Posts Tagged ‘#open’

Some Ideas about making Universities Open to communities

The University of the Highlands and Islands has organised a fascinating event this week; The Porous University. I had planned to go but now cannot, for health and financial reasons. Instead I will try to support the event (a discursive workshop) online through this blog post (please comment below) and through Twitter. I’ve also been distracted by the UK #GE2017 and our Learning in the Age of Anger project, where we are trying to find out what new educational policies might help address our current rage of populism.

Folksonomy not Taxonomy

Our key observation is that universities have to respond to the motto Folksonomy not Taxonomy, opening themselves out to how learners think, and Trust the Learner.

7 Questions from The Porous University

1. What does open mean beyond releasing content?

In the Learner Generated Contexts Research Group we developed the motto “From Access to Content to Context” and argued for an “Open Context Model of Learning“. So the short answer is, allow students to shape their learning contexts and purposes.

A way of achieving that is by becoming a Participative Institution – an institution that positively enables open learning, by which I mean self-directed learning, by its students… Stewart Hase would call this implementing Heutagogy

2 What is the role of open academics in dealing with problems ‘in the world’

Since 2008 I have tried to operate as an Open Sqolar. (more…)

Read Full Post »

(1) From Education to Learning; A Brief History of Open

If we try to untangle the impact of the web on education we can describe it as enabling a shift from a focus on education as a system to learning as a process, particularly since the web itself has become more open, social and participatory, especially since Web 2.0.  So how did we get here?

Background; I myself (@fredgarnett) started looking at the impact of the Web, indirectly, in 1984 when I began teaching a Unit called Information, Technology and Society. Deciding that taking the tropes of the Industrial Revolution and applying them to the Information Revolution was way too limited I looked instead at how the social organisation of settlements emerged out of agriculture and that from hunter-gathering; maps, flints and fires. Inspired by Yoneji Masuda and Nikolai Kondratieff, and my own observations, by 1988 I had evolved the NSU model, so-called because I think social change comes from new Networks being built, new Services being provided and new User behaviours emerging, over 50-year long-wave Kondratieff economic cycles stimulated by new technologies; the micro-chip was invented in 1971. New economies emerge from new networks of distribution. In 1989 I wrote a story to capture the changes we might see by 2021 as a Masters paper called Homi & the NeXT One (the title a tribute to Steve Jobs). Consequently I have had some understanding of the process by which new technology changes society ever since. For me the key aspect discernible over the last 250 years (especially when preceded by a knowledge revolution like the scientific revolution) are the cumulative effects of unnoticed second-order, or unanticipated, effects; hence the poverty of most predictions about the future which focus on first-order (anticipated effects) based on the knowledge of experts whose expertise is historically based.

Watching the Web Flow 1990s; Being more Utopian than dystopian I looked forward to the, then, forthcoming information revolution democratising our representative democracy, with its UK roots in the 17th Century (1689), by enabling new participatory *constitutions* to be written, redefining the social relations by which we live. Whether they be communications, networked or mash-ups, technologies don’t change society, they create first-order effects, that is consequences of what the technologies were designed to do. Social change comes from users inventing new use-states in line with their beliefs and social behaviours. (more…)

Read Full Post »