Posted on November 28th, 2005 by
Just came across this RFQ looking for software in an educational setting (Ref # 115781 and Sol # OSS-072822). Here’s the requirement:
The Ministry seeks products that will run on Windows (98- XP) and/or Macintosh (9.2 – OSX) or commonly available browsers. Consequently, the Ministry seeks to obtain the following:
(i) Multimedia Authoring Software Grades 5 – 12 in English and French for Windows and Macintosh computers for publicly funded Educational Institutions in Ontario.
(ii) The Respondent’s product should provide a rich environment for students to create linked multimedia products that can easily be opened and navigated by other students and parents. It should allow for the easy creation of a variety of navigational tools, buttons, hyperlinks, animations, and embedded graphics, movies and text objects. Easy placing, sizing, and moving of all objects is essential.
(iii) The Respondent should provide 5 CD-ROMs in English and/or French for use on Windows (98 – XP) and/or Macintosh (9.2 – OSX) to be considered.
Off the top of my head I can think of OpenOffice and Gimp as FREE and OPEN SOURCE software that does not require a ($)license. Can anyone name and link to some others?
I’m sure I could find some better ways to spend tax dollars for education – let me count the ways …
Filed under: OpenSource | 5 Comments »
Posted on November 27th, 2005 by
From OpenOffice.org:
25 November 2005
OpenOffice.org believes that the demand for a genuine open-standard format for office documents is overwhelming. Users of office software are coming to realise that their real investment lies not in the software itself, but in the spreadsheets, databases, and wordprocessing documents which they have created: their own intellectual property. The only way to guarantee access to this investment long term is for the data to be stored in a vendor- neutral, open-standard format.
Microsoft’s announcement on Monday, 21 Nov., that it recognises the market pressure for open-standard data formats is a welcome development. But why opt for a new standard? OpenDocument, which OpenOffice.org uses, is approved by OASIS – the standards body for XML data formats in business; OASIS is sponsored by all the leading names in IT, including Microsoft. In addition, OpenDocument was submitted to the International Standards Organisation (ISO) on 30 September 2005 for ratification.
OpenDocument is a genuine vendor-neutral, open-standard specification, free from intellectual property encumbrances, so that all developers are free to work with it, including open-source developers.
Vendors and developers do not need to continue with the current limiting industry standard, as the OpenDocument standard is available now. Utilising an open-standard, such as OpenDocument, driven and supported by many vendors, is of huge benefit to organisations and their customers. Interoperability between different applications and potential new ventures formed among vendors supporting OpenDocument will stimulate innovation.
Following an open process, the OASIS OpenDocument Technical Committee has a long term commitment to extend, improve, and maintain the standard as technology changes. Membership is open to anyone and users of OpenDocument may view the OpenDocument proceedings and participate in an increasing number of forums.
OpenOffice.org and other open-source projects are well placed to lead and contribute to the innovation of new e-business applications utilising the OpenDocument file format specification.
Filed under: OpenSource | No Comments »
Posted on November 24th, 2005 by Harold Jarche
Here’s a question for any experts on learning object repositories, metadata, cataloguing, etc. Given the latest conversations around tagging, folksonomies and Google’s various search tools; is it still necessary to create a definite metadata structure for large web databases? Would it be better to focus on search? Can personal tagging address everyone’s needs? Should you address both? What would you do if you had to build a learning portal tomorrow? Yes, I’m asking for free advice 
Filed under: Technology | 8 Comments »
Posted on November 22nd, 2005 by
Stephen Downes links to a PowerPoint file (works in OpenOffice.org too) produced by the NRC, entitled ICT Industry Overview, on the state of the industry in Atlantic Canada.
There are some good snippets of information, but the slideshow medium is not meant for a lot of knowledge transfer. For instance, on open source:
Business cases have to be wrestled with, but OSS generally is impacting the way people are thinking about IP and making money – new business models required.
That’s pretty obvious to anyone who has read anything on open source, but worth repeating, and nice to hear this from our "National" Research Council. However, I feel that much of this presentation is looking in the rear view mirror. Supposedly, VC’s want to fund a "Craigslist on steroids" . Have they heard about Google and its services & tools?
In an IT Conversation about a year ago, I believe it was Jonathan Schwartz of Sun who said that the enterprise software development business model as we know it is broken. The latest software successes are not traditional enterprise applications. They’re community platforms, like Vancouver-based Flickr, which spurned VC money and was finally purchased directly by Yahoo!. The investment model is already changing, and perhaps VC’s are not the best source of advice. Enough of them avoided Skype because they couldn’t figure out the business model.
This presentation highlights the need for innovative models, experienced management (lacking in Atlantic Canada) and an understanding of market needs. I would add that Atlantic Canadian entrepreneurs should get a real deep understanding of open source and Web 2.0 if they want to stay in the ICT Industry.
Filed under: OpenSource | 2 Comments »
Posted on November 21st, 2005 by
There’s a lot of hype around Web 2.0 (AKA the social or two-way web). Some see it as the next business opportunity while others view it as the answer to all of our problems. Certainly there is a communications revolution happening right now. Educators, businesses and yes even consultants, are floundering about. Many of us, in a McLuhanesque way, are driving into the future while looking in the rear view mirror. How many people in positions of authority, power, management and consultation are acting as gatekeepers rather than guides?
These thoughts were triggered by Leigh Blackall’s photographs that have been mixed with Web 2.0 themes. If you don’t get this stuff, then watch the slideshow and let the right side of your brain absorb it.
Sometime in the next few years, it will become obvious which way we should have turned. Our schools will be different, or non-existent, and our economies and environments will have gone through enormous changes. In the near future, younger generations are going to make things happen that many of us cannot fathom at this time. How will they view us then? Will we be remembered for our vision and support or for our near-sightedness and stubbornness?
Filed under: Learning | 1 Comment »
Posted on November 20th, 2005 by
Via Anol Bhattacharya is this post from the 37Signals blog announcing a free Basecamp basic subscription for educators. Basecamp is a hosted project management tool, but nowhere near as complicated as MS Project. I haven’t used it for a while but my friends at Tantramar Interactive swear by it to manage their web design projects. This basic subscription is regularly $24 per month and lets you host up to 15 projects. The company also provides Writeboard, a free hosted wiki with an easy interface.
Here’s a post from EdBlogger Praxis on how a school used Basecamp for its school improvement plan.
Filed under: Technology | No Comments »
Posted on November 19th, 2005 by
The idea behind MIT’s $100 laptop initiative is to have one laptop per child, individually owned and cared for. The lime green laptop, which sports a handcrank and a swivel screen debuted in Tunis this week. The official word is that these laptops will be produced in huge quantities (5-10 million) with governments or donors purchasing them in bulk for distribution to students. Jon Husband forwards an additional twist on this initiative that is a bit more grassroots:
"How about offering a commercial version that costs twice as much? Do it in a different semi-florescent color and those who would buy them would be buying one for kid some where." … Well .. why not ? I’d buy one at $200 if I knew some child or woman in an underdeveloped part of the world were going to receive a laptop they could use.
Given that most of the students in most of our schools do not have their own laptop, I think that a higher-priced version for students in more wealthy countries would not be a bad idea (my previous comments on laptops in schools – One Reason for Laptops & The Laptop Furor).
Like Jon, I would gladly pay about $(CA)300 to purchase one for my children and another for someone else. If this happens, would there be any pressure on governments to not allow a commercial version of this laptop in order to appease the oligopolies?
Filed under: Technology | No Comments »
Posted on November 18th, 2005 by
I don’t listen to music online, as the extent of my downloading is EdTech Talk and IT Conversations. However, our boys are starting to share their MP3′s and I was getting concerned that they didn’t understand the nasty forces out there that would do anything to maintain their oligopoly. Therefore, I introduced them to the Creative Commons search feature for media that is free to share. I also showed them Magnatune which features royalty free music. There are a number of single tracks that you can listen to and download for free in order to try before you buy.
What really impressed me about Magnatune is that artists receive 50% of the purchase price of an album (you decide on the price, starting at $5.00) as well as the fact that the artists keep all rights to the music. If this business model catches on, then the major labels have something very serious to worry about, and I have one less thing to worry about.
Filed under: Technology | 1 Comment »
Posted on November 17th, 2005 by Harold Jarche
No answers here, but as I continue to examine this issue I’m drawing some conclusions, and getting scared at the same time.
Some online sources that I’ve looked at:
Here is a quote from a 1999 article, Intellectual Property, Information and the Common Good:
The fundamental problem with intellectual property as an ethical category is that it is purely individualistic. It focuses on the creator/developer of the intellectual work and what he or she is entitled to. There is truth in this, but not the whole truth. It ignores the social role of the creator and of the work itself, thus overlooking their ethically significant relationships with the rest of society. The balance is lost.
Ideas as property will be more and more of an issue for our connected society and especially for those in the learning profession. I believe that locking-up ideas will not foster innovation or cultural growth.
A counter to multinational corporations claiming ever longer and more restrictive copyright protection are movemments like Creative Commons (CC). Through CC or Google’s advanced search (use the "Usage Rights" drop down menu) you can find audio, images, text, video, and other formats that are free to share online. You can also use a CC Licence to make your work easier to share, while retaining some rights.
Update:
I just had to add this quote from Michael Geist. Makes me proud to be Canadian:
It has been apparent now for several years but it bears repeating about the Supreme Court of Canada — no high court in the world better understands that the right balance in intellectual property law depends as much on the laws’ limits as its protections.
Filed under: Commons, Work | 2 Comments »
Posted on November 15th, 2005 by Harold Jarche
Stephen Downes recently referred to a paper written by Kelvin Tan and Cynthia Lim Ai Ming, entitled No Subjects, No teachers, No Schools, No Peers – Just problems: Arguments for a minimalist approach for maximising the scope of problem-based learning (PDF). This paper is a good review of why the process of learning, especially problem solving, should be separated from subject-based curricula, teacher-assessors and peer pressure in education.
My only criticism is that the authors have not referred to the excellent work conducted by Dave Jonassen, author of Learning to Solve problems: An Instructional Design Guide. One of Dave’s remarks that has stuck with me is that as adults, most people are paid to do only one thing – solve problems. Neither our school systems nor most of our training programs prepare people to solve problems.
Tan and Lim Ai Ming make some very strong comments in favour of the separation of content (subject & disciplines) and process (learning & problem solving). They begin by stating that, “The authors of this paper suggest that the retention of subjects or disciplines in PBL is an unnecessary obstacle to students’ learning”. The paper is then structured around these premises:
Learning should be based on problems, not subjects.
Subjects stress content rather than process
Individual learning is authentic [and group work may hinder this learning]
When the teacher is also the assessor, then the power to fail students may be detrimental to self-directed learning
Teachers as content experts (such as at a university) may be detrimental to self-directed learning.
Scheduled class times, as in any regulated school, are not supportive of problem-based learning.
In a recent interview on EdTech Talk, David Warlick talks about how the web has greatly increased the amount of available information. No one can master any content field any more. Now we see students having better access to information as well as access to more people than many of their teachers. I am referring to students who may be using IM and VoIP to chat with their friends in Asia, while the teacher is covering Asian social studies in class. The student just checks with the online friend and gets the information in context. Which information is correct – the textbook or the online peer? It doesn’t matter. What really matters, for their lifelong needs, is that students are learning how to learn and how to solve problems. However, mastery of the curriculum (content) is what the school administration assesses.
A similar content focus is seen in corporate e-learning. "Let us put your content online" some vendor may cry. We also have industry shoot-outs; to see who can convert PowerPoint content into e-learning courseware. It’s all about content because it’s easy to build a course based on defined content since there are no messy, individual, radical learners to get in the way. Only a fictional, generalized target population. My experience is that neither the public educational system, higher education nor the corporate training business have made any great achievements in facilitating learning. In many cases learning occurs in spite of the obstacles presented by formal training and education.
A shift in emphasis away from content delivery changes the role of the teacher/trainer. As Tan and Lim Ai Ming note, teacher as assessor and teacher as facilitator may be conflicting roles. The same goes for teacher as expert and teacher as guide. The separation of trainers and assessors is common practice in the Canadian military, where the trainer is responsible for assisting each learner, and a separate group (the Standards Section), confirms that operational standards are met through summative evalution. When properly implemented, it is a good training system.
Today there is no shortage of information on most subjects. However, many graduates lack critical thinking and problem-solving skills. Facilitating the development of these skills, not mastery of a defined subject area, should be the role of educators and trainers. I believe that this will only happen when they abandon the roles of assessor and expert and become true learning facilitators.
Filed under: Learning | 5 Comments »
