thoughts – D’Arcy Norman dot net

the most important edtech advancements

Jim wrote about his thoughts on the most important advancements in educational technology. I think he’s onto something – the exact tech isn’t important. Nor are the logos on the shiny things we build and/or buy. My personal stance is that we’ve seen 2 major changes on our campus – neither of which are directly related to specific technologies.

Human-scale technologies
Distributed, coordinated, domain-specific community support

The first shift is nothing new – it’s also not constant or consistent. It’s about individualized ownership/control/access to technologies. Some new tools are cheap enough that people grab their own copies – even gasp without asking permission, or even notifying anyone. Some tools are good enough that The University grabs a few copies and hands them out more freely for people to do stuff. I’ve seen people do things with creating online resources for their courses that was simply not possible even a few years ago – and even if technically possible, involved the need to spin up projects, find funding, management, designers, etc…. Now, an instructor can sit at her computer and create really good resources for her courses, on her own, without needing to ask permission. And students can do the same. That’s a fantastic shift.

We’ve been doing things in my group to help with that – we’re setting up a Faculty Design Studio, to give people a place to come work with higher-end tools. We’re ramping up a “tech lending library”, so people can sign stuff out, without needing to go through Project Management or funding requests. Want to play with a GoPro camera to record something for your course? Go for it. Need a tripod, microphone, camcorder, lights? Sure thing. Keeping technology available at human scale is important. It’s more than Enterprise Platforms and [Learning|Research|Administration] Management Systems.

We’re also changing how institutional programs are being run. Our Instructional Skills Workshops involve participants recording themselves presenting or facilitating. In the Olden Days™, that involved a big video cart, with microphones, cameras, mixing boards, DVD recorders, CRT monitors, etc… and was a Big Deal to set up. Now, we have a set of Swivl robot camera mounts, some iPod Touch handheld video recorders, and a tripod. Done. Videos get uploaded to Vimeo1, and it’s all faster, easier, and better than what we did before. And instructors are signing the Swivls out to do similar things for their own courses. Great stuff.

The second shift is probably the more important one, though. Distributed, coordinated communities of practice to support instructors who are designing their courses and integrating learning technologies. We’ve moved from a centralized model – where everyone had to come to The Big Department In The Middle™ to get “help” to fix their courses. That wasn’t great for a few reasons – it can’t scale, without dozens of staff members in TBDitM™ – but also, it positions the support for technology integration as some Other. Something bolted on by other people outside of an instructor’s faculty or department. Something foreign, extra, separate. Superficial.

communities of practice across campus

The community of practice shifts the support model into being native in each faculty and department. With domain-specific understanding of the pedagogies used in each context, and of the activities that make up the learning experience. And of the technologies that enable, enhance and extend these activities. We had this, informally, before – but isolated pockets of in-context support were not able to benefit from what people had learned or tried in other contexts. So, intentionally designing the central portion of the support community as a coordination hub to enable people across campus – NOT as a “come to us in The Middle and we’ll fix your stuff”, but as “hey – let’s come together to learn about what we’re all doing, and how we can share that to make it all sustainable and meaningful for everyone.”

That’s where the magic is. Coincidentally, I’m currently looking to hire the person who will act as our coordinator/collaborator/cruise-director for this distributed community of practice.

until we eventually get a campus video platform set up – 4 years and counting on that… [↩]

on supporting innovation on campus

I’ve been thinking about how to better support innovation on campus, and realized that there is a strong bell curve describing the drive to innovate in teaching practices in a population of instructors (and, likely, students), something like:

Innovation bell curve

The “mavericks” are the ones that will explore, experiment and push the boundaries no matter what the institution does. The “quiet majority” are where most instructors are – they work hard at what they do, but don’t have the resources (time, funds, people, etc…) to try many new things. The “resisters” are the often-vocal ones who push back against change for various reasons.

It seems as though much of the usual support for innovation at an institution is aimed at the group of “mavericks” – find the rock-star instructors who are doing cool stuff. Give them resources, and let them push harder to see where they wind up. This is great, and essential, but feels a bit like slapping your logo on a Formula 1 race car and then marvelling at how fast you are.

The “resisters” is another focus – if only we can convince them that change is good, or will make their lives better, they will see the light and butterflies and unicorns etc… Supporting this group is important, but devoting a disproportionate amount of effort isn’t helpful. Many of them would resist even if you peer them with a dedicated support staff with an unlimited budget.

The “quiet majority” is where the action is. These people do most of the heavy lifting of teaching at an institution. They work hard, and they care. What I’m interested in is how do we work with the “mavericks” to find useful innovations, and also work with this “quiet majority” to find ways to incorporate innovative practices at a larger scale to improve teaching and learning across the institution.

What does that look like? I’m not exactly sure. But I think the key is in providing access to institutional resources to help the “mavericks” amplify what they can do, while finding/building platforms to enable everyone to take advantage of meaningful innovations in practices and tools. And, it has to be evidence-based – try new things, figure out what really works, what doesn’t, what’s sustainable, what’s extensible, etc… and work to develop appropriate innovations.

Also, for this to be effective, it can’t be just about technology, or just about pedagogy, or just about institutional resources. This is where the campus really needs to come together and incorporate everything in one place. An community centre for innovation and research. That’s where the magic will happen…

to facilitate self-hosting

After I wrote my [Reclaim Update](http://www.darcynorman.net/2011/09/10/reclaim-update/) post, [Tony Hirst](http://blog.ouseful.info/) made a comment with tongue firmly planted in cheek:

Screen Shot 2011 09 12 at 8 33 19 AM

I mean, clearly I’m not about to get into the hosting business. I’ve toyed with the idea of a hosting co-operative, I believe after a suggestion planted by [Scott Leslie](http://www.edtechpost.ca/wordpress/). But that doesn’t go far enough. It puts some liability on the co-operative. If stuff goes south, everybody loses everything. That’s not far removed from the current corporate silo model.

But, Tony’s comment got me thinking again. I wrote earlier about a [mythical server appliance](http://www.darcynorman.net/2011/05/27/reclaiming-ephemeral-media/) that people could just slap into the wall at home (or work or wherever) and then light up the services they want, to host their own stuff. But server-grade bandwidth to the home is still not ready for prime time.

What if there was a meta-application, that could be easily installed on a commodity hosting account (Mediatemple, Dreamhost, GoDaddy, etc…), that would then provide a person with list of services that they could activate? This meta-application could then download the software, configure the database, and set it up.

There are existing models for how this could work. WordPress now has a [great plugin installer](http://codex.wordpress.org/Plugins_Add_New_Screen) built in. Gallery has a similar one. List the plugins (software), select the ones you want, and let them download. Activate the ones you want when you’re ready, and they Just Work™.

This would go a LONG way toward getting people set up to self-host. One thing I’ve learned through my version of [Boone’s Reclaim Project](http://teleogistic.net/2011/05/kicking-the-twitpic-habit-with-wordpress/) is that it’s sometimes non-trivial to fart around with this stuff. You have to grok subdomains, databases, PHP, config files, htaccess, log files, etc…

But if there was an application that could be easily installed that abstracted the complexity away. Something like a CPanel, or MediaTemple’s 1-Click Installer:

Screen Shot 2011 09 12 at 8 42 27 AM

combined with the Gallery module selector:

Screen Shot 2011 09 12 at 8 47 04 AM

or, and this will likely set off some purists, something like the App Store:

Screen Shot 2011 09 12 at 8 51 04 AM

So, some form of meta-app that acts a bit like a web-based front end for an `apt-get` like process, downloading software on demand and installing it in the appropriate location before configuring and activating it for the user. All apps could share a single MySQL database on the server, reducing the headaches there, and use unique table prefixes for each application or service. It could also be set up to add applications as subdomains or directories, depending on how people want things to run (blog.mydomain.net or mydomain.net/blog etc…)

This could make the difference for a whole bunch of people wanting to get into hosting their own stuff, but who are held back by the arcane complexities of hosting software on the web.

on filtering vs. curation

I’ve been thinking about the distinction between filtering and curation lately. “Social media” is described as bringing a form of curation to the internet, when it is really providing layers of filtration. What’s the difference? Filtering is crap detection, wheat-from-chaff separation. Useful and important, but only the first step of curation. Curation is when a knowledgeable expert crafts an experience based on their understanding of context, in order to guide others through a collection. Curation is so much more than simple crap detection. Examples?

Crap detection

Twitter is a great platform for crap detection. People whom I trust post links to stuff. They typically suggest either a) the links are good and worth reading, or b) the links are crap and worth avoiding. Useful things, and important in raising awareness. But not curation.

RSS readers are great for crap detection. Resources are linked to by people that are trusted on some level. An example is the Fever˚ Hot dashboard, showing the most commonly linked resources across all 355 subscribed feeds:

The Most Awesome Thing Ever is a multiuser thing ranking system – letting people choose which of two options is more Awesome, storing the win/loss scores for each, and ranking the Things by Awesomeness. It’s simple, straightforward, and an effective filter. But it’s essentially mindless.

Filtering is critical, but it is just the first step.

Curation

The Sputnik Observatory is a great example of a platform for curation. A collection of videos on a wide range of topics, with paths crafted by experts and novices alike. The Observatory provides a set of paths to lead people through a series of videos, winding their way through a narrative that builds as each node is viewed.

This goes beyond simple crap detection. A basic star-rating system would have solved the crap detection problem. Instead, Sputnik went beyond that to provide a set of tools that essentially let people construct narratives through the collection, building a story and context. That is where curation gets its power.

Another fantastic example of curation is the CBC Radio 3 Artists Series – where an artist is brought into the studio to share some of their favourite music and tell some stories about the background and history of their band and career. This is completely different than a “Top 10” type of show (crap filtering), as it provides context and meaning that are only possible when crafted by such knowledgeable experts.

Curation is a profound act of creation, of teaching, of learning.

on following the light

Photography literally means “the process of drawing with light” – it’s not “taking pictures of people or things,” it’s all about playing with light. If the light isn’t there, there’s no photograph. If the light is boring, the photograph is boring. But, if the light is right, even the most boring subject is transformed into something magical.

Much of the time, when I jump to grab my camera, it’s because the light has caught my eye. Warm light coming through a window. Light refracting through glass. Reflecting off of a surface. Sometimes it’s just a property of the light that catches my attention – warmth, softness, darkness, harshness.

Shoot the light. Start with the light, then find the subject or story, and work on angles and composition.

It’s not an absolute, and I’ve got plenty of counter-example photos that work despite the light, but it’s a pretty good starting point to find the light, and a photograph will follow.

epigenetics and the institution

I have found myself drawn to channels that are best described as “alternate” – outside the traditional scope of the Institution. I publish, but on my own blog. I provide support and services, but for software and tools that are not blessed by the University. I share everything I do under a simple Creative Commons license, without worrying about control or ownership. I exist, from some perspectives, outside of the Institution.

This has bothered me for some time. That my activities were in some way irrelevant to the University. That there was no real way for me to affect change, when my actions aren’t recognized, or even noticed, by traditional aspects of the enterprise.

This weekend, I got a chance to crack open the latest issue of Seed Magazine (Dec. 2008). I started with an article on epigenetic inheritance. I had heard the term, but hadn’t given it much thought before. I last studied genetics almost 20 years ago, and remember Mendelian inheritance due to dominant and recessive genes and their interactions. I constructed endless Punnett squares to calculate probabilities of traits based on parental genes. DNA was king. If it wasn’t coded as a gene, it didn’t matter, evolutionarily speaking.

Epigenetic inheritance is the ability to pass traits from one generation to the next, without representation in the genetic code. Phenotype as a result of environmental and behavioural influences, without direct genotypic expression, and in addition to (or in concert with) that which is genetically defined. This can range from simple response to chemicals or pollutants, to passing antibodies through maternal breast milk, to more complex social and cultural activities. Language is epigenetically inherited, passed from one generation to the next through education (formal and informal).

Reading (and rereading) the article, it hit me. The traditional University, the Enterprise, the Institution. These are analogous to the genotype. They are raw data, which becomes translated and expressed in the context of the current generation. Although the genotype of various Institutions are essentially the same, the phenotypic expression differs, as well as the epigenetic aspects that exist as a result of context.

What I’ve been doing has not been irrelevant to, or even outside of the University. What I’ve been doing is working on epigenetic factors, which are passed on without need for direct representation in the formal Institution.

The other interesting concept of epigenetic inheritance is that it can precede genetic representation. A property or behaviour that begins as an epigenetically transmitted trait can find its way into the genome proper. And so, I choose to stop worrying about recognition and relevance, and to focus on the fringe activities, the interstitial, the disruptive. The epigenetic. And will trust that anything truly worthwhile will eventually find its way into the Institution.

content is not enough

Brian wrote a great post about the focus on content creation in the open education movement. There were some great comments on that post – some arguing (correctly, IMO) that there isn’t enough great content available.

But even that misses the point, I fear.

Content is the least important part of education. What is far more important is what takes place between and among the students. The activities of the community of learners. What they actually DO with the content and with each other.

Great content IS important, but only if there is also a functioning and active community working together to learn, create and share. Otherwise, all that takes place is content dissemination. And that’s not education, open or otherwise.

Content Dissemination

or active community of learners

on the insanity of an automaker bailout

The proposed US bailout of greedy financial institutions is crazy enough, but now there’s talk of bailing out the automakers? What in hell happened to the free market? US automakers are in trouble because they build shitty products that people don’t want to buy. And they haven’t retooled fast enough, as others have. Toyota’s not looking for a bailout, they’re just making better products. Honda’s doing OK. etc…

A US automaker bailout is just the government declaring “we know our products are shit, and we think you should keep buying them, so we’re going to subsidize the morons that run the companies.”

Companies that come up with brainstorms like the 3 ton monster truck “Escalade Hybrid” (now getting 18 miles per gallon! amazing!) shouldn’t be allowed to continue existing. They need to go away. It’s sad that people will lose their jobs, but the companies are zombies already. Lots of OTHER people are going to lose their jobs, without the chance of bailouts. Why are automakers special? Because we LOVES our cars. And burning oil. That’s the (North) American way.

Stupid DRM handcuffs

I did a test this morning to check out how well the video recording gear we have would work for recording a presentation tomorrow. The gear works great – it records directly to DVD so I can just walk away with a nice shiny disk after the presentation is over.

But that’s not what this post is about. This DVD, that I made, containing no DRM and no copyright, triggers the evil DRM software that’s baked into the operating system that I use. I had the DVD program running in the background, and went to take a screenshot of something else – and was rewarded with a warning dialog:

“Screen grabs are unavailable during DVD playback. Please quit DVD Player first.”

Great. I wasn’t trying to take a screengrab of a DVD. Of MY DVD. It was paused, behind a bunch of windows. I was trying to grab a portion of a browser window. But, irony of ironies, I was able to capture this:

That’s me in the DVD. But because the MPAA makes software companies bend over to protect their content by baking DRM into the apps that ship with my computer, I’m prevented from doing legitimate things with my own content. Thankfully, there are ways around it (Jing was more than happy to capture a screenshot – I’m sure the MPAA attack dogs will be closing that hole ASAP).

DRM is nothing but a pain in the ass. It doesn’t stop anyone from copying anything if they really want to, but it does get in the way of legitimate use of content. I’m not pissed at Apple for putting this screengrab block in the OS – I’m quite sure they did it to prevent having endless series of lawsuits by the MPAA legal beagles, and/or to abide by some licensing terms.

The MPAA can bite me, though. They have no right to compel anyone to cripple the programs I use to interact with the content I create.

on having fun with photography

I keep being surprised by how much fun I still have with photography, especially after almost 2 years of shooting every single day. Shooting silly things, not worrying about perfection or production quality. Experimenting. Having fun. Although sometimes it feels like I just keep shooting the same boring things over and over again, if I step back and look at the photographs, there is so much that I love about them. Sure, many people and things are recurring in many photographs. But that’s part of the fun. Seeing the same thing at different times, from different angles.

As long as I’m having fun, I’ll be shooting photographs. Or is it the other way around. Either way, I’m sure glad I’m not a photographer – that would be far to limiting, and probably not much fun.