Comments on: When Learning met Freedom met the Web

By: Ivan Travkin

Ivan Travkin — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 14:48:04 +0000

thanx! i teach math at Sakhalin State University. sorry, i was busy this days, but finaly i posted this post in Russian on our blog:
http://obrazovarium.blogspot.com/2010/12/when-learning-met-freedom-met-web.html

By: tressiemc

tressiemc — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 04:35:01 +0000

I am familiar with defamiliarization. I think the difference, as I experienced it reading this, is INTENT. I did not feel as though the intent of the piece was to make strange the ideas but that the ideas were just not yet fully formed.

I really like the idea of crowd-sourcing information and critique but I am also very fond of communicating ideas for the purpose of moving the idea forward. That requires at least a few shared rules of meaning construction.

You have sparked an interesting discussion.

By: admin

admin — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 17:58:25 +0000

Hey Tressie,
Yes, this post is supposed to be a long message written in text . I wonder what it will sound like when translated into Russian? Are you familiar with the concept of ostranenie–the Russian literary technique of “making it strange”? It helps us access concepts in a new way through the startling use of language.

By: Mark Surman

Mark Surman — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 20:39:56 +0000

Yeah, I think ‘participatory’ is key. Consumers -> creators / collaborators / learners is very much the ethic we’re talking about, and also the ethic of the web. I think ‘free’ and ‘open’ are also about this.

By: Jade

Jade — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 20:39:28 +0000

I am wondering if maybe open would be better than non-commercial? I’m think about Mitchell’s opening and her say how we want businesses that ARE commercial to want to be more open to the open web and open source concept because it the long run it is more beneficial even in those environments. And the space was an open space, both literally and figuratively. We were in the middle of a square and it was open to people from all walks of life and steps in their career, etc.

By: tressiemc

tressiemc — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 20:31:56 +0000

I’m sorry but is this post a long text message? I know the digital environment encourages first drafts and flexible mechanics/syntax but there is a valid case to be made for readability. This is why a completely opensource educational environment troubles so many purists. i really could only make logical sense of, perhaps, every other clause or idea. The numbering system was odd and detracted from readability. Also, sentences like this have a great many words but little meaning:

And together they Make stuff using technology, specifically, which is one of the most powerful forces shaping and driving social change, but is often perceived by non-technologists as being obscure or malign because it is 1)complex and hard to understand and 2) controlled by Others (those with expertise, corporations, and/or government)

“It” is “malign” by “non-technologists”? If you remove the clauses you’ll see how confusing that is. Also, capitalization may be a hassle in new media formats but, again, it does serve a purpose. I cannot determine if “Make” has importance because of the capitalization or it is a proper noun or…well, what.

This piece highlights some issues we’ll have to tackle, as a community, before “non-technologists” truly grasp the power and potential of innovate learning platforms.

By: admin

admin — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 14:20:10 +0000

Hey Mark–Thanks for feedback!
Obviously, all this stuff has to be sustainable. Supported in the marketplace, by charity, or by taxpayers. The marketplace can be the most honest and direct way to make a project sustainable when it is open and competitive and companies are accountable to their customers.
Beyond the very important concept of “public benefit/commons/higher good,” what i’m clumsily attempting to exclude with the term “noncommercial” is a frame that treats the people you’re serving with the stuff you make as passive “consumers” or “users” to be duped, cajoled, coerced. Sucker born every minute and all that.

And most of what goes on in education is in the name of the public good already, yet this paradigm is just as prevalent and just as destructive in education as it is in the shadier precincts of commerce–seeing students either as customers, or folks to be bullied/tricked into paying attention to boring and lazy teaching. In most of the for-profit higher ed world it’s 10 times worse–students are more like marks or patsies, sign ‘em up, get em through the door, collect their loan money.

So maybe commons is best because it carries the notion of participatory–populated by citizens and not customers.

By: admin

admin — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 14:03:02 +0000

Konyeshno! Pozhalysta.
Where do you teach?

By: Mark Surman

Mark Surman — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 12:46:08 +0000

Great first crack at it. It like the idea of We Build connected to > geek + educator multiculturalism. Sums it nicely.

The one word I kept tripping over was ‘noncommercial’ — you’re poking at the right idea, bit I don’t think it’s the right word.

There was tons of ‘commerce’ in the room. Arduino. Flat World Knowledge. In some ways even Mozilla.

IMHO, the connection is more around free + open, plus some idea of public benefit, the commons, a higher good.

Would love to brainstorm on that. It’s a critical idea, or maybe more than one idea. Would be good to poke at it and polish it up.

By: Ivan Travkin

Ivan Travkin — Sat, 20 Nov 2010 05:28:45 +0000

i want to translate this post into Russian and repost on my blog. may i?
i think you’re right, but sometimes it’s hard to gather people with skills and resourses to make some stuff for free. it’s almost imposible in my university, people doesn’t see the reason. so i trying to ignite them