you say nobody wants the people to be educated. The universe of discourse of nobody here is limited to managers and those above managers. I don't think most people have their ambition in life to work in a factory and be told what to do.

I don't think so. They may choose that, but we have to consider the choices that we're offered. You're quite right. When you point to the influence of media in our thinking, that's...Yeah, absolutely. It's one of the really interesting consequences of the Internet. That we now have at least a billion choices of points of view and perspective.

We don't need to depend on the BBC or the Guardian or any of the newspapers that have recently been closed. You know what I mean? We have many choices. I get my news now from a wide variety of sources. One of the things the Internet has done is it's lifted this impact of particular vehicles of ways of looking at the world. I think this is really valuable.

I think it's replacing them with others, but, at least now, it's the choice thing. It used to be if you wanted news, you had to watch BBC or maybe ITV after a certain date, and I understand you have other channels now. Now, we can get our news from almost anywhere. Literally, almost anywhere.

Where I live in New Brunswick, there's a guy called Charles Leblanc, who's a self-proclaimed ADHD individual, who's been permanently banned from the provincial legislature for various indiscretions, who is one of the major sources of news about political affairs in the province. The guy is crazy. Certifiable. But, he's wonderful, and he's just as accurate as the local newspaper.

Male Audience Member:  I've got a question from Sonja Grussendorf. Looking forward 200 years, how sustainable is the change you're proposing if it's dependent on things like energy and technology? Can self-organization happen without technology?

Stephen:  Without technology, we'll be depending on self-organization, because there will be no means, except a club, to impose control, and the effective limit of a club is the circumference of the arm. OK. That was badly put, but I tried.

What doesn't go away, presumably, is a lot of the technological capacity that we have today. We know that there are other sources of energy besides fossil fuels. Wind, solar, et cetera. There is no a priori reason why 200 years from now there would be no energy. The bigger problem is probably the lithium shortage, because it makes portable batteries tricky. We'll have things like carbon nanotube capacitors as a way of having stored, portable energy.

I don't think that energy is the big problem 200 years from now. The fact that many of our major cities are flooded is a big problem, but energy, I don't think so. I think, in broad strokes, self-organization is sustainable in that way. As long as we have the capacity to communicate with each other to any significant way in a free and open way, self-organization is possible.

The bigger threat to self-organization in the future is the reemergence of authoritarianism, non-democratic or post-democratic forms of government, nuclear war. That kind of thing. Those are threats. Corporatism is a bigger threat than the lack of energy, quite frankly. Corporations are not democratic. They're explicitly anti-democratic.

Communication within a corporation is very typically monitored and controlled, and that's extending into government. Both senses. Those are more concerns. Interestingly, we're to the point in technology now where we can build alternatives. What's it called? There's an alternative point-to-point WiMAX network being setup that operates outside the boundaries of the traditional telecom system.

It's not very popular. There's no particular need for it. The thing is the possibility exists with existing knowledge that we can form a mesh network without the existing telecommunications infrastructure. Even things like silicon chips. There are enough silicon chips in the world now that even if we stopped making them, we could go out and mine them from garbage dumps and have a supply for years in the future.

It's a novel I want to write one day. Mining for silicon chips. Got to find the knowledge.

Female Audience Member:  I was intrigued very much by the assertion you've made about institutions understand personalization but don't understand personal. I would like to ask, do you think that through what they understand as personalization can they get to the personal? Can they reach the personal and through what way, perhaps?

Stephen:  That's a really interesting question, and it's interesting in an ontological sense. If it's true that we can completely define a person as a set of options, where completely means not fully completely or universally completely but completely enough, then personalization could take us to personal.

But, if there are aspects of individuals that could not be defined, a priori, as sets of options, then personalization can never become personal. You see why, right? Personalization requires defining the set of possibilities for an individual service or resource by these sets of options. If the set of options is not complete, at some point, some percentage of people will find a barrier or a limitation.

Not that all barriers or limitations are bad, but when they're imposed on you by the structure of the learning or production network, they become something people struggle against. That's an empirical question. That's not a question I'm going to say, "Well, it's conceptually impossible that this could happen, or it's practical." it could happen. We could do it.

Humans are not infinite. Nothing is infinite. Not even space. Probably not even time. Conceptually, it's possible, a priori. Whether it's practically possible is a matter of just how detailed can our technology get. People like Neal Stephenson and "The Diamond Age" with the notebook that reacts to your every learning need. That's the sort of picture that they have in mind where the notebook learns enough facts about you and throws enough switches that it becomes completely personal.

Maybe we could design a system that's sufficiently complex, but if I had to pick one, I'd say probably not. I'd say maybe it could be done, but it would probably be too expensive. It would cost as much as a professor, and it would require more money than there is in the world to provide one for everyone. I think personal is the way to go.




Wednesday, August 06, 2014

No Paradox Here

John Spencer thinks that education is filled with paradox, and lists a number of sources. I couldn't help but notice that I didn't see the paradox in any item on his list.

So, here's his list, with my take on it, resolving the paradox.

  • Knowledge: It’s both internally constructed and influenced by the external environment.
No. Knowledge is not constructed; it is derived entirely from the external environment.
  • Results: There’s a place for valuing both tasks and relationships.
There are only relationships. No task has any value without being based in a relationship.
  • Assessment: There is a place for both quantitative and qualitative data.
There is no quantitative data, only qualitative data. When we add numbers to observations, we are not creating a new type of data, we are joining a fiction to existing data.
  • Teaching Strategies: It’s a craft, which means it is both an art and a science.
All science is art; there is no distinction.
  • Leadership: Leading means being humble and being bold.
Leadership means only being humble. Being 'bold' happens when you abandon leadership and take a turn being selfish.
  • Discipline: It requires showing mercy and being just.
There is no justice without mercy; mercy is the sole source and meaning of justice. Otherwise, justice means only that the strong prevail.
  • Motivation: All humans are both internally and externally driven
All humans are internally driven. We are informed by knowledge, but we are driven by the passions.
  • Creativity: It happens when students have freedom and limitations
 Creativity is possible even if there are limitations, but only if there is freedom.
  • Instruction: Depth and breadth both matter
One person's depth is another person's breadth, and vice versa. no piece of instruction is ingherently deep or broad; it depends entirely on point of view.
  • Choice: There is a place for both student choice and teacher choice.
There is only a place for student choice. Students may freely choose to follow the suggestions of instructions, but if that freedom is removed, then what results is not learning, it is subjugation. 
  • Climate: Classrooms should be academic, but also human
Classrooms should be human. To the extent that classrooms are non-human (if that's what 'academic' means) then they are broken. Classrooms that are genuinely academic are fully human.
  • Identity: We are all a mix of good and bad
We are neither good nor bad. We do not have an inherent nature. We are judged to be good or bad, but this judgement is made by others, and is based on their needs and interests, and is therefore irrelevant.
  • Planning: Be prepared in advance, but be flexible in the moment
Being flexible is possible only with prior preparation. The opposite of preparation isn't flexibility, it's being frozen in fear and confusion.
  • Strategies: Using research-based best practices while also trying new approaches and pushing innovation
The only research-based best practice is to continue trying new approaches and innovating.

Sunday, August 03, 2014

The Chinese Test Example

I'm going to quote at some length from David Wiley's Facebook page to set this up (so you don't have to go get a Facebook account to read this), and then offer my comments below.
This is a *perfect* parable for the way math has been taught for decades:

"A person lives inside a room that has baskets of tokens of Chinese characters. The person does not know Chinese. However, the person does have a book of rules for transforming strings of Chinese characters into other strings of Chinese characters. People on the outside write sentences in Chinese on paper and pass them into the room. The person inside the room consults the book of rules and sends back strings of characters that are different from the ones that were passed in. The people on the outside know Chinese. When they write a string to pass into the room, they understand it as a question. When the person inside sends back another string, the people on the outside understand it as an answer, and because the rules are cleverly written, the answers are usually correct. By following the rules, the person in the room produces expressions that other people can interpret as the answers to questions that they wrote and passed into the room. But the person in the room does not understand the meanings of either the questions or the answer." (From Searle (1980) via Greeno (1997) via dy/dan today - http://blog.mrmeyer.com/).

It's encouraging to see recent trends in math instruction trying to move beyond the "Old Way" - that hallowed, relentless focus on the process of performing calculations without ever helping students see what the calculations *mean*. In addition to being able to calculate, people need to actually *understand* math. If they don't understand it, the only times in their lives that math will ever be useful to them is when they're confronted by a textbook.

It's a total crime when you think about: 10 or so *years* studying the subject, and all that many people have to show for it are the most utterly banal applications of addition and multiplication. Maybe some subtraction. (Division is way too complicated.) Certainly nothing taught after elementary school.

I continue to be completely amazed - absolutely stunned - at how vehemently many in Utah and around the country are fighting against educators' efforts to help students learn math in a way that teaches them both to calculate *and* to understand. Why don't they want them to understand? Why do they want to sentence their child to life in the Chinese Room?

I have to add, too, that I'm increasingly confused by the popular fetish with the algebra, trigonometry, and calculus pathway. When's the last time you read a news story involving polynomials? Or heard a piece on the radio involving the law of cosines? Never. But when was the last time you were manipulated by a media conglomerate, or a government agency, or a news outlet, or a campaign ad because you don't understand statistics? Sadly, it was probably earlier today. Normal people have infinitely more opportunities to use the concepts taught in statistics in their lives than they do the concepts taught in the traditional math sequence. How about some love for statistics?
That's a really interesting use of the Chinese Room example (it is well known as such to philosophers). http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/

The example was originally intended as a response to the 'Turing Test' model for evaluating artificial intelligence. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test/ The idea of the Turning Test is that a machine could be considered intelligent if its responses are sufficient to fool a human interlocutor.

One response to the example suggests that a machine could not actually succeed in responding without actually understanding. It would need to form models and comprehend principles in order to anticipate the variety of comments and questions thrown at it.

Another, related, response is that the example appears to an intuition that has not itself been validated. If we did not believe a priori that the combination of person and machine did not understand, would the example convince us that they don't? (This is sometimes called the 'systems' response.)

My own take is that the example, if it succeeds, succeeds because of oversimplification. Our interactions are not in fact composed entirely of conversations in words. If the understanding of the Chinese Room is inadequate, it is because cognition thought of as interaction via text is inadequate.

The same sort of responses could be offered with respect to testing. First, the student could not really succeed in the test without actually understanding (call that the 'Brainbench' example. Second, the capacity to respond to thee tests is itself a form of understanding (call that the cognitivist response). Third, appropriate testing would go well beyond text-based questions and answers (call that the recognition response).


p.s.

I would also add that despite the weaknesses of the algebra, trigonometry, and calculus pathway, the suggestion that people learn statistics instead is not a viable alternative, for the primary reason that it is not an actual alternative.

Once you get into the study of anything beyond simply statistics, you are going to be involved in the study of algebra, trigonometry, and calculus. Statistics is the study of change, and change can come in pretty much any mathematical form. http://www.downes.ca/post/53662

Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Beyond Free ‑ Open Learning in a Networked World

by Stephen Downes

Thank you, I have way too much fun with these talks. It shouldn't be allowed. Thank you very much; it's a pleasure to be here. This is the first of three talks I'm giving this week. The three will form a set, so if you feel a little bit unfulfilled at the end of that it's because I'm only get third of the way through the talk. They are however designed to be standalone talks as well so hopefully you will not be as unfulfilled after the talk as you might be afraid of being. I'm also jet-lagged, so you have to forgive some odd, weird, bizarre, and other utterances.

I want to talk to you about the concept of free, the concept of open learning, the concept of networked learning in a networked world and the concept of the institution.

You may in certain sense think of this talk, together with the other talks, as a rebuttal to the way institutions are approaching Massive Open Online Courses and open learning generally today.

It's unfortunate that Diana Laurillard was not able to be here today because my first slide is for her. She challenges the concept of the Massive Open Online Course by asking, "What is the problem that MOOCs appear to have solved?" (Laurillard, 2014) And she answers it, "The problem MOOCs succeed in solving is to provide free university teaching for highly qualified professionals." One might answer that's what the traditional institution is doing as well. One might equally answer that that's what the Internet was doing 20 years ago.

What I want to examine in this talk, is not the problem MOOCs solve at the moment but the problem MOOCs were designed to solve. I'll take a little bit of credit. I'm one of the people that had a significant hand in designing the original concept of the Massive Open Online Course.

Diana Laurillard actually answers the question in the same talk, the same paper, in which she proposes. The dilemma, she writes, "By 2015 there will be 53 million out of school and UNESCO estimates that we need 1.6 million teachers to achieve universal primary education.”  (UNESCO, 2014) That's primary education. That's not secondary. That's not tertiary, primary.  I did a quick off the cuff calculation. At $50,000 or 25,000 pounds we would need an additional 80 billion dollars in salary a year not counting buildings, equipment, resources, et cetera, roughly 40 billion pounds.

That's a lot of money. It's not inconceivable that we could pay this amount, but the difficulty there is there seems to be no inclination on the part of governments and institutions in the world to actually pay this amount of money.

We have to find, says Laurillard innovative ways of teaching. I would say we have to find more innovative ways of learning. Because the problem isn't the way we design our courses. That might be a solution to the problem, one solution, but the problem is cost and access. Design is only one way, and, I would submit, a limited way of looking at the problem.

What is the problem? Very simply, who gets to graduate? Paul Tough, "New York Times", "Whether a student graduates or not seems to depend today almost entirely on one factor, how much money his or her parents make." (Tough, 2014) Look around this institution and ask whether that's the case here as well. Did it determine who got in? Does it determine who gets out?

"It's always going to be the case," he continues, "that the kids who have need are going to have been denied a lot of the academic preparation and opportunities for the information that the affluent kids are given. It's not simply the money, but it's the background, the expectations, the culture, and the values that money can buy." So simply throwing money at poor kids isn't going to solve the problem, but neither is denying the money to make solutions to the problem possible. Money is a necessary, although admittedly not sufficient, condition.

Let's turn the question around. What is the problem for which colleges and universities are the answer?

It's not addressing issues of cost or addressing issues of access, is it? If we look at the results that they have produced, it's exactly the opposite of that.

Let's look at why colleges and universities and other educational institutions are running MOOCs. What are their reasons? They've been studied. One such study  (Hollands & Tirthali, 2014) lists the following five reasons why institutions are building MOOCs. Check these off if they sound familiar. Check these off if you just heard them:

  • extended reach and access (to markets),
  • build and maintain brand,
  • reduce cost, that is the cost to the institution, and raise revenue for the institution,
  • improve educational outcomes, I could talk a lot about that, and, of course, 
  • research and innovation in teaching and learning.

Did you see cost in there to students? See access to learning there for students?

Meanwhile, academics deny that cost is even a problem. A ridiculous set of studies recently, the references are all there, argue that the benefits of college still outweigh the cost. The reasons for that, if you read the article are:

  • That the opportunity cost of going to college has gone down. What that means is, when you go to college or a university you're giving up less income. Why? Because there's been a worldwide recession and you wouldn't make as much money. That's the argument.  (Abel & Deitz, 2014)
  • Financial aid programs drive college prices higher, as though they were incapable of doing anything else. It's like when the tuition caps were raised here in the UK to 9,000 pounds and the expectation, naive though it was, was that universities would settle out on a gradient instead of all raising their fees to 9,000 pounds. We know what really drives institutions.  (American Enterprise Institute, 2014)
  • And there's the argument that student debt is overstated, which is true if you, when you read the study, look at only people who are heads of households between the ages of 25 and 40 and don't look at the people who have not been able to establish their own household. In that case student debt is overstated, but if you actually looked at all students, you'd get a different story.  (Leonhardt, 2014)

We've been told outright that money is not the problem, the implication being that we should not spend any money trying to fix this problem.  (Lynch, 2014) That's why we're getting a lot of – a lot of - educational reform or, as it's characterized in North American, education deform. And they're saying what we really need is a culture change in the institution, that what we really need is accountability – perhaps to the BMO financial group that offered this study.
Image: Bristow, 2014 



But for many people, let's be realistic here, and you can walk down the street and you can see it, for many people cost is the problem. In Canada, in North America, in general, university participation rates are lower among aboriginals, students with disabilities, the poor.  (Bristow, 2014) Big surprise. Student debt acquired not only by paying tuition but by paying that opportunity cost that isn't as much now, has become an even bigger problem.  (Eaton, Dioun, Godoy, Goldstein, Habinek, & Osley-Thomas, 2014)

It's interesting. You look at in constant dollars higher ed cost and instructional cost, they're more or less steady. But students are getting nailed on student loan interest. That's the light blue line. And the private colleges are making out like bandits.

Not only are students hurt, so are their families. (Canadian Alliance of Student Associations , 2014) This is a study from the Canadian Association of Student Associations. Parents are borrowing more. They're going back to work. They're dipping into their retirement savings. Those very same studies that say debt is not a problem are studies that ignore the impact on families that are supporting students trying to go to school.

And meanwhile the benefits - remember that, those of you are maybe my age - the benefits of digital resources, (like) open knowledge for all, never materialized. Recently we had a report in "The Chronicle of Higher Education," 11 publishers are raising their prices all at the same time.  (Wolfman-Arent, 2014) But there's no collusion.  The previous cost model for e-books was not sustainable.

Even universities agree that that's a problem, pretty surprisingly. Journals published by non-profit organizations, says this report, "2 to 10 times better value than those published by commercial companies." (Sample, 2014) Of course the journals don't want you to know this. Academia doesn't want you to know this. And they will publish these reports only after threats of mass resignation. (Jump, 2014) That's what happened a couple of months ago. And then when they publish the report, they'll publish it with a big disclaimer saying it might not be true.  (Harvie, Lightfoot, Lilley, & Weir, 2014) Those are the guardians of academic knowledge.

And what we're seeing in the community today are calls to recognize alternative forms of literature. (Hunwick, 2008, GreyNet, 2014)  I'm a living alternative form of literature. They're calling on people to recognize research and technical reports, which I produce a lot, evaluations, of which I produce a lot, working papers, which is pretty much all I produce in the way of papers, conference papers like this, which isn't even a paper until well after it's created, multimedia content, and the like. There's a reason for this. This stuff is a lot more accessible, a lot more immediate than traditional published literature.

You know, the Internet 20 years ago was providing services only to highly educated professionals. And 20 years ago in 1994 a guy called Steven Harnad came out with what he called "The Subversive Proposal".  (Okerson & O'Donnell, 1995; Poynder, 2014) The Subversive Proposal was to free the research literature through self-archiving. It has morphed a little bit over the years, but it's basically still the same concept today.

Originally the idea was to put these things up FTP servers (FTP servers are like websites but without pictures or links or hypertext or cat… well ok, they did have cat videos). "Self-archiving's time," wrote Harnad in a later presentation (Harnad, 2001) "has yet to come 20 years later." That doesn't mean there hasn't been a movement. There has been a movement. There's been a growth of a movement, the idea based on the firm belief that open access holds, at the very least, the promise of a faster and more effective system of sharing new knowledge.

And it's a promise that resonates not simply in the halls of universities like this, but in places where people are impacted by constant access, in the developing world, in the First Nation's communities, among the poor.  (Poynder, Open Access in India: Q&A with Subbiah Arunachalam, 2014)

Now it's no coincidence that the worldwide web was created 20 year ago as well. The first accredited school, according to Phil Hill, to offer a course of the WWW, which is what it was called then, was the Open University in a pilot virtual summer school.  (Eisenstadt, 1994; Hill, 2014) My own first online learning resource was called "Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies," and I'm a relative newbie because it was published online as a website early in 1995. I'm a neophyte. And our first institutionally based online course, "Introduction to Instruction" at Assiniboine Community College was offered in 1996.

But you know we're still waiting for the benefits of web-based courses as well - this whole openness thing, this whole access thing. I once did a survey specifically for digital rights management technologies for learning resources. I did a survey of how long it would take me to read all of the patents. Since I was developing my own system, I thought it would be a good idea. It would take me more than a lifetime to read them all.

The history of online learning is the history of a plethora of patents. (Watters, 2014) This is a patent for setting up a regional network in the south western United States. That's Nevada. That's Arizona. That's New Mexico. That's Utah. That's Colorado or Wyoming, one of the square ones. Calling it a patent thicket is more than a slight understatement. And it's not just patents, of course, it's copyright, trademarks, even trade secrets.

Here's one that came out a few weeks ago - I've actually got the screen capture - trademark for pi. (Poulsen, 2014) Yes, pi, the pi that you're all familiar with, 3.141 whatever. A colleague memorized it to 100 digits. I've memorized it to, what, one.

This is not simply an isolated instance. It's the norm. It's a phenomenon that took place in the industrial revolution. It's a phenomenon taking place in the information revolution. It's a phenomenon of enclosure. You would think we learned from the last time, but we didn't. And it threatens the commons, the common heritage, common knowledge, common culture that we all thought that we own.

People say that I'm scare-mongering, that these fears won't really come true. Even the defenders of open content say, "Oh, you're way over. Show us one example." Well, here's one example: A study of 50 titles, this was from New Zealand literature prior to 1890 or something like that that have been digitized. Only three were hosted by repositories that do not restrict any type of subsequent use. (Clark & Chawner, 2014) These are contents that are public domain. The copyright has long since expired, but you cannot access them except through a system that imposes limitations to your use. And it's getting worse.

Content companies now are building web browsers. (Baker, 2014) This is a promo for the new Amazon web browser. One click and you can be watching the best in paid TV. I love the way it's represented. "Watch for zero dollars with Prime." (Searchy, 2013) You're supposed to think it's free, but the only reason there's a price there is because episode one, with one click, costs you $2.99 or you can buy the season for $29.99 or maybe you can buy an open access, public domain work for who knows how much.

Content providers, and this is manifestly clear and well known, do not want people to have free and open access. (Newman & Levy, 2104) Newspapers are a good example. People got used to having their news for free on the Internet, but they've been trying desperately to stop that. There's almost a sense in which they have no sense of community as they do this.

You might think that's an extreme case. It wasn't so long ago, a month or so ago, I can get the exact date, happily, that we had some guy heavily armed in Moncton with assault rifles strapped on the back and he went out and started shooting policemen. The whole city was locked down. I was locked down. We were all locked down. The city became a ghost town. It was a huge story. You may have heard about it. No? We thought it made the international news. I guess not.

It was a big story in Moncton. Our local newspaper did not remove the pay wall barrier even though the safety of people on the street depended on free and open access to news. My little alternative, community based web newspaper, "The Moncton Free Press" was the major source of online news during the event, that plus Facebook plus Reedit plus the other social networks.

Their priorities are not our priorities, and, sad to say, this includes especially universities.

Look at what their priorities are. Universities searching for a new president, 400K salary. Staff there, some of the staff there, were volunteering in groups of four to take that salary. (As It Happens, 2014)  No word on whether their offer has been accepted, but 56 of them have already volunteered in groups of four.

The resistance, generally, of academic staff to open content is manifest. Here's a report from here (Greenwich) where we see active change blocking and passive forms of intransigence. The sharing of resources only happens on Moodle (did I see that in a slide recently) which is a closed system. It may be open source, but the content is blocked with a subscription wall. The staff have not had time to effectively learn about open content in their work. (Bryant, Coombs, Pazio, & Walker, 2014) This is a report that was cited by Terry Anderson. (Anderson, 2014) You can see the report an open course-ware conference in February of this year. Even at that conference skepticism prevails.

This is Tony Bates reporting that adoption by faculty and instructors remains a major challenge.  (Bates, 2014)  And this is repeated over and over and over and over. Peter Suber and the aforementioned Steven Harnad have come to argue that institutions need to adopt mandatory open archiving policies. Why would they advocate such a measure? Because faculty left to their own devices won't bother. And that's well documented.

There's no end to the reasons they offer (Jhangiani, 2014):

  • For many disciplines, they say, there is no open textbook available. That's not true, but that's what they say.
  • They're concerned about the quality, the comprehensive, clarity, currency, et cetera, as if existing textbooks are such models of comprehensive, clarity, and currency.
  • They complain that in the world's most visual medium there are no illustrations, charts, or graphics.
  • In a world of chat rooms and YouTube comments, there are no questions or clinical thinking exercises
  • No online learning management systems available despite the existence of the aforementioned Moodle.
  • And, crucially for faculty, there is no testing.

> Professors who call out the institutional policies, the institutional indifference to cost and access, are accused of insubordination. This is a professor at the University of Saskatchewan, Robert Buckingham, who was summarily fired and stripped of tenure for criticizing administration plans to "rationalize".  (CBC News, 2014)

Universities, meanwhile, disguise what is an increasingly unsustainable model by doing what they were doing to me, hiring poorly paid, temporary, academic staff. They're called sessionals in Canada. They're called adjuncts in the United States, I don't know what they're called here. I don't know if they exist here. They do. I'm getting nods.  This is what the adjunct or sessionals say, "Our marginalization, meager pay, and lack of job security," all of which I can attest, "...all contribute to a culture of paranoia and enmity." (Shah, 2014) Sound familiar?

And our institutions who do not have access or openness as a priority have priced online learning using the same models, same mechanism even, that they've used to price in classroom. Here we have a report on an online learning consortium. "I don't see why university administrators could think that unapologetically pricing courses at $1,400 per credit hour..." - that's per credit hour; most courses are three credit hours, six credit hours - "...for online learning could possibly work." (Straumsheim, 2014) But, of course, it worked in traditional institutions, so it should work online.

And "Mostly they see the new technology as a means to make more money."  (Martin, 2014) McGill University looking at the new wonderful phenomenon of crowd sourcing has decided to use crowd sourcing to encourage donations (and yet again, the silo model, the model where the university is all prevails, they didn't use Kick starter, they built their own crowd funding platform. It boggles the mind).

While university fundraisers pursue parochial interests open content advocates create resource networks. (Sheare, 2014) And that's a big difference between the world of closed and the world of open.

Why? Open access makes a massive economic difference, maybe not to the institution, although I would argue that it does, but especially to the users of that institution. The estimated rate from open data for the G20 nations is 2.6 trillion dollars, 1.3 trillion pounds, annually, from education, transport, consumer products, and the rest. (Dawson, 2014)

The mechanisms we have today such as the Creative Commons license are being recognized finally as a patch, not a fix. (Brest, 2014) We shouldn't be adopting this world of closed content and copyrights and trademarks and patents as the default. They are now arguing, finally, that we should be working to a world where the default is open. And you know, that is the world outside academia. That's the world that has been unfolding in my experience, in my world:

  • Things like Ergo, a free and open journal of philosophy. (Huber & Weisberg, 2014)
  • Things like "Mini Lectures Using Learning Objects" (Nash, 2014)
  • Things like, "A New Talk Sketched Daily" (May, 2014)
  • Even TED, although TED is, as I once commented, really the Upworthy of academia.
  • Things like "The Open Textbook Toolkit" from BC Campus, basically a way to help people who want to create an open textbook create an open textbook. (BC Campus, 2014)  

We are seeing what Martin Weller has called the "open virus". (Weller, 2014) He writes, "It's no coincidence that many of the MOOC pioneers had also been early adopters of open access, active bloggers, and advocates of open licenses, and creating open courses in that model seemed the next logical step."

Can we imagine a world of open resource, open access, open learning beyond the traditional world of open coursework, beyond the traditional university model? Maybe. Even the Open Coursework Consortium is changing its name, so we must be getting somewhere. (Open Education Consortium, 2014) We're seeing a worldwide – literally – embrace an alternative model of learning based on open content and even national and pan-national investments in open content networks and open content platforms. (Creelman, 2014)

But, of course, there's nothing that can't be corrupted by money. We should know, looking across the river (at Canary Wharf). We have, for example, a company that produces five minute educational videos. They're not TED videos. TED videos are longer. They have the intent of making them go viral. (Wolfman-Arent, Online Upstart’s Goal: MOOC Lectures That Go Viral, 2014)  Or we have this free online lesson from Disney called, "Play Games with Doc McStuffins." No media placement there! (Dickson, 2014)

Traditional universities are not immune, sadly, from this temptation. Events have proven that they're not. Some critics take them to task. They take them to task for MOOCs. People like Roger Schank saying, "I'm sure that Stanford itself won't give the stuff they produce to its own students. No one calls this racism or classicism, but it's education for poor people.” (Schank, 2014)

On the other hand, Schank's solution. Give a Stanford education to everyone is ridiculous. I did the math. $32.5 trillion a year - $54.5K per year to attend Stanford x World population ages 20-24 of 596.3M. (Sullivan, 2012) That's more money than there is in the world. (CIA, 2014) Perhaps for that reason it's hard to resist the idea that MOOCs are moneymaking scams. (Nagel, 2014) You take the people charging that tuition, and you put MOOCs into their hands, that's kind of the image you get. Isn't it?

You almost wonder whether this $0.00 MOOC offering is what they call a loss leader.

They’ll get your hooked on the MOOCs, this free open content, and as soon as you're hooked on the MOOCs, well, now it's going to toss you a dollar, $5, $19.99, $39.99. It's still cheaper than a course, but you know. Online education is a billion-dollar business motivated more by profits than quality education for students.

The research is telling us how bad these MOOCs really are. If you are isolated, poor and enamored of the prestigious MOOC university offering, the MOOC you're taking, you are less likely to complete it et cetera, et cetera.  (Kolowich, 2014) But of course the sort of MOOCs that these critics are criticizing are the MOOCs created by the same people. In some cases exactly the same people like Richard Levin, for example, who wanted to raise money selling courses online, and who also gave the impression during interviews that they don't really know what the software they're pushing does.  (Hill, Partial Transcript: Richard Levin (new Coursera CEO) on Charlie Rose, 2014)

We need to understand that MOOCs as they were designed are different, that they're not traditional courses, that they're not these moneymaking scams. They're not intended to be anyway. And we can begin by dropping the labels and the value points that we attach to traditional learning, for example, the label 'dropout,'  (Wolfman-Arent, Study of MOOCs Suggests Dropping the Label ‘Dropout’, 2014) and characterize people by the actual impact they have on the system: uploaders, commenter, subscribers, viewers, lurkers. All the names you would normally associate with day-to-day Internet practice.

Because that's what the MOOCs are based on. It's true that one thing that characterizes the MOOCs is the sheer scale of participation. “1,162 students taking the final exam at this course,” writes one person, “is more students than I've taught at Wellesley College over the last 10 years.”  (Rogers, 2014 May) Quite so. These numbers are not telling the story about MOOCs.

Michael Feldstein asks of MOOC analytics, did they look at any information giving us a clue of whether students desired to complete the course? The answer, no. Or get a good grade? The answer, no. Get a certificate? Well, some. Sample some material. No, that's not one of the questions they asked in these surveys.  (Hill, What Harvard and MIT could learn, 2014)

And what we’re finding - this is research from the MOOC Research Institute, George Siemens is saying at the University of Texas at Arlington (Siemens, 2014) - the bulk of MOOCs are created in the image of traditional courses. And eventually, I would say, they will be given the prices of traditional courses. And indeed the retrenchment has to be done. The institution is saying MOOCs will not replace the traditional course. They will only supplement them (the phenomenon they call the ‘wrapped MOOC’).  (Christensen, Alcorn, & Emanuel, 2014; Kelly, 2014)

We are told that everything is negotiable. Remember that. That is the retrenchment. From my perspective none of it is negotiable. Especially the most important part: open. But traditional education, we are told, will simple absorb the MOOCs (Hollands & Tirthali, 2014), as it has absorbed, or as we say co-opted so many things in the past – rap, punk, the list goes on. That institutions feel that they would simply absorb the MOOCs doesn't surprise me. These institutions have had very different goals and ambitions all along.

The mission has shifted completely away from MOOC, completely away from open learning, and to the support of the university's prosperity. (Hill, Coursera shifts focus, 2014) Does that sound familiar? They want to build a new marketplace. And they even think it's a new idea.  (Goodwin, 2014) This is the next land rush of online learning, the move to marketplace.  (European Multiple MOOC Aggregator, 2014) If you hear the word 'federation' in a talk this is what they're referring to: “a coalition of interdependent universities providing an LMS, content repository, and learning analytics system” which might connect maybe, if they supported single sign-on, to some external systems. (Feldstein, 2014)

What's important here is that MOOCs are not second rate, they're not disappearing, they're not being absorbed, or anything else. They are, to borrow that horribly hackneyed phrase, disruptive.  (Christensen & Weise, 2014)They're going to be disruptive on price, technology, even pedagogy. That's because they're disruptive in terms of approach. And that approach is that MOOCs are designed, and built, and intended to be free and open. The one thing universities have always struggled with.

The idea of a national network for free learning is something that can endure, and eventually become entrenched. (Kamenetz, 2014) And it is becoming entrenched, but mostly outside the university system. We're beginning to see the importance of this: Matt Crosslin's been trying to design a hybrid MOOC presentation. All the connective bits of a connectivist MOOC, the way we designed it, and mix it up with traditional X-MOOC of traditional academic courses. The idea of free and open here as he recognizes is linked to the importance of dialog and interaction.  (Crosslin, 2014)

But why would you build a hybrid? What part of dialog and interaction actually requires that a university system and lectures and the works? We looked at and analyzed the nature of conversation, and it turns out we can do it all by ourselves.

So people like Alan Levine, and many others, said, "Let's build mesh networks of people instead." (Levine, 2014) Let's imagine what we could do on a limited budget with free resources that are already out there that we can share, that we can use to communicate, that we can have other people take and run with to solve their own issues, their own problems, their own needs. (McGregor, 2014) Open content plus conversation equals learning networks, and the original MOOCs were not intended to be high-priced or even free university courses, they were intended to be learning networks.

The idea that professors tell students what to believe: that's the old model. And it's wrong.  (Jaschik, 2014) And we're learning more as time goes by with the work of these MOOCs about what does work in these learning networks. Things like the principles for dynamic networks. Some draw from Deleuze and Guattari. (Mackness, 2014) I've identified four principles: autonomy, openness, diversity and interactivity. 

We've seen the existence and influence of networks in social life. I've seen, for example, by Harrison C. White. The multiple change overlapping nets with no clear boundaries.  (Azarian, 2000) Exactly, again, the opposite of universities, especially one with a big fence around it. The structure of MOOC is the structure of a network. The principles of the MOOC are the principles of the network.  (Grabher, 2006)

There's no such thing as a generic resource. There's no such thing as a generic person. There's no such thing as a generic neuron. (Hall, 2014) Networks require and thrive on diversity. Different content created by different individuals, not single content created by an institution or professor. Far from curriculum, we're learning that we should be emphasizing diversity, be emphasizing experience, be emphasizing autonomy and learning. (Lunau, 2014) The idea of the MOOC is not the idea of open resources, or even the idea of open teaching.

It goes beyond that. It's about living openly. (Funes, 2014) It's not about teaching. It's about sharing the process of thought.

If you look at my works ignore these talks. Look at the works as a whole and see the example of the MOOC instantiated literally on a day-to-day basis. Sharing with things like Board Thing.  (BoardThing, 2014) Sharing with things like MOOCopoly, the game (Levine, MOOCopoly, 2014). Sharing with things that are decentralized, not centralized. (Cox, 2014) Of course decentralized is exactly what the institutions are clamping down on. Decentralized is why Internet access is being sold to the highest bidder. (Singel, 2014) Decentralized is why the open content movement is beginning to address open policy. (Open Policy Network, 2014) Although of course they released it under a content embargo.

We need to be open not in the big things, but also the little thing , like embargos.  (Confederation of Open Access Repositories, 2014) The little things like this talk. The little things like this slide. The little things like this picture of boats shooting at each other. Open content, open access, open learning. These are not only a part of democracy, a part of the free exchange of ideas, a part of the culture of learning, but they define all of these, and they define our system of free and open government.  (Jarche, 2014) These things depend on them. When I say the institution has different values from us, it's important to understand exactly what it is that the institution has different values from. Thank you.









Abel, J. R., & Deitz, R. (2014). Do the Benefits of College Still Outweigh the Costs. Current Issues in Economis and Finance, 20(3).

Aggregator, E. M. (2014, April 16). European Multiple MOOC Aggregator. Retrieved from Open Education Europa E-Learning Papers: http://openeducationeuropa.eu/en/project/emma-0

American Enterprise Institute. (2014, June). Policies to puncture the student loan bubble. Retrieved from American Enterprise Institute: http://www.aei.org/events/2014/06/25/policies-to-puncture-the-student-loan-bubble/

Anderson, T. (2014, April 23). Greewich Connect connects with us on a number of levels. Retrieved from Greewich Connect connects with us on a number of levels: http://terrya.edublogs.org/2014/04/23/greewich-connect-connects-with-us-on-a-number-of-levels/

As It Happens. (2014, June 6). Is a 400k salary too much for a university president? Four academics apply to share one lucrative U of Alberta position. Retrieved from CBC Radio: http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/features/2014/06/06/university-of-alberta-president-salary-letter/

Azarian, R. (2000). The Basic Framework in the General Sociology of Harrison C. White. Retrieved from Stockholm University: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.195.3584&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Baker, M. (2014, May 14). DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users. Retrieved from Mozilla Blog: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/05/14/drm-and-the-challenge-of-serving-users/

Bates, T. (2014, April 23). What I learned from the Open Textbook Summit. Retrieved from online learning and distance edcuation resources: http://www.tonybates.ca/2014/04/23/what-i-learned-from-the-open-textbook-summit/

BC Campus. (2014). Open Textbooks Toolkit. Retrieved from BC Campus: http://open.bccampus.ca/open-textbook-101/open-textbooks-toolkit/

BoardThing. (2014). BoardThing. Retrieved from BoardThing: http://boardthing.com/

Brest, P. (2014). The Future is Open. Retrieved from Creative Commons: http://teamopen.cc/thefuture/

Bristow, A. (2014, JunE 10). Are All Experiential Learning Opportunities Created Equal? Retrieved from Ontario Undergraduate Student Allaince: http://www.ousa.ca/2014/06/10/experiential-learning-opportunities-created-equal/

Bryant, P., Coombs, A., Pazio, M., & Walker, S. (2014, February). Disruption, destruction, construction or transformation? The challenges of implementing a university wide strategic approach to connecting in an open world. Retrieved from Open Courseware Consortium 2014 Conference: http://conference.ocwconsortium.org/2014/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Paper_30.pdf

Canadian Alliance of Student Associations . (2014, June 5). Backgrounder: Parental Views on Post-Secondary Education. Retrieved from Canadian Alliance of Student Associations : http://www.casa-acae.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Data-Backgrounder_June5thRelease1.pdf

CBC News. (2014, May 14). Prof. Robert Buckingham fired after criticizing Saskatchewan university plan. Retrieved from CBC News: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/prof-robert-buckingham-fired-after-criticizing-saskatchewan-university-plan-1.2642637

Christensen, C. M., & Weise, M. R. (2014, May 9). MOOCs’ disruption is only beginning. Retrieved from Boston Globe: http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/05/09/moocs-disruption-only-beginning/S2VlsXpK6rzRx4DMrS4ADM/story.html

Christensen, G., Alcorn, B., & Emanuel, E. (2014, June 3). MOOCs Won’t Replace Business Schools — They’ll Diversify Them. Retrieved from Harvard Business Review Blogs: http://blogs.hbr.org/2014/06/moocs-wont-replace-business-schools-theyll-diversify-them/

CIA. (2014). GDP (Official Exchange Rate). Retrieved from CIA World Factbook: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2195.html

Clark, A., & Chawner, B. (2014, June 2). Enclosing the public domain: The restriction of public domain books in a digital environment. First Monday, 19(6). http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4975/4089

Confederation of Open Access Repositories. (2014, May 14). Statement about embargo periods. Retrieved from Confederation of Open Access Repositories: https://www.coar-repositories.org/activities/advocacy-leadership/aligning-repository-networks-across-regions/statement-about-embargo-periods/

Cox, J. (2014, May 8). The future of the open Internet is decentralized. Retrieved from The Daily Dot: http://www.dailydot.com/technology/decentralized-internet-future/

Creelman, A. (2014, 19 June). Norwegian MOOC commission . Retrieved from The corridor of uncertainty: http://acreelman.blogspot.ca/2014/06/norwegian-mooc-commission.html

Crosslin, M. (2014, May 4). Designing a Dual Layer cMOOC/xMOOC. Retrieved from EduGeek Journal: http://www.edugeekjournal.com/2014/05/04/designing-a-dual-layer-cmoocxmooc/

Dawson, R. (2014, 19 June). The massive impact on economic growth of open data in government. Retrieved from Trends in the Living Networks: http://rossdawsonblog.com/weblog/archives/2014/06/impact-open-data-government-economic-growth.html

Dickson, J. (2014, April 24). Why Disney is pushing further into the preschool mobile space. Retrieved from iKids: http://kidscreen.com/2014/04/24/why-disney-is-pushing-further-into-the-preschool-mobile-space/

Eaton, C., Dioun, C., Godoy, D. G., Goldstein, A., Habinek, J., & Osley-Thomas, R. (2014, May 22). Borrowing Against the Future: The Hidden Costs of Financing U.S. Higher Education. Retrieved from The Center for Culture, Organizations, and Politics (CCOP), UC Berkeley Institute for Research on Labor and Employment: http://www.aft.org/pdfs/highered/BorrowingAgainstFuture0514.pdf

Eisenstadt, M. (1994). Virtual Summer School Project. Retrieved from Open University: http://faculty.education.ufl.edu/Melzie/Distance/Virtual%20Summer%20School%20Project

Feldstein, M. (2014, May 24). Why Unizin is a Threat to edX. Retrieved from e-Literate: http://mfeldstein.com/unizin-threat-edx/

Funes, M. (2014, May 25). The psychology of open: On wrestling your inner MOOC. Retrieved from doublemirror: http://mdvfunes.com/2014/05/25/the-psychology-of-open-on-wrestling-your-inner-mooc/

Goodwin, M. (2014, May 29). Brilliance struck. We call it Canvas Catalog. Retrieved from Canvas by Instructure: http://voice.instructure.com/blog/bid/346982/Brilliance-struck-We-call-it-Canvas-Catalog

Grabher, G. (2006). Trading routes, bypasses, and risky intersections: Mapping the travels of “networks” between economic sociology and economic geography. Progress in Human Geography, 30(2), 163-189.

GreyNet. (2014, May 16). Pisa Declaration on Policy Development for Grey Literature Resources. Retrieved from Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Italy: http://greyguide.isti.cnr.it/include/pisadeclarationmay2014.pdf

Hall, S. S. (2014, June 17). Neuroscience’s New Toolbox. Retrieved from MIT Technology Review: http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/528226/neurosciences-new-toolbox/

Harnad, S. (2001, February 23). The Fruits of Self-Archiving. Retrieved from soton.ac.uk: http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Tp/Milestones/sld001.htm

Harvie, D., Lightfoot, G., Lilley, S., & Weir, K. (2014, May 21). Publisher, be damned! From price. Critical Studies in Innovation, 31(3), 229-239.

Hill, P. (2014, June 23). Coursera shifts focus from ‘impact on learners’ to ‘reach of universities’. Retrieved from e-Literate: http://mfeldstein.com/coursera-shifts-focus-impact-learners-reach-universities/

Hill, P. (2014, June 24). e-Literate. Retrieved from WWW-based online education turns 20 this summer: http://mfeldstein.com/internet-based-online-education-turns-20-summer/

Hill, P. (2014, April 23). Partial Transcript: Richard Levin (new Coursera CEO) on Charlie Rose. Retrieved from e-Literate: http://mfeldstein.com/partial-transcript-richard-levin-new-coursera-ceo-charlie-rose/

Hill, P. (2014, June 1). What Harvard and MIT could learn from the University of Phoenix about analytics. Retrieved from e-Literate: http://mfeldstein.com/harvard-mit-learn-university-phoenix-analytics/

Hollands, F. M., & Tirthali, D. (2014, May). MOOCs: Expectations and Reality. Retrieved from Center for Benefit-Cost Studies of Education, Teachers College, Columbia University: http://cbcse.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/MOOCs_Expectations_and_Reality.pdf

Huber, F., & Weisberg, J. (2014). Introducing Ergo. Ergo, 1. http://www.ergophiljournal.org/

Hunwick, L. (2008, September 19). Greay Literature! Retrieved from Basildon Healthcare Library: http://tebm-libs.wikispaces.com/file/view/Grey+Literature.ppt

Jarche, H. (2014, May 4). A world of pervasive networks. Retrieved from Harold Jarche: http://www.jarche.com/2014/05/a-world-of-pervasive-networks/

Jaschik, S. (2014, June 10). Stop Blaming Professors. Retrieved from Inside Higher Ed: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/06/10/study-finds-students-themselves-not-professors-lead-some-become-more-liberal-college

Jhangiani, R. (2014, April 23). A Faculty Perspective on Open Textbooks. Retrieved from Weblog: http://jhangiani.wordpress.com/2014/04/23/a-faculty-perspective-on-open-textbooks/

Jump, P. (2014, June 5). Resignations threat over Taylor & Francis ‘censorship’. Retrieved from Times Higher Educatoion: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/resignations-threat-over-taylor-and-francis-censorship/2013752.article

Kamenetz, A. (2014, May 29). The Future Of Online Ed Isn't Heading Where You Expect. Retrieved from NPR: http://www.npr.org/blogs/ed/2014/05/29/316989869/the-future-of-online-ed-isnt-heading-where-you-expect

Kelly, A. P. (2014, May 15). A Policymaker's Guide to Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCS). Retrieved from Bellwether Education Partners: http://bellwethereducation.org/policymakers_guide_to_moocs

Kolowich, S. (2014, June 27). 5 Things Researchers Have Discovered About MOOCs. Retrieved from Chronicle of Higher Education Wired Campus Blog: http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/5-things-researchers-have-discovered-about-moocs/53585

Laurillard, D. (2014, June 26). What is the problem for which MOOCs are the solution? Retrieved from ALT Online Newsletter: https://newsletter.alt.ac.uk/2014/06/what-is-the-problem-for-which-moocs-are-the-solution/

Leonhardt, D. (2014, June 24). The Reality of Student Debt Is Different From the Clichés. Retrieved from New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/24/upshot/the-reality-of-student-debt-is-different-from-the-cliches.html

Levine, A. (2014, May 8). Mesh Networks of People. Retrieved from CogDogBlog: http://cogdogblog.com/2014/05/08/mesh-networks-of-people/

Levine, A. (2014, May 3). MOOCopoly: The Game. Retrieved from CogDogBlog: http://cogdogblog.com/2014/05/03/moocopoly-the-game/

Lunau, K. (2014, June 15). Bringing mindfulness to the school curriculum. Retrieved from Maclean's: http://www.macleans.ca/society/health/bringing-mindfulness-to-the-school-curriculum/

Lynch, K. G. (2014, Junbe 25). More money won’t fix need for change in education . Retrieved from Globe and Mail: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/education-lab/more-money-wont-fix-need-for-change-in-education/article19309812/

Mackness, J. (2014, June 24). Principles for Rhizomatic Thinking. Retrieved from Jenny Connected: http://jennymackness.wordpress.com/2014/06/24/principles-for-rhizomatic-thinking/

Martin, M. E. (2014, June 4). Seeding is believing: McGill launches crowdfunding platform. Retrieved from McGill Reporter: http://publications.mcgill.ca/reporter/2014/06/seeding-is-believing-mcgill-launches-crowdfunding-platform/

May, K. T. (2014, May 5). A new talk sketched daily, by fan Stefani Bachetti. Retrieved from TED Blog: http://blog.ted.com/2014/05/05/a-new-talk-sketched-daily-by-fan-stefani-bachetti/

McGregor, C. (2014). Disrupting Colonial Mindsets: The Power of Learning Networks. in education, 19(3). http://ineducation.ca/ineducation/article/view/136/622

Nagel, D. (2014, May 13). Are MOOCs Just Moneymaking Scams? Providers Challenged To Substantiate Grandiose Claims. Retrieved from Campus Technology: http://campustechnology.com/articles/2014/05/13/are-moocs-a-moneymaking-scam-providers-challenged-to-substantiate-grandiose-claims.aspx

Nash, S. S. (2014, May 8). Mini-Lectures Using Learning Objects: Bosch's The Haywain (1516) . Retrieved from E-Learning Queen: http://elearnqueen.blogspot.ca/2014/05/mini-lectures-using-learning-objects.html

Newman, N., & Levy, D. A. (2104, June). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2014. Retrieved from Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Reuters%20Institute%20Digital%20News%20Report%202014.pdf

Okerson, A. S., & O'Donnell, J. J. (1995). Scholarly Journals at the Crossroads: A Subversive Proposal for Electronic Publishing. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries.

Open Education Consortium. (2014). Open Education Consortium. Retrieved from Open Education Consortium: http://www.oeconsortium.org/

Open Policy Network. (2014). Open Policy Network. Retrieved from Open Policy Network: http://openpolicynetwork.org/

Poulsen, K. (2014, June 2). Man trademarks Pi, tries to cut out geeky T-shirt designers. Retrieved from Wired: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-06/02/pi-trademark-usa

Poynder, R. (2014, June 9). Open Access in India: Q&A with Subbiah Arunachalam. Retrieved from Open and Shut?: http://poynder.blogspot.ca/2014/06/open-access-in-india-q-with-subbiah.html

Poynder, R. (2014, June 28). The Subversive Proposal at 20 . Retrieved from Open and Shut?: http://poynder.blogspot.ca/2014/06/the-subversive-proposal-at-20.html

Rogers, G. M. (2014 May, 28). Alexander the MOOC Lands . Retrieved from Inside Higher Ed: http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/higher-ed-beta/alexander-mooc-lands

Sample, I. (2014, June 16). Universities 'get poor value' from academic journal-publishing firms. Retrieved from The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jun/16/universities-get-poor-value-academic-journal-publishing-firms

Schank, R. (2014, June 16). Stanford decides to be Wal-Mart; doesn't anyone care about quality education any more? . Retrieved from Education Outrage: http://educationoutrage.blogspot.ca/2014/06/stanford-decides-to-be-wal-mart-doesnt.html

Searchy. (2013, September 9). Amazon Instant Videos Fully Working in Browser! Retrieved from Crackberry: http://forums.crackberry.com/blackberry-10-apps-f274/amazon-instant-videos-fully-working-browser-849796/

Shah, P. J. (2014, June 5). My Last Day as a Professor. Retrieved from Office Hours: gender and feminism in everyday life: http://drshahsofficehours.wordpress.com/2014/06/05/my-last-day-as-a-professor/

Sheare, K. (2014, April 25). Towards a Seamless Global Research Infrastructure: Report of the Aligning Repository Networks Meeting, March 2014. Retrieved from Confederation of Open Access Repositories: https://www.coar-repositories.org/files/Aligning-Repository-Networks-Meeting-Report.pdf

Siemens, G. (2014). Reports. Retrieved from MOOC Research Institute: http://www.moocresearch.com/reports

Singel, R. (2014, April 24). How the FCC Plans to Save the Internet By Destroying It: An Explainer. Retrieved from Medium: https://medium.com/@rsingel/how-the-fcc-plans-to-save-the-internet-by-destroying-it-an-explainer-7805f8049503

Straumsheim, C. (2014, May 1). 'We Gave It a Year'. Retrieved from Inside Higher Ed: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/05/01/collaboration-or-lack-thereof-behind-semester-online-collapse

Sullivan, K. J. (2012, February 7). Stanford raises undergraduate tuition 3 percent for the 2012-13 school year. Retrieved from Stanford News: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/february/stanford-undergraduate-tuition-020712.html

Tough, P. (2014, May 15). Who Gets to Graduate? Retrieved from New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/magazine/who-gets-to-graduate.html?_r=2

UNESCO. (2014). 11th EFA Global Monitoring Report: Teaching and Learning: Achieving Quality for All. Retrieved from UNESCO: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0022/002256/225660e.pdf

Watters, A. (2014, June 22). The History of Ed-Tech via Patent Applications. Retrieved from Hack Education: http://www.hackeducation.com/2014/06/22/ed-tech-patents/

Weller, M. (2014, May 8). The Open virus. Retrieved from The Ed Techie: http://nogoodreason.typepad.co.uk/no_good_reason/2014/05/the-open-virus.html

Wolfman-Arent, A. (2014, June 16). College Libraries Push Back as Publishers Raise Some E-Book Prices. Retrieved from Chronicle of Higher Education: http://chronicle.com/article/College-Libraries-Push-Back-as/147085/

Wolfman-Arent, A. (2014, June 26). Online Upstart’s Goal: MOOC Lectures That Go Viral. Retrieved from Chronicle of Higher Education Wired Campus Blog: http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/online-upstarts-goal-mooc-lectures-that-go-viral/53539

Wolfman-Arent, A. (2014, June 19). Study of MOOCs Suggests Dropping the Label ‘Dropout’. Retrieved from Chronicle of Higher Education Wired Campus Blog: http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/study-of-moocs-suggests-dropping-the-label-dropout/53421?cid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en