Introduction – Focus Group Study                                        

Open Access Journals – Perceptions and Concerns

September 24, 2011

I hope you are having a good day. Thank you for coming here today and taking the time to join our discussion of open access journals (OAJ) and open content (OC). My name is Alfonso Sintjago and I am a current graduate student at the University of Minnesota. I am hoping to better understand the concerns of graduate students regarding Open Access Journals and the role graduate students feel they play in society, in the future of academia and their own research.

As society becomes increasingly interconnected through the increased use of modern information communication technologies (ICT) and the cost of access to journals increases for universities and individuals, various educational organizations, researchers, and publishing companies have taken the initiative and changed their revenue model to increase access to society at large (to anyone with internet access). They decided to publish in and promote Open Access Journals and move away from the traditional toll access model where individuals and subscribers had to pay to access these resources. The transformation of the economic model was envisioned as a way to increase access, improve the quality of research, improve transparency, and reduce the costs for institutions to have access to these different journals and journal repositories.

Currently there are two primary economic models for Open Access Journals. While most of the smaller Open Access Journals are supported by grants or university programs, some of the larger ones are funded either by grant agencies, or the researchers themselves.  Accounting for a significant but smaller fraction of academic journals, some universities have moved towards funding or paying the fees requested by some Open Access Journals for journal articles to be edited and published. Despite the best intentions of many organizations, editing is a time consuming and complicated task, and Open Access Journal publishers require these funds to pay their full time employees (if they do not rely on volunteers). While the Open Access Movement (OAM) hopes to transform academic publishing so that anyone in the world can access and contribute to the creation of knowledge, various questions remain to be addressed.

During this focus group we hope to learn more about your opinions on this subject. A large number of arguments for and against Open Access Journals have been presented previously in numerous studies. Yet these focus groups hope to obtain a better understanding of the concerns and opinions of UMN graduate students within the College of Education and Human Development (CEHD). You have been given an anonymous user name so that you can freely express your opinion. The preliminary findings of these focus groups will be presented during UMN Open Access Week, Oct 28, 2011 (z.umn.edu/openaccess2011). The data will remain anonymous unless you wish to be formally quoted.

We hope that you feel comfortable in using this technology. Please email me at sintj002@umn.edu if you are having any technical problems, or if you wish me to further elaborate on a particular question. There is no right or wrong answer. Please share with us your point of view even if it is different from the point of view of other participants. Since this focus group is being conducted online, all of the text will be saved for future analysis. You are expected to participate for an average of 15 minutes a day, but you are welcomed and encourage to comment on the post of other participants.  You are free to add to, to expand, or express your disagreement with a comment made by another person in this focus group. Feel free to have a conversation with other members of the room about the different questions.  In addition, we are interested in hearing from everyone in this focus group. These questions do not require a prior understanding of the issues or the intricacies of the Open Access Movement, Open Education (OE), or Open Content (OC). As most graduate students currently conduct a large portion of their research online, while you may not be familiar with the terms, you are likely familiar with ways in which to search for articles and barriers that you may or may not meet when trying to access information online. Through this discussion we hope to learn more about your opinion and experiences. Thank you again for taking part in this conversation. This focus group will last five days, but you are welcomed to continue answering questions after that deadline if you were unable to answer the during the original dates. Let’s begin…

What do scholars consider to be the major world-wide education; and
development implications of an increasingly technology-oriented global ecology?

September 09, 2011

 It is hard to ignore that we live in an increasingly interconnected world. With collaboration between individuals living anywhere on the planet using technologies that are increasingly accessible to most of the population, the rate of knowledge production and innovation has increased in recent years (Kelly, 2010; Kurzweil, 2005). Few would have imagined the extensive impact that modern information communication technologies (ICTs) such as the Internet, personal computers, and mobile phones have had in such a short time span (Jenkins, 2008). Nor would many have predicted that social networks built through technologies such as Twitter or Facebook would impact the political landscape of the Middle East, ousting deeply entrenched militaristic leaders. While new ICTs are spreading throughout the world, they are also becoming ever more invisible (Cobo & Moravec, 2011), as the young increasingly have a hard time imagining a world without them.

Technologies have transformed mankind’s experience before. Imagining a world without spoken languages, written books, chairs, light bulbs or candles, cars or domesticated animals, farming or medicine is difficult for most individuals. Many technologies have become an extension of us, of what it means to be human. Without technologies and without such technologies being transferred from generation to generation through our culture and educational system, man would still be gathering fruits and scavenging, living in a cave, and hoping to survive long enough to mate and raise a child. More influential than government, Thomas Hobbes famous quote might as well be rewritten as “[without technology], the life of man [would be], solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes, 1651).

However, as an unexpected side effect, we have transformed our environment to a point that we practically live outside of nature. Classifying technologies within their house, Kevin Kelly’s (2011) daughter counted over 6000 within their house alone! Technologies are everywhere and ever present, and we are spending more and more of our time interacting through ICTs rather than face to face. An average U.S. teenager currently sends or receives 3,339 text messages a month, 40% of US mobile users use smart phones, with China having the highest use of smart phone for Internet access (Nielsen Company, 2010). The Internet, mobile phones, and the personal computer are some of the technologies that are currently spreading most rapidly throughout the planet, affecting practically every culture in the world.

These are not the only technologies which are increasingly influencing mankind, as improvements in biotechnology and nanotechnology illustrate (Kurzweil, 2005). However, ICTs are likely the technologies that are most influencing human development today. As Richard Florida (2005) notes, the creative class is concentrated in certain areas of the world, mostly in developed countries and in urban places. In 2002, five countries, the USA, Japan, Germany, South Korea, and Russia accounted for 84% of the close to 300,000 patents recorded in the World Intellectual Property Organization (Florida, 2005). The primarily unidirectional transfer of technologies from economically advanced countries to the rest of the world raises concerns about the continued dependency of “developing” countries and, within them, the future of education.

Formal education has been the institution and the technology through which individuals primarily transferred their cultural values during the preindustrial and industrial society and through which memes (cultural units of knowledge) were transferred from one generation to the next (Cobo & Moravec, 2011). While this system of education was useful during the industrial era, as we move into the information and the innovation age, this rigid system of education may not be the most conducive for increasing students’ creativity and the ability to innovate. Restricted to certain tasks in class, today’s students may be learning more about the outside world through their personal interactions with ICTs outside of the classroom than during their time inside school. Different schools in the US have changed their teaching and learning philosophy to encourage students’ creativity but most continue using a test-driven curriculum.

In “developing” countries, as a foreign technology, the inclusion of new ICTs within education is not only another example of the directionality of the transfer of cultural values and the transfer of knowledge between “developed” and “developing” countries, but the price of including these technologies in the classroom is prohibitive and they generally have basic access issues problems with primary and secondary education. In addition, through colonization and a hierarchical interaction, over time local cultural values have been eroded and regarded as inferior by “developed” societies. Countries were encouraged to “modernize”, and increase their productivity. On various occasions endogenous cultures were suppressed by the use of force.

While critical theory and postmodernism encouraged a critique of north-south transfers of knowledge and a revalorization of local values and beliefs, the alleged superiority of modern technologies compared to traditional, indigenous forms of communication highlights how little some attitudes have changed. The increasing dominance of English is one of the changes that has spread through the use of modern technologies.  Currently 25 languages are expected to disappear every year (BBC, 2010). While at times this is the decision of those that speak it, alternative ways of life are being lost as the world becomes increasingly isomorphic and interconnected. ICTs are being adopted by large segments of the populations of “developing” countries. However, is the transfer of all modern technologies positive for “developing” countries? How are modern technologies affecting both “developing” and “developed” countries? How could new technologies transform education? To enrich this discussion, below I highlight three different groups of scholars to allow the reader to better consider some of the implications of adopting modern ICT as well as some of the concerns both “developing” and “developed” countries would benefit from discussing regarding their adoption. This exam attempts to answer what scholars consider to be the major world-wide development and educational implications of an increasingly technology-oriented global ecology.

The first group of scholars is composed primarily of modernization or post-modernization thinkers, who have a generally positive view of the impact of modern ICTs, are supportive of the increased use of technologies within the classroom and outside of it, and emphasize how technology will continue to impact society. These scholars see the world as increasingly becoming homogeneous, and interconnected. When discussing ICTs for development projects, they are in favor of increasing access to these technologies and believe that children will learn how to best use technology through their interactions with it. In terms of education, they focus on transforming the current educational system by using technology to either improve or replace the current educational system. A second group of scholars, mostly composed of constructivist writers and some pro-ICT critical scholars focuses on the need to use modern technologies as a way in which education can be changed into a fairer or more productive system. They see the current educational system as not adequately addressing the needs of a segment of the population. In terms of development this group is wary of initiatives that are not inclusive of the local population in their planning. Local voices and concerns are more present in their works, as is a focus on using ICTs to help improve society. Rather than emphasizing the increased use of technology for technology’s sake, these scholars concentrate first on current societal problems and discuss how technology could help to alleviate some of these problems in an inclusive way as well as what tradeoffs are involved . A third, smaller group of scholars, is less supportive of the increased use of technology within the classroom.  They are skeptical of the benefits of modern technologies and only support increasing the use of technology if it is clear how the technology will improve the human capital of the nation-state, why the money would be best invested there over other initiatives, and how it will not result in further erosion of local values, and culture. Unlike the second group, which contends that technologies can improve society, these scholars are more critical of this assumption and strongly critique some new technologies. This group includes critical scholars as well as classicists who are concerned that technology is increasing student distraction, negatively affecting both their ability to concentrate and spend time interacting with their neighbors and community members. Technology is seen as value-laden and with the potential to cause negative consequences in both “developing” and “developed” countries.

I now discuss each of these groups in more detail. The first includes modernization theorists, techno optimists, world-culture theorists, and pro-technology constructivists. While there are many relevant voices, this section focuses on Marc Prensky (2007), Ray Kurtweil (2005), Cristobal Cobo and John Moravec (2011), Frances Cairncross (2001) and Curtis Bonk (2011).

Marc Prensky (2007), a writer on innovation, technology and education, that has been influential in discussions about the education of tomorrow. Prensky (2007) predicts video games will increasingly play a role within education and argues that we need to harness their ability to captivate children. By solving problems and obtaining small, incremental rewards for tasks, students may remain more engaged than they do in a traditional K-12 setting. The ability to simulate situations, and take students on a virtual journey to places that they would otherwise only be able to visit in their imaginations is a promise of ICTs, and the future of a segment of the video game industry. Prensky (2007) explains how digital natives are different from digital immigrants as they only remember a world in which computers, television sets, music players, and the Internet were a segment of everyday life. By the time this generation enters the work force, they have spent a much larger amount of time playing video games and watching TV than reading (Prensky, 2007, p. 38). Because of these changes, digital media is becoming a second language, one understood much better by youth than by older generations. Digital natives are used to not only watching but also manipulating devices to a greater extent than their parents. “The key difference is that the Games Generation are active participants rather than passive observers” (Prensky, 2007, p. 47). Because of this, Prensky (2007) argues for the need to develop “hard fun” games, that go beyond hacking and slashing. This “serious play” will help improve student performance.

Some of the other topics discussed by Prensky (www.marcprensky.com) include the growing capability of mobile devices and their future impact on education, and how children will increasingly use videos to communicate. Prensky mentions how from 2005 to 2010 the number of videos that were uploaded to YouTube came close to reaching 100 million (Prensky, 2010). As more and more people are able to record media and upload to the Internet, individuals will increasingly be able to communicate their ideas through recorded videos. Because of these changes, teachers have increasingly encouraged their students to complete video projects. ICTs and Internet programs such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, and Google are used by students to inform themselves of the latest trends and news as well as fuel innovation. High quality videos (such as TED talks and RSA animate videos) are a way in which learners can be reached. Using Khan’s Academy thousands of students learn concepts through the use of video lectures (Prensky, 2011). One of the most important takeaways of Prensky’s work is not that students should only learn through video games, or that educational videos should replace all lectures, but rather that children have different learning styles and content should be produced to help students learn materials in the way that is easiest for them to learn (CISCO, 2008).

On the farthest end of modernization, some future oriented thinkers such as Raymond Kurzweil (2005) have influenced policy makers in countries world-wide in terms of ICTs as they emphasize the possibilities of technology and the way in which it can transform society. Kurzweil focuses on the exponential rate of improvement of technology and its implications. He argues that by 2029, computers will be capable of strong artificial intelligence or artificial intelligence that exceeds human intelligence (Kurzweil, 2005, Kindle 4877-4880). By 2099, $1000 of computing equipment will be roughly “equal to 10 to the 24^th times the computing capacity of the human brain (Kurzweil, 2000, p. 220). According to Kurzweil (2005), however, by then humans will improve their bodies to the extent that it will not be possible to distinguish between humans and machines.

While Kurzweil’s writings, particularly his law of continued exponential improvement of technology, have caused controversy, most skeptics agree that technology will likely continue to improve at a rapid pace, and probably at an increasing rate. Along with other changes that Kurzweil (2005) believes will be beneficial, he mentions the impact ICTs are having on education, the possibilities that are now available through MIT OpenCourseWare and how education will become increasingly decentralized. He argues that:

“as with all of our other institutions we will ultimately move toward a decentralized educational system in which every person will have ready access to the highest-quality knowledge and instruction. We are now in the early stages of this transformation, but already the advent of the availability of vast knowledge on the Web, useful search engines, high-quality open Web courseware, and increasingly effective computer-assisted instruction are providing widespread and inexpensive access to education” (Kurzweil R. , 2005, Kindle 6410-6413).

To many futurists, the future of education is intrinsically linked to technological innovations. Because of the likelihood of a future faster rate of change, it is increasingly important for workers to be able to learn new skills and visualize different possible future scenarios to meet the demands of a more volatile market (Cobo & Moravec, 2011). More than a particular educational model, Cobo and Moravec (2011) consider that it is important for students to learn certain skills to increase their success in the workplace of tomorrow. For Cobo and Moravec (2011), as the rate of innovation increases individuals increasingly need to be able to think systematically, invest in simulative thinking of scenarios, be able to adapt to uncertainty, be able to create and manipulate alternate futures, acquire and respond to challenges and goals, understand and utilize existing information, construct and use knowledge that is applicable at the individual level, adequately utilize current and emerging ICTs, evaluate and analyze knowledge from different global tendencies, write and speak in an independent form, and assume the personal commitment of doing things well. By improving these skills, individuals in the future will be able to better adapt to a constantly changing world. Also the future will require individuals to be able to relearn and forget learning schemes when they are no longer useful. There is also a need to find one’s passion and what motivates a person to create to the best of their ability (Robinson, 2009). Cobo and Moravec  mention how a recent study of the impact of the OLPC program in Uruguay, where 5,600 laptops were distributed, showed “45% of students learning from their peers, 36% on their own, and only 19% from their teachers.” (Cobo & Moravec, 2011, p. 48) To Moravec and Cobo (2011) establishing an environment where children can explore their own interests will allow them to find their passion and reach a greater potential.

In Invisible Learning, Cobo and Moravec (2011) mention some innovative programs that are using ICTs to increase access to education, however, the book focuses on the skills individuals will need rather than a particular type of education that will be better for learning these skills. Some of the innovative programs the book mentions are the DIY (Do-iT-Yourself) learning movement and the P2P University, where students are able to learn about relevant topics of their interest by forming small groups where they complete projects and share their experiences. While Cobo and Moravec (2011) explain that this model will not work for every field, it is another way through which students can prepare themselves for the 21^st century.

As a writer for the Economist, Frances Cairncross (2003) explains through her book how ICTs are increasingly impacting society and changing our lives. To her, ICTs will reduce the distance between people, bringing about The Death of Distance. This increased connectivity will lead to more competition, the increased value of brands, more communities of practices as people of likeminded interests connect through the Internet (the growth of Wikipedia is but one example), the proliferation of more ideas, increased openness and access to information, the rise of English as a global language, growth of communities of culture, and global peace as democracy continues to spread internationally. In addition, as the world becomes increasingly interconnected, the premium paid for workers that have a particular set of skills will increase. “The Internet enhances the value of creative use of information”, along with other changes (Cairncross, 2001, p. xvi).

Apart from what other works have mentioned, Cairncross (2001) expands on the impacts of technology to private businesses. While a growing number of stores sell their goods to consumers directly through the Internet, Cairncross (2001) explains that most of the sales that are made through the Internet are between businesses, as the Internet has increased the efficiency of the market place, decreasing the cost of communications and information exchange. To her, these changes will greatly benefit “developing” countries, as they have a greater potential to increase their productivity and are able to “leapfrog decades of development” (Cairncross, 2001, p. 16).  “Like all good revolutions, the technological changes that are rushing forward are essentially liberalizing. They bring to the mass of people what was once available only to the elite, and to the individual what was once available only communally.”  (Cairncross, 2001, p. 265). She mentions that recent changes are bigger than the changes brought by the television and the telephone and the impact on our lives will be extensive as “really big technological changes permeate our home, our personal relationships, and our daily habits” (Cairncross, 2001, p. 265). In terms of education, she, as do the other scholars we discussed previously, believes that individuals will increasingly have the opportunity to study any subject from “astronomy to zoology” from their homes (Cairncross, 2001, p. 273). They will also be able to “seek legal advice, participate in a political debate, or bid in an auction” (Cairncross, 2001, p. 273). To her ICTs hold primarily the promise of solutions to problems and she believes the digital divide will diminish in the future. Once “good policies are in place, developing countries have a great opportunity. They have the potential to skip several stages of technological development and go straight to the most up-to-date networks” (Cairncross, 2001, p. 288). Finally “developing” countries hold the advantage of having most of the world’s youth, and within them lays the world’s promise.

A more recent book that discusses many of the recent applications of technology in education is Curtis Bonk’s The World is Open. In this book, Bonk (2011) discusses the multiple choices individuals to obtain an education have through ICTs today (Bonk, 2011). According to Bonk (2011), individuals increasingly have a multiplicity of choices they can select both in terms of lifelong learning opportunities and formal learning. To Bonk (2011), ICTs are extending education outside of the limits of the physical classroom, and students have the opportunity to learn through a program that best fits their learning needs and styles. He sees these developments spreading throughout the world. One of the changes he highlights is the recent growth of online education which currently accounts for most of the increase in college attendance. According to the Sloan Consortium, from the fall of 2002 to the fall of 2008, the growth of online learning fluctuated between 9.8% and 36.5% per year (Allen & Seaman, 2010). This rate is much higher than the 1.2% to 2.1% growth of the whole higher education industry. Online education has grown from accounting for 9.6% of student enrollment to 25.3% during the same years (Allen & Seaman, 2010). Because of the convenience it brings to the consumer and the diminished need of looking for sources or advice in ivory towers, the digital cloud and the tower converge, more and more people from any part of the United States or the world are attending school (Katz, 2008).

Apart from the growth of both private and public higher education as a result of ICTs, Bonk (2011) highlights how individuals are now able to attend classes as they are sailing across the world, downloading the materials when stopping at a port and then continuing their journey across the Atlantic Ocean.  Illustrating the potential of virtual classrooms, Bonk (2011) explains There.com, SmallWork, Kaneva, and Second Life. Second Life, a virtual environment where individuals are able to create an avatar and express themselves in ways they couldn’t before by modifying their surroundings grew to having over 17 million users in just a few years. Bonk (2011) also explains how MIT and other universities have opened their contents to the rest of the world, and how, through the MIT consortium, thousands of courses are available to anyone with an Internet connection. Many prestigious institutions have followed suit, and while the student will not obtain a degree by building a portfolio, the student would be able to showcase some of the products or assignments that were completed thanks to the material that person learned independently through the Internet. While before an individual may have been unable to attend a course for not having the right test score, now a person could attend courses with some of the greatest minds by simply typing their name on a search engine or a video sharing website. Major companies such as Google through YouTube EDU, and Apple through iTunes U have encouraged individuals to share their knowledge with the rest of the world. This decentralization of education seems to be increasingly encouraged by a number of Internet sites such as UDemy.com, Sophia.org, BigThink.com, AcademicEarth.org, Nixty.com among others. It is difficult to tell whether other universities will follow suit, or whether access to other great minds will continue to be limited to those that can afford the costs of tuition or the cost of their academic publications. Some of the other changes Bonk (2011) mentions happening in education as a consequence of ICTs are the rise of e-books (including openly available classics and openly licensed books), and the availability of free software that allow individuals to increase their productivity when using a computer without increasing expenditures. He mentions the increased participation that learners can have through the Internet, the growth of electronic collaboration, the growing real-time mobility and portability of education, the development of networks of personalized learning, and other positive changes (Bonk, 2011, p. 9). Bonk (2011) hopes that through this new education framework “give[s] a few people back… [a] shared optimism about our collective future. Through the use of YouTube, Wikipedia, blogs, virtual works, social networking, and podcasts anyone can learn” (Bonk, 2011, p. 16) Other scholars that have a pro-technology and modernization or post-modernization view of society include Nicholas Negroponte, Richard N. Katz, Don Tapscott, Clay Shirky, and Nick Bilton among many others. However, this optimism in technology raises various questions. Will those that do not continue to increase their use of technology be relegated to second class citizens? Are we not to some extent already there? While technology can improve lives, our reliance on it should also be questioned.

This paper now visits a group of authors that find some benefits in incorporating more technology in their countries, but focus on doing so in inclusive ways, with a definite objective of increasing fairness in society. This section discusses the works of Warschauer (2003), Heeks (2008, 2010), Unwin (2010), Chapman and Mahlck (2004), and Kamenetz (2011).

Warshauser’s (2003) commonly cited work on the Digital Divide explains how many innovative programs had a diminished impact in transforming the community because of the lack of community consultation and integration in the project planning stages. While initial concerns over the spread of ICTs focused on access problems, to Warschauer (2003) the greatest difficulty in improving the living conditions of “developing” parts of the world is based on the need for technology adoption to be inclusive of local cultures. Analyzing previous failed ICTs projects as well as his own international experiences, Warschauer (2003) illustrates how including the local community in the decision making process can be of great benefit to the success of ICTs projects. Various innovative projects including setting up computer kiosks in India to captivate the imagination of youth and encourage the use of ICTs had initially only a limited impact since the computer’s content was not relevant to the local population.

Warschauer (2003) further illustrates his point by discussing how after winning a prize to develop an Internet ready community, Ennis, a small Irish town of 15,000 inhabitants had been given over $1,200 to spend on every resident. And while the proposal included a plan to give a personal computer to every family in town, when evaluating the different projects that had been implemented, “the three runners-up, which each received only one-fifteenth of the money that Ennis received, actually had more to show for their efforts to promote social inclusion through technology than did the winner.” (Warschauer, 2003, p. 4). The main reason these and other projects fail or have limited impact is because of the “lack of access to the additional resources that allow people to use technology well” (Warschauer, 2003, p. 6). From a policy standpoint, he argues for the need to focus on transformation, and social inclusion, not the technology. ICT projects will be more successful if they are effectively integrated into communities and societies by focusing on overcoming social development problems through the provision of equipment.

From his personal experiences visiting telecenters in Latin America, he noticed that a project organizer focusing on opening as many telecenters as possible as quickly as possible, was failing to do so because the local population were divided about the benefits of the program, as they felt their needs were marginalized during the implementation of the initiative. As a newcomer to the country, the project manager had decided to act in a nonpolitical, independent way, however, perhaps because of this; he had only been able to set up one telecenter: “by emphasizing numbers instead of people’s real needs, the project failed to reach either people or numbers.” (Warschauer, 2003, p. 201). By being “non-political”, he had “deemphasized the value of community participation and mobilization” (Warschauer, 2003, p. 201).

Other concerns that he expresses are the values and perspectives that are reflected in the design of the personal computer and the Internet. As an example, he explains how the seven-bit ASCII system could only represent 128 characters, leaving no room for many non-European dialects. While Unicode eventually reduced this problem, several design features were helpful in giving English and other languages “a head start on the Internet” (Warschauer, 2003, p. 203). In conclusion, he argues that “a common mistake made in ICT development projects is to make primary use of computer experts rather than of the best community leaders, educators, managers, and organizers.” (Warschauer, 2003, p. 212) Also because of the limited financial capability of the poor, alternatives, innovation and partnerships are needed to provide universal access. To him, through inclusive approaches to ICT4D, we may be “reducing marginalization, poverty, and inequality and enhancing economic and social inclusion for all.” (Warschauer, 2003, p. 216)

Another very prominent ICT4D scholar is Richard Heeks (2008) from the University of Manchester. In an article about the conceptual foundations of ICT4D, he mentions the need to further integrate a development perspective within the field, which has not been as prevalent as views from scholars in information systems (Heeks, 2010). Encouraging the increased use of Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach, where development is not measured by economic growth but by the variables of most importance to the local population, the article contends that “the absence or poor quality of ICT impact assessment to date derives from its lack of conceptual foundations” (Heeks, 2010, p. 625). Mentioning that ICT promotion has included a high level of “promise and hype,” ICTs initial contributions to development were marginal partly as a result of limited implementation experience. Because of these initial failures, ICT projects were seen as wasteful, but on the ground its implantation and its importance has continued (Heeks, 2010, p. 629). Heeks mentions that more information needs to be collected in terms of the “digital provide” or how those who do not have direct access to ICTs are also benefiting from the changes it has brought to the general population and nation-states.

Another interesting article by Heeks (2008) illustrates how gold farming in video games (playing online video games to sell virtual items to western clients) is allowing individuals in China to make a living and represents another way in which “developing” countries are benefiting from ICTs. While the article was criticized by some for presenting a repetitive and crowded workplace as a positive application of ICTs, working as a gold farmer is similar to many other employment opportunities in China. While this employment included a long work schedule it represents a way in which income is transferred from a “developed” country to a “developing” state (Heeks, 2008).  Heeks (2008) has also emphasized how digital technologies such as the growth of mobile phones have extended the social capital of the marginalized. However, literacy continues to be a major concern in “developing”, requiring continued attention. According to Heeks (2008) creating ICT interfaces in local languages can help improve the access to technology and its ability to impact “developing” regions.

In Adapting technology for school improvement: a global perspective, Chapman and Mahlck (2004) address how some ICT projects have been more successful in effectively using technology in the classroom. Looking at ICT programs implemented in Brazil, Mexico, Palau, Jamaica, Ethiopia, Morocco, Argentina, Iceland, Germany, Czech Republic among other countries, the book illustrates the advantages and disadvantages of implementing top down programs over bottom up initiatives. Acknowledging the growing potential of the Internet to increase the amount of information that can be available to students, and transform “instructional content and pedagogical practice” the book argues that it is “only a matter of time before [New ICTs] spread widely across the developing world” (Chapman & Mählck, 2004).

The book also discusses how a new ICT may not necessarily be the best technology to use in a particular setting. Because of the large domestic populations of Mexico and Brazil, both of them have been able to implement effective educational television programs. Telesecundaria in Mexico and Globo’s Telecurso 2000 in Brazil were produced by the government and the private sector respectively, yet they both have contributed to educating the masses of their countries. Telecurso’s contextualized television broadcasts are seen by up to 400,000 students in classrooms throughout Brazil, and 300,000 Brazilian students of Japanese descent living in Japan have also benefited from the program, as well as students attending “classes in labour unions, civic centres, prisons, ships, buses and many other environments” (Moura Castro, 2004, p. 50). In the case of Brazil and Mexico, Moura Castro (2004) argues that older technologies such as television were more cost effective than the use of the Internet for teaching would have been. However, with perhaps a lack of foresight, the author contends that the “Internet is doomed to remain an elitist resource, available only to a small number of students. [The Internet] also remains an expensive technology for “developing” countries, even with falling costs over the last several decades” (Moura Castro, 2004, p. 45). While this may have been the case the initial years of the Internet, and may still be the case in areas of Brazil and Mexico, the Internet has grown rapidly in “developing” countries, and today many episodes of Telesecudaria and Globo Telecurso can be accessed through YouTube and other freely accessible Internet video sharing sites, increasing the number of individuals who can access well produced educational videos at any time. However, whereas technology improvements have increased access to the Internet, and new ICTs are becoming cheaper and more accessible on a regular basis, a country needs to develop projects that will have the broadest impact for the lowest price while at the same time anticipating what the improvements of technology may mean for the future of the program. Overall, reviewing the positive and negative aspects of technology, the authors contend that technologies are permeating through international borders, and the “opportunities are enormous”, but so are the challenges for the implementation of a nationwide project (Chapman & Mählck, 2004, p. 304). Technology can exacerbate inequalities and many “developing” countries would have difficulties in funding a technology access and adoption initiative at a national level. Because of these financial limitations it is important to build more public-private partnership endeavors.

Tim Unwin, professor of Geography and UNESCO chair for ICT4D, is another scholar who has encouraged greater focus on the history of development and geography within ICT4D. Through his work he has argued for the need to begin with needs of the people before identifying the technologies. He emphasizes the need for focus on justice and equality over economic growth. In a recent book ICT4D, Unwin (2011) argues that while “technology has indeed been used by elites throughout history, and is therefore most definitely not something that is in any sense neutral, there is nevertheless the possibility that new ICTs can actually also be used to enable poor and marginalised communities to change their lives” (Unwin, 2009, p. 38). While he believes in the power of the private sector of expanding access to ICTs, the market may not independently deliver on the needs of the poorest, and most marginalized. To him, unlike other ICT fields which focus on “what is and what can be achieved”, “ICT4D is about what should be done and how we should do it (Unwin, 2009, p. 42)”. Unwin (2011) also promotes the use of Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach as a way in which to better understand the role of ICT in development. In conclusion, the perspective of Tim Unwin is that “just as ‘development’ can have negative connotations, so too can the application of ICTs” (Unwin, 2009, p. 11). It is however his objective to help the marginalized to improve their lives through their use of technologies that prioritize local values and needs.

Anya Kamenetz (2010), is one of the spokespersons of the Edupunk and DIY U movement that heavily critiques the current educational system. To her, since the 1970s, in terms of access and national emphasis the U.S. educational system has stalled “while the rest of the world is roaring ahead” (Kamenetz, 2010, p. viii). In her book, DIY U, Kamenetz focuses on the capabilities for technology to disrupt the current system of education. “Increasingly this means students will decide what they want to learn; when, where, and with whom; and they will learn by doing” (Kamenetz, 2010, p. x). Costs of education have risen over the years while financial aid has decreased as a percentage of the total cost. “College tuition and fees leaped 439 percent from 1982 to 2007, after inflation.” (Kamenetz, 2010, p. 50) While Pell Grants used to cover most of the student’s tuition, today they cover only a “third of the cost of an average state institution”. In addition, over 60 percent of undergraduates now average $23,200 dollars (2008) in graduation debt (Kamenetz, 2010, p. 20).

Discussing alternatives, she mentions the ground breaking work of David Wiley along with other scholars who have supported the expansion of Open Education Resources and Open Access Textbooks. In addition she reminds the reader of the link of other critical educational theorists to ICT4D. For example Paulo Freire established the Central Laboratory for Educational Informatics in the 1990s which encouraged the use of televisions, microcomputers, and tape recorders to empower the poor.  To her, while tuition costs could be reduced as a consequence of technological improvements; this is yet to be the case. Because of this, she advocates for those without the funds to educate themselves though open educational resources, by finding the right university or alternative program. Among the other scholars that she draws inspiration from are Ivan Illich, Clay Shirky, Yochai Benkler’s and other books which emphasize the open possibilities that are now available to individuals, as well as previous idealistic visions from critical scholars that never fully came to fruition.

While she mentions many of the promises of modern technologies, she focuses not on the number of alternatives for students as did Curtis Bonk (2011), but rather emphasizes the need to radically increase access by reducing the costs of education. Her arguments are in many ways similar to Moravec and Cobo (2011) but with a critical, rather than a post-modernist, approach. She is more interested in socio-economical change than in the transformation of society as a result of recent technological achievements. This group of writers likely represents the largest group of writers within ICTs and educational policy, however for the limitations of this assignment; I reduced the number of voices to only 5 representatives. Within this group there are many other interesting and influential scholars such as Robert Kozma, Arafat Hossain, Sir John Daniel, David Wiley, Wayne McKintosh, Jim Taylor, Stephen Downes, George Siemens, among many others.

A smaller but influential group of scholars which includes both technologically skeptical critical scholars and technology skeptic classicists focuses its arguments on the need to limit or regulate the use of ICTs in society and education. In regards to development, one of their main arguments is the need for funds to be allocated to solve more pressing matters such as increasing inequality, violence, national health crises, among other problems. One of the services where all states could invest more in is education. Education should not only allow an equality of opportunity, but also an equality of condition. Without leveling the playing field for children from the moment they enter schools, school will continue to be, to a large extent, agents of social reproduction. Modern technologies could help solve some of the problems faced by “developing” countries but they also promote certain values that may contribute to the erosion of local cultures. Because of this, some scholars advocate addressing current problems with as little technology as possible. Other technology skeptics focus on the way in which the cultural values of the societies which develop the devices are also eroding. What is more, children are increasingly distracted and underperforming in certain cognitive tasks such as writing. The scholars discussed in this section include Larry Cuban (2001), Thurber et al (1996), Nicholas Carr (2011), Dumbrill and Green (2007), and Neil Postman (2000). Some other scholars such as Jaron Lanier, Sherry Turkle, Mark Helpring, John Freeman, and Mark Bauerlein that are not discussed in this section have also published very relevant books and articles on this subject.

Larry Cuban (2001) has written extensively about K-12 school reform and was the author of a book, Oversold and Underused, where he analyzed the impact of technology in the classroom through a study of the Palo Alto community in California. While he does not consider himself a technology skeptic, he believes it to be important to question some of the assumptions made about ICT integration into schools. When researching in Palo Alto, he noticed a strong pursuit of technological advancement by individuals who were trying to find the next frontier, with an “unshakable faith in the capacity of technology to improve life” (Cuban, 2001, p. 25).

Hoping to further increase the use ICTs in the classroom, in 1997, the governor of California allocated $300 dollars per student to install computer networks in each of the state’s 840 high schools. Also annual funding of $45 to be matched by the district was authorized for the maintenance and upgrade of networks. The high level of promotion led to the development of digital literacy programs, keyboarding courses and courses on commonly used software. However, while the students did improve on certain basic skills, he argues that there has not been any transformation or major changes. In aggregate, he argues that “there have been no advances (measured by higher academic achievement of urban, suburban, or rural students) over the last decade that can be confidently attributed to broader access to computers” (Cuban, 2001, p. 178). He argues that ICTs have also only had a marginal influence on the curriculum of universities. “Because of the prevailing incentives embedded in academic rank, tenure, and promotion, the influence of the innovations on university teaching has been marginal” (Cuban, 2001, p. 182). Based on his findings of the limited impact of new ICTs in the classroom, he argues against blindly assuming that further investment in ICTs is worth the cost. It is important to be aware that while personal computers could help students by giving them the access that they need to solve many classroom problems, he believes that ICTs will not be as influential in solving serious social problems. Among them he mentions “extraordinary health and social needs growing out of poverty, crumbling facilities, unqualified teachers”, all of which, “have little to do with a lack of technology” (Cuban, 2001, p. 188). However, “pressed by parents, business leaders, public officials, and computer vendors, few school boards and administrators can resist the tidal wave of opinion in favor of electronic solutions to education’s age-old problems” (pg 192). “The questions asked are seldom whether to move ahead with new technologies but how, under what conditions, and to what degree” (pg 192). Often important needs are left unmet as the schools have to find the finds to sustain their technological investments. According to Cuban (2001), these financial decisions compete with teachers’ salaries, renovations of school groups, reducing class sizes, an additional foreign language for middle scholars, among others programs. Dealing with limited resources, investing in technology does not appear to be the most effective investment. To him the attempts to reduce the digital divide are closely linked to the economic situation of the region and the programs will probably continue as long as “there is economic prosperity” (pg 195). While perhaps in the future every student will have a computer, “without a critical examination of the assumptions of technology promoters”, these initiatives can be seen as “narrowly conceived innovation” (pg 196).

Another article that focuses on some of the negative impacts of ICTs but from an international perspective is an article by Thurber et al (2009) which emphasizes the western nature of ICTs and the cultural, transnational implications of adoption of these technologies. To them the personalized computer promotes many of the individualistic elements of western culture and their democratic values. Citing quotes from foreign professionals, such as Takashi Kiuchi, chairman of Mitsubishi Electric America, who stated that “The information highway is so tied to American culture that we can’t even understand what we’re getting into,” he emphasizes the western origin of the personal computer (Thurber et al, 1995, p. 3).  Discussing other aspects of the internet, Thurber et al (1995) contended that aspects such as the noncentrality of computer networks, and their capacity to empower all users equally, “points to the individual, rather than the organization,” placing an emphasis on individual freedom (Thurber et al 1995, p. 4). According to Thurber et al (1995) increased exposure to the net would transmit values that are “alien” to many “developing” countries (Thurber, Pope, & Stratton, 1995, p. 4). To the authors, importing a technology is also importing values. While they do acknowledge that certain values such as “democracy” and “freedom” are not only western, they are major parts of western cultural identity. Also other parts of the computer such as the keyboard favor phonetic and alphabetic languages.

Because of the strong impact that the World Wide Web has on individuals, Thurber et al (1995) recommend that they consider carefully the implications of implementing an ICT project in their countries. “For cultures less tied to individualism than the West, or more interested in preserving a heritage, [ICT can] in itself be a formidable problem” and to consider “centralized systems” which may have a “better chance of preserving traditional values than a distributed one” (Thurber, Pope, & Stratton, 1995, p. 7). To them, when adopting ICTs it is impossible to avoid a cultural influence; because of this they advocate that policy makers may be interested in limiting the quantity and nature of the information flowing through their network. Also, countries should foster the sharing of information in local languages incorporating both sound and media when possible. They then criticize the net for its idealistic rhetoric and attempts to spread western values throughout the network. “Joining the international computer world thoughtlessly (or heedlessly) will require the adoption of western style thought” (Thurber et al, 1995, p. 1). However, while Thurber et al (1995) argued that countries should perhaps consider not using western ICTs, since their article was published, the growth in use of ICTs throughout the world has been extensive. While most Internet and users were English speakers when their article was published, today Chinese language penetration of the Internet is close to that of the English speaking world. According to worldinternetstats.com, English users account for 26.8% of the Internet, while Chinese users accounts for 24.2%. Growing 1,478% between 2000-2011 Chinese users could eventually represent the majority of Internet users in the world. During the same time frame, English speakers experienced a growth of 301%, a rate much lower than Spanish at 807%, and Portuguese at 990%. As a consequence more scholars are suggesting a more cautious involvement interaction with the Internet rather than withdrawing from it.

Dumbrill and Green (2007), focus on the need for ICT4D programs and other development programs to be sensitive to the different cultures in which the programs are developed. Rather than knowledge being transferred from “north” to “south”, the local community may have a different conception of knowledge and understanding which should be central to web learning projects. The authors discuss the need to understand different perspectives to understand the power relationships within knowledge, and the divide that resulted from colonization between Australian aborigines and colonists. Instead of focusing on giving access to the Internet to the local population, the focus should be based on increasing access to indigenous self-determination and sovereignty. To Dumbrill and Green (2007) aborigines continue to be subjugated as western knowledge is generally seen as superior to indigenous knowledge and their way of life. Unlike western knowledge that was imposed on individuals throughout the colonized world, indigenous knowledge has not been imposed on others. The article goes to explain that the indigenous constructs of the Medicine Wheel were fluid and they were all seen as equal parts of the whole. Knowledge is to them linked to all living things, “animal, plants, the ocean, and the sky” (Dumbrill & Green, 2007, p. 108). Because of key cultural differences and the history of western knowledge imposition on the aborigines, it is important to decolonize web-based education. To them, there is a categorical rule that must be followed: “Indigenous education needs to be placed back in the hands of Indigenous peoples, because as long as such education is controlled by non-Aboriginal educators and taught from a non-Aboriginal perspective, this knowledge will remain subjugated and colonized”. (Dumbrill & Green, 2007, p. 114)

Another scholar, Dr. Neil Postman, the author of The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School (1995), Technopoly: the Surrender of Culture to Technology (1992), and Building a Bridge to the 18th Century: How the Past Can Improve Our Future (2000) offers very critical views about the impact of technology in education.  His contributions to education theory and policy are vast and they focus on the increased disappearance of the local socialization of children and interactions with community members and the disappearance of childhood. While before individuals learned from their peers, and members of their local community were integral to the formation of their values, today individuals are able to access information online without the supervision of their parents, they are learning things about the world and life before they are ready to learn them, and media has led us to be increasingly programmed.

According to Postman (1995), education includes primarily our experiences, and to him modern media, both the computer and the television teach primarily about consumerism, and give us no rest. Media becomes a narrative, and as technology has increasingly influenced our lives through the rise of rationalism and science, a group in society has become part of a religion, or a cult, following the “God of Technology”. When discussing the “God of Technology”, he mentions how:

“there was far more technological change in the nineteenth century than is likely to occur in the twenty-first. The nineteenth century gave us telegraphy, photography, the rotary press, the telephone, the typewriter, the phonograph, the transatlantic cable, the electric light, movies, the locomotive, rockets, the steamboat, the X ray, the revolver, the computer, and the stethoscope, not to mention canned food, the penny press, the modern magazine, the advertising agency, the modern bureaucracy, and, for God’s sake, even the safety pin.” (Postman, 1995,.Kindle 402-403)

To him, however, the “God of Technology” is closely linked to the “God of Consumership” and the importance of increasingly owning more goods. This to him is partly the result of technology as children begin watching advertisement by the time they are 18^th months. Between the ages of 3 and 18^th the “average American youngster will see about 500,000 television commercials, which means that television commercial is the single most substantial source of values to which the young are exposed” (Postman, 1995, Kindle 502-507). To him, this materialism, along with the enthusiasm of educators for technologies are among the elements that are bringing about an end to education. They are a sort of “Faustian bargain”. While they give access to information, they also are increasingly distracting today’s youth (Postman, 1995, Kindle 557-560). He mentions that technologies such as the combustion engine have had major draw backs as well as does television. In addition, as children are increasingly interacting with machines instead of people they will lose important values that are learnt in school such as collaboration, and interacting with their peers. While giving information is important, according to Postman (1995), schools and the Internet are increasingly emphasizing information over other valuable lessons. Today, we are submerged in information. Placing himself in a young person’s world, he is worried about the influence of having:

“260,000 billboards, 17,000 newspapers, 12,000 periodicals, and 27,000 video outlets for renting tapes, 400 million television sets, and well over 500 million radios, not including those in automobiles. There are 40,000 new book titles published every year, and each day 41 million photographs are taken. And, thanks to the computer; over 60 billion pieces of advertising junk mail arrive in our mailboxes every year” (Postman, 1995, Location 623-626).

This growth in access to information is difficult for adults to access, but it is even more difficult to handle for youth. As people learned to drive the car without instruction, he argues that there is little need for schools to teach individuals how to use computers. Also individuals are losing an understanding that a community used to be location based and based on compromise, on learning to understand your neighbors. A school is a place where “individuals must learn in a setting in which individual needs are subordinated to group interests” (Postman, 1995, Kindle 655-656). Citing Robert Fulghum’s (1989) All I Ever Really Needed to Know I Learned in Kindergarten, he explains how lessons such as share everything, play fair, put things back where you find them, don’t hit people, among others, we only actually begin to learn in kindergarten, but it takes many years for these values to become the foundation of a young adult. Therein, he believes lies the value of education, where is not about information, but about socializing individuals. Regarding technology one phrase sums it all “I know a false god when I see one” (Postman, 1995, Kindle 730-731). When thinking about the solution to some of these problems, in his book Building a Bridge to the 18th Century (2000), he discusses the need to sit and think deeply about life, rather than continuously collect information or develop technology without thinking of its ramifications and extended implications.

Similar to Postman’s (1997) critique, Neil Carr (2011) explains how individuals are continuously reading less and it is transforming the way our brains process information. When analyzing the influence of technology he discusses both the history of technology and neuroscience. While technology has increased access to information, multitasking studies have shown that we are getting distracted more often and this may be linked to our internal natural predisposition to be alert and aware of outside stimulus. While by shifting our attention quickly, our ancestors were more likely to survive an ambush when they lived in the wild, without deep reflective thinking and concentrating for long periods of time on information, less of this information will be stored in the long term memory of an individual. Without transforming information into knowledge, individuals will be less able to recall this information in the future and use it during their everyday work and life. He also mentions how the Internet is not the first technology to transform our society, but rather other technologies such as clocks, and the creation of the map transformed human notions of time and place, but because of our brains plasticity, as we reinforce certain mental pathways we also weaken other pathways in our mind.

Carr (2011) reminds us McLuhan’s advice that the “medium is the message”. By this it not only implies that the medium was in itself transformative, but that it also was incredible powerful; media captivates us to an extent that it changes our lives and according to Carr, our minds (Carr, 2011, p. 1). While other technologies held this transformative capability, the Internet is the latest technology that is transforming our living experiences. It is because of the plasticity of our brains “Media work their magic, or their mischief, on the nervous system itself” (Carr, 2011, p. 3). Explaining from his personal experience and that of his friends, who as writers were now having difficulties immersing themselves within text, Carr (2011) explores why this may be taking place. He expresses that while some of the changes may not be negative having information readily available has not only decreased his gas expenditures, but it has transformed the way he writes as well. No longer having the ability to immerse ourselves as easily within the literature, it seems that we may be losing linear thought processing, in exchange for a more anxious, faster, information gathering behavior.

Revisiting the history of neuroscience from its conception to today, he explains neuroplasticity and a list of studies that help to understand how our brain is reacting to this new medium. An important understanding is that it takes time for information to transfer from short-term memory to long-term memory. Without it being transferred to the long term memory part of the brain, that information is likely to get lost. Also, learning to read and write has been shown on brain scans to powerfully shape adult neuropsychological systems (Carr, 2011, p. 51). It is because of this effect on the development of our brain, that Carr (2011) wonders what are the effects of Internet browsing and other net behaviors. The results are mixed but youth is increasingly multitasking, and reading less than their parents. One of the changes that scientist have noticed by tracking eye movements is how few seconds individuals spend on a webpage. Regardless of the amount of text on a page, after a few seconds most click away. Also, reading is increasingly vertical. While skimming is an important skill, Carr (2011) argues that more and more we are choosing to skim over carefully reading. Carr (2011) highlights various changes brought by the internet and explains that new ICTs are not giving us worse but different brains. ,

He then explains how “intellectual technologies” such as the map and the clock transformed the way we understood our environment. However, he challenges sociologist Throstein Veblen’s arguments of “technological determinism” by mentioning that Japan was able to preserve traditional samurai culture for two centuries through the ban of the firearm. In other places such as Old Order Amish fellowships, they have to this day shunned motor cars and other technologies. Despite the rhetoric of inevitability and need for openness, he mentions that “all countries [have] put legal or other restrictions on the use of certain tools” (Carr, 2011, p. 47).

The Need for a Constructive Critically Oriented ICT4D Approach- a Future Oriented Perspective

             We live in a world surrounded by technologies, literately, hundreds of thousands of them. Technologies such as writing, the book, the television have had a transformational impact on the life of man. Yet while a new type of drill or a new GMO may not have a transformative impact on education, information technologies have strong implications on culture and, through it, both on development and education. The internet and other recent ICTs, whether for better or worse, have transformed our culture, and the functioning of our minds. It is because of its transformative impact that educators need to research the best, most constructive ways in which different ICT technologies can be used .  Modern technologies can have a major impact on the quality of life of individuals and they are increasingly impacting both formal and informal education. Yet, some education technologists go too far in emphasizing the need for transformative change; others question the rapidly changing nature of modern technology and have advocated for a reduction in its influence and impact. Classicists and technologically skeptical critical theorists can perhaps increase their influence by moving towards the ideological center. Unless a person currently lives in very particular environment, modern ICTs are likely directly impacting their lives. Choosing to live without the internet is not necessarily a bad choice, it is just different. However, having created the technology, should we not be able to better control its use rather than forbid it? The benefits of connecting can be tremendous, but countries should not be pressured into being increasingly global or modern. Education and culture should not revolve around a higher PISA score, SAT score, or increased economic productivity. Economic production is just one way of looking at the world. Amartya Sen and others have offered different lenses that should be increasingly used when thinking of development.

Research Topics: It is because of the rapidly changing nature of technology and its increasing impact that more research is needed not just within CIDE but within development studies, sociology, education, and technology, among other fields. For my dissertation I am currently considering three different possible questions. First, I am considering a re-evaluation of whether Open Education Resources are sustainable and how they will impact society at large in the next fifteen years. I am also considering evaluating what are the potentials for growth of low cost educational software in centralized application markets? Lastly, I might explore whether erosion of local cultures had worsened as a consequence of  the increasing ubiquitous access to ICTs. All of these studies would be important contributions to ICT4 and CIES.

(End of Essay) – The appendix contains a couple of additional comments.

Appendix – Importance to CIES

As emphasized by the late ex-president of CIES, David Wilson, “the increased global presence of the field and its practitioners is important for the future because ICTs are making comparative and international educators known to a much wider audience, including academic colleagues, other educators, and policy-maker throughout the world” (Wilson, 2003, p. 28). When he mentioned: “where do we go from here?”, he felt that ICT could help the field to both conduct and share their research and projects more efficiently with the rest of the academic community and the world. My emphasis focuses on an amendment to that statement. ICTs are not only influencing and aiding research, but ICT4D should also be a major research field within CIES.

Additional Comment (Removed Due to Space Limitations)

In regard to the “Singularity” and its impact on education, perhaps innovation will continue to happen at an exponential rate, but hopefully it doesn’t. If we are still in control of our rate of technological innovation, perhaps we should consider slowing IT “development” down, and avoiding some of the uncertainty that will result from creating artificial intelligent machines that are in control of improving themselves. Even if we can produce them, as we could currently use our knowledge of nuclear power to send ourselves back to the Stone Age, it does not mean we should or will. We are, after all, highly intelligent beings. Before focusing so much on moving forward at a faster pace, we should worry about what we leave behind, not only in terms of others but also of ourselves. Taking a humanistic approach, most ICT4D scholars have been right in advocating an inclusive, participatory approach to technology adoption. Technology is not inherently good or bad, but it is also not neutral, carrying within it a particular ideology. Hopefully this perspective will increasingly gain support within the IT industry, policymakers, and modernization theorists. Development programs and educational institutions need to continue to be respectful of others ways of knowing and being.

Extended Research Topics Explanation: It is because of the rapidly changing nature of technology and its increasing impact that more research is needed not just within CIDE but within development studies, sociology, education, and technology, among others. Among these rapid changes that require additional study is the recent growing use of tablets and what they may mean for education. Currently being used by only 10% of the adult population of the United States, it is a technology that has yet to spread. However, as this and other forms of mobile technology become more prevalent it will be more important to study their impact. For my dissertation I am currently considering three different possible paths. Firstly, and this question has been answered before but it deserves a re-evaluation, are open education resources sustainable and how will they impact society at large in the next fifteen years? Using futures research methodologies, I am considering interviewing different leaders in Latin America about their opinions of Open Education Resources, their growth, and their future importance in education. An ethnographic study of the Open Education Resource community both online and in the Dominican Republic will also help in finding some of these answers. Another path that I am currently considering is investigating the potentials for growth of low cost educational software on platforms such as the Apple tablet. Again addressing issues of sustainability, cost of software has progressively decreased if one takes mobile devices into consideration. When reviewing the iPad and iPhone applications, most of the applications cost between zero and $5. The relatively low cost of these programs increases the possibilities for them to be purchased by an increasing number of individuals, particularly increasing access to individuals in the developing world. With Apple having sold their 15^th billion iTunes application and more developers joining the mobile application development market, this new type of market may have managed to produce products that are both increasingly accessible and at the same time the prices structure continues to encourage developers to produce for this rapidly expanding market. Most free online games run on the 1% economic model. By providing extra items at a cost, they provide a free product to 99 out of a hundred users, yet because of the ability to reach millions of users at the same time, the market is still profitable for the producer. A final possible project of interest focuses on the erosion of local cultures as a consequence of the increasing ubiquity of access to ICTs. By visiting schools during an ethnographic study in the Dominican Republic it may be possible to analyze whether or not ICTs are contributing to the erosion of local cultural values and the isomorphism of the global educational system. All of these studies would be important contributions to the field of ICT and development, and CIDE.

Works Cited

Allen, E., & Seaman, J. (2010). Learning on Demand: Online Education in the United States. Wellesley: Babson Survey Research Group.

BBC. (2010, September 14). Are dying languages worth saving? Retrieved July 10, 2011, from BBC News Magazine: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11304255

Bonk, C. J. (2011). The World Is Open: How Web Technology Is Revolutionizing Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cairncross, F. (2001). The Death of Distance. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Carr, N. (2011). What the Internet is Doing to Our Brains: The Shadows. New York: Norton and Company.

Chapman, D. W., & Mählck, L. O. (2004). Adapting technology for school improvement: a global perspective. Paris UNESCO.

CISCO. (2008). Multimodal Learning Through Media: What Research Says. San Jose: CISCO Public Information.

Cobo, C., & Moravec, J. W. (2011). Aprendizaje Invisible. Hacia Una Nueva Ecología de la Educación. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona.

Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and Underused. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Dumbrill, G. C., & Green, J. R. (2007). Including Indigenous Knowledge in Web-Based Learning. Journal of Technology and Human Services , 103-117.

Florida, R. (2005, October). The World is Spiky. The Atlantic Monthly , pp. 48-51.

Heeks, R. (2008). Current Analysis and Future Research Agenda on “Gold Farming”: Real-World Production in Developing Countries for the Virtual Economies of Online Games. Manchester: Institute for Development Policy and Management.

Heeks, R. (2010). Do Information and Communication Technologies Contribute to Development. Journal of International Development , 625-640.

Heeks, R. (2008). ICT4D 2.0: The Next Phase of Applying ICT for International Development. IEEE Computer Society , 25-33.

Hobbes, T. (1651). The Leviathan. London: Andrew Crooke.

ITU. (2010). Global ICT trends. Retrieved Jun 20, 2011, from ITU – International Telecommunication Union: http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/index.html

Kamenetz, A. (2010). Edupunks, Edupreneurs, and the Coming Transformation of Higher Education. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Katz, R. N. (2008). The Tower and The Cloud. Washington D.C.: Educause.

Kelly, K. (2005, February). Kevin Kelly on How Technology Evolves. Retrieved March 20, 2011, from TED – Technology, Entertainment and Design: http://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_kelly_on_how_technology_evolves.html

Kelly, K. (2010). What Technology Wants. New York: Viking.

Kleine, D. (2010). ICT4WHAT?—Using the choice framework to operationalise the capability approach to development. Journal of International Development , 674-692.

Kurzweil, R. (2000). The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence. New York: Penguin.

Kurzweil, R. (2005). The Singularity is Near. New York: Viking.

Moura Castro, C. d. (2004). Are new technologies better technologies? For whom? In D. W. Chapman, & L. O. Mählck, Adapting technology for school improvement: a global perspective (pp. 39-54). Paris: UNESCO .

Nielsen Company. (2010, October 14). U.S. Teen Mobile Report: Calling Yesterday, Texting Today, Using Apps Tomorrow. Retrieved October 14, 2010, from Nielsen Wire: http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/u-s-teen-mobile-report-calling-yesterday-texting-today-using-apps-tomorrow/

Postman, N. (1995). The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School. New York: Random House.

Prensky, M. (2007). Digital Game-Based Learning. St. Paul: Paragon House.

Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon , Vol 9.

Prensky, M. (2011). Khan Academy. Educational Technology.

Prensky, M. (2010). Why You Tube Matters. On the Horizon .

Robinson, K. (2009). The Element: How Finding Your Passion Changes Everything. New York: Viking.

Sachs, J. (2005). The End of Poverty . New York: The Penguin Press.

Thurber, B. D., Pope, J. W., & Stratton, J. (1995, August 21). Computers, Telecommunications, and Western Culture. Retrieved May 20, 2011, from Negative Space: http://www.hoboes.com/NetLife/CRIT/CWC/

Unwin, T. (2009). ICT4D: Information and Communication Technologies for Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Wilson, D. N. (2003). The Future of Comparative and International Education in a Globalised World. International Review of Education , 15-33.

What Do IT Fellows Need to Know?

Updated 07/25/11

You can use this as a general training/reference guide.

Moodle 1.9

https://moodle.umn.edu/

General

• Manually giving students access to the site
• Specifying course site settings

Content management

• Uploading/deleting files
• Creating links to files on the Homepage
• Organizing files

Forums: 

• Designing & building discussion threads

Groups: 

• Creating groups for discussion forums
• Using Groupings feature to separate multiple course sections in one site
• Separating a site with multiple course sections into groups by section

Quizzes: –

• Uploading a single file, online text, advance uploading, and offline
• Setting up a quiz/quiz options
• Adding random questions
• Grading objective quiz questions
• Grading essay questions manually (this isn’t very common)

Gradebook: 

• Setting grade book settings
• Adding an activity to grade book and entering grades
• Entering grades via the activity interface/directly into the grade book
• Methods of aggregating/sum, simple weighted mean, and weighted mean of grads
• Using extra credit in grade book
• Setting personal viewing preferences

Moodle transition from 1.9 to 2.0

http://www.oit.umn.edu/moodle/transition/

Note:  Sheila can explain all this stuff to you. 

• Identify the difference in features/functionality between 1.9 and 2.0 and forward official documentation to instructors if needed
• Understand OIT’s timeline for the transition process and make recommendations for transitioning sites from WebVista and from 1.9 –refer instructors to official OIT emails for this

WebVista

http://webct.umn.edu/

Note:  UTTC isn’t offering any WebVista training since it’s being phased out, so you may need to have other IT Fellows give you an overview.  IT Fellows don’t get many requests for WebVista support except for moving files out of WebVista into Moodle.  OIT does have these online WebVista modules: 

Instructor basics:  http://uttc.umn.edu/training/courses/description/?designator=VTA151

Student orientation:  http://uttc.umn.edu/training/courses/description/?designator=VTA4111

• How to transfer content (i.e. zip files and upload them to Moodle) and transfer quiz banks using Respondus (although Respondus is not an easy program to use – you can have the ISTs (Instructional Support Techs – the undergrads in Pete’s office) do this.  http://www.oit.umn.edu/moodle/transition/tranfer-quizzes/index.htm
• Upload, update, delete files
• Adding/managing learning tools and resources to a site
• Managing gradebook
• Managing groups, discussions

Adobe Presenter

http://www.oit.umn.edu/umconnect/services-support/support-faq/presenter-faqs/download-presenter/index.htm

Note:  Sheila can explain this stuff to you.  Adobe Presenter (formerly known as “Breeze”) is a program where you download a plug-in into PowerPoint, which enables users to narrate PowerPoint presentations.  The U isn’t going to support Presenter after Jan, 2012. 

• Explain the phasing out of Adobe Presenter by Jan, 2012 (defer to official briefs)

• Understand that Presenter presentations can still be viewed, but not created after Jan, 2012
• http://blog.lib.umn.edu/oit/news/2011/05/changes_to_adobe_acrobat_licen.html

Camtasia Relay & Camtasia Studio

http://www.oit.umn.edu/class-capture/

Note:  OIT is offering Camtasia RELAY as the Presenter substitute:

However, Camtasia RELAY is really a very limited tool – it doesn’t let you edit.  Camtasia STUDIO is the better tool, but it costs $.  ATS is buying some Camtasia STUDIO licenses, and each IT Fellow will be given a license.  The online tutorials for Camtasia Studio are very good. 

• Show instructors how to get Camtasia Relay and teach them how to use it
• Explain that Camtasia Relay is OIT’s centrally supported software for creating presentations
• Describe the difference between Camtasia Relay & Camtasia Studio
• Teach instructors how to create presentations using Camtasia Studio

Note:  You can download a trial version of Camtasia Studio if you want to mess around with it – the official licenses should be coming soon! 

http://www.techsmith.com/camtasia/

UMConnect

http://www.oit.umn.edu/umconnect/

UMConnect is a tool to have online meetings / presentations

Note:  This is a tricky one with instructors may ask you to set up their meetings and provide tech support during the meeting.  That doesn’t fall within the scope of IT Fellow responsibilities, but it can be an artful matter to communicate that.  Ask other ITFs and Sheila for suggestions on how to respond.  One thing to keep in mind is that if the meeting is not for use in a class with students (like if it’s for a meeting or presentation to people outside the U) you can recommend that they pay $ to have OIT set it up and run it (benefit – they don’t have to be concerned about the technology failing). 

• Teach instructors how to set up, schedule, and record meetings using UMConnect
• Provide guidance on how to conduct an effective online meeting
• Teach the basics of online conference room management

Google Apps

Overall

• Understand the value and the limitations of Google Apps

Docs

• Teach instructors how to create a Google doc
• Teach instructors how to upload a Google doc

Forms

• Teach instructors how to create a Google form
• Explain how Google forms can be used in courses
• Teach instructors how to gather data from a Google form

NetFiles

http://www.oit.umn.edu/netfiles/

• Teach instructors how to access NetFiles
• Teach instructors how to upload files to NetFiles
• Teach instructors how to link to Netfiles files in Moodle

Survey Tools

Note:  IT Fellows should play a referral role and not be responsible for teaching/managing/creating surveys since these tools are almost always used for research.   Refer instructors to the department’s research associate or college’s office of research consultation.  http://www.tc.umn.edu/~orcs

Fellows should be familiar with Google and Moodle’s feedback tools as they are more for polling students and less for gathering data for research projects. 

• Be somewhat familiar with these survey tools:
  • UMSurvey:  http://www.oit.umn.edu/umsurvey/  (people generally aren’t a fan of this tool)
  • CEHD Survey Tool:  https://survey.cehd.umn.edu/

ChimeIn (Polling Software)

Note:  ChimeIn is was developed by CLA – everyone at the U has access to it.  Students can use any personal electronic device to ring in their responses.  You may not get a lot of requests for it, but it seems like instructors have a lot of interest in this tool. 

ChimeIn:  https://chimein.cla.umn.edu/

• Show instructors how to get a ChimeIn account
• Teach instructors how to use ChimeIn
• Explain how ChimeIn can be used in a class

TurningPoint Clickers

http://www.turningtechnologies.com/responsesystemsupport/downloads/

Note:  TurningPoint Clickers are used a lot in FSoS as they have their own sets of clickers.  The other departments do not have clickers (they can borrow clickers from CLA, but CLA doesn’t always have enough to go around) so they could use ChimeIn instead.  

UMWiki

• Apparently this is not a useful tool and IT Fellows don’t really get requests for it.

UThink Blogs

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/uthink/

Note:  It seems like lately more instructors want a blog to publicly showcase student projects.  The Web Team has plans to develop a template for these projects.  You can refer these requests to Sheila.  (If instructors are comfortable creating the blog on their own that’s fine). 

• Teach instructors how to create a UThink blog
• Understand when to refer a blog project to the web team (basically whenever the instructor isn’t comfortable doing it themselves)

VideoAnt

http://ant.umn.edu/

• Teach instructors how to use VideoAnt
• Describe the challenges of using VideoAnt for course assignments

MediaMill

http://mediamill.cla.umn.edu/mediamill/

• Teach instructors how to upload footage to MediaMill
• Teach instructors how to edit footage in MediaMill
• Teach instructors how to share videos in MediaMill
• Teach instructors how to create derivatives in MediaMill
• Teach instructors how to share MediaMill content in Moodle

Skype

http://www.skype.com/intl/en-us/home

Note:  Skype is not a University-supported tool, but IT Fellows are sometimes asked about it.  It’s easy to use, but note that IT Fellows shouldn’t be expected to support hardware needs, network issues, or to facilitate sessions. 

Soft Skills

Note:  These skills will come over time as you get a sense of the instructors in your department. 

• Understand the role and responsibilities of the IT Fellow
• Redirect instructors to other resources when requests for support are outside the scope of IT Fellow role and responsibilities (this means – instead of telling an instructor “no” to redirect by saying “That’s outside my scope, but here’s where you can go for support.”
• Reinforce to instructors that their role is to teach, not do (this can be tricky and it depends on factors such as power dynamics in the department, the level of expertise of the instructor, etc.  The bottom line is to “meet people where they’re at.”  If you’re in a situation where you feel like you’re being asked to do things outside your role, you can ask another IT Fellow what they think, and also ask Sheila.
• Recognize when to refer requests to Sheila/Pete/Yelena

Tech Support

• Explain (very tactfully) that IT Fellows do not support students, and why
• Point instructors to OIT websites for student tech support
• Identify various OIT Tech support options for University supported tools (WebVista, Moodle, etc.) that you can use to ask questions —- SEE BELOW!
• Explain (very tactfully) that IT Fellows do not support non-University supported tools (for example, if an instructor asks you help them with a Ning site – you won’t be able to provide support)

U-Wide Services

• Describe the services provided by Smart Learning Commons:  https://wiki.umn.edu/SMART
• Understand eReserve:  http://www.lib.umn.edu/services/eres-FAQ
• Refer instructors the eReserve support
• The Libraries’ Copyright info site:  http://www.lib.umn.edu/copyright/welcome

Where Should Students Go For Tech Support? 

Phone Tech Support Helpline

Call (612) 301-4357 (on campus, dial 1-HELP)

Online Chat Tech Support:  Live Help

http://www.oit.umn.edu/help/contacts/index.htm

Mon-Fri 7:30am-8:00pm

Sat 12:00pm-5:00pm

Tech Stop:  in person tech support

http://www.oit.umn.edu/tech-stop/

Visit Tech Stop in Coffman Union suite 101 on the East Bank or Coffey Suite 50 on the St. Paul campus.

Tech Stop location and hours:

http://www.oit.umn.edu/tech-stop/locations/index.htm

To schedule an appointment at the Coffman Memorial Union 101 Tech Stop, use our online appointment schedule form.

https://www.oit.umn.edu/techstop/appointment/insecure/guest.cgi

Moodle

Moodle Support – Help & FAQ

http://www1.umn.edu/moodle/students/help.html

Moodle Support – User Guides

http://www1.umn.edu/moodle/students/guides/index.html

WebVista

http://webct.umn.edu/students/

MediaMill

http://mediamill.cla.umn.edu/mediamill/

Wikieducator.org – OER[YUN1]  Online Community – An Online Community Ethnography

May 11, 2011

Increasingly interacting with digital media, spending thousands of hours watching television, surfing the internet, or playing video games, an ever growing number of individuals can be considered digital natives or digital immigrants (Prensky, 2010; Tapscott, 2008). As a result of this recent change, it is important to understand how these interactions affect individuals living in our time and space, their cognitive abilities and what it all means for the youth of tomorrow. These are among some of the topics that have recently risen to challenge the modern ethnographer. The rapid technological change witnessed by societies in recent years has led to an increasing disconnection between generations. Phrases such as the Net Generation, Digital Natives, or Google Generation are surfacing regularly in popular news channels and have been the subject of recent publications (Tapscott, 2008; Prensky, 2010; Rowlands, et al., 2008). Whether one considers oneself a late adopter or laggard, or an innovator or early adopter we all should have an interest in understanding these changes (Rogers, 2003; Kurzweil, 2006). Therefore, it is important for studies to be conducted that would help us to understand better what happens during the thousands of hours that digital natives spend exploring virtual worlds and immersing themselves in epic digital adventures[YUN2]  (Harry, 2005; Yee, 2006).

By allowing individuals to connect with anyone in the world who shares a similar interest, subcultures are able to thrive at a level only possible before in large urban settings.  Through the internet, individuals can code a program collaboratively, play video games internationally, live “second” lives, buy property within online environments, and develop online learning communities based upon a shared vision and mission such as is the case of Wikipedia and WikiEducator. Through websites such as Ning.com and Groups.Google.com, individuals can connect with likeminded people and change the method through which knowledge is produced. Some of these communities, such as Wikipedia, have been the subject of both intense praise and criticism in press and journal articles as a result of their innovative but controversial collaborative framework and organizational culture.

In a whirlwind of change, Wikipedia, has in a decade, become one of the most visited websites in the world. It encompasses millions of articles that anyone with internet access can create and edit. Wikipedia’s success has been to a large extent a result of its wiki structure, the charismatic leadership of “benevolent dictator” Jim Wales, and its consensus oriented decision making process (Reagle Jr., 2010). Wikipedia has risen to challenge even the highly regarded, professionally written Encyclopedia Britannica, first published in 1797 (Kafker & Loveland, 2009; Katz, 2008). The degree of impact Wikipedia has had as a freely accessible reference tool and the transformative power that results from collective or cooperative knowledge production warrants further study. According to the most recent Alexa rakings, Wikipedia was the 8^th most visited website on the internet from February to April 2011, used primarily by childless people under the age of 35 with postgraduate educations browsing at school or work (Alexa, 2011).

Since the success of Wikipedia, other Wiki websites have attempted to replicate its model. Currently there are many other popular wikis, and some of them, such as Wikia.com and WikiHow.com, have been the subject of recent scholarly research (Levine, 2006; Murley, 2008). This paper analyzes a different wiki community, WikiEducator, which has the potential to bring about a transformative change in education and the way in which youth will learn in the future. WikiEducator hopes to build a worldwide community of educators focused on the development of quality open education resources for K-12 and Higher Education. The success of WikiEducator and OER[YUN3]  would not only enhance education in developing countries but also in developed countries, by supplementing traditional education.

Through the development of Open Education Resources (OER), freely sharable educational materials that can be modified, remixed and redistributed, sites such as WikiEducator may play a role in improving access to high quality educational content and in meeting the goal of creating an increasingly affluent world (Baraniuk R. , 2006; Kamenetz, 2010; Sachs, 2005). Another possible impact of OER would be to reduce textbook costs by either replacing proprietary textbooks or increasing competition among publishers. OER could lead to the increased reuse, modification and redistribution of educational material, provide students with additional resources to supplement their course materials and improve the number and quality of lifelong learning resources.  For some, this type of resource could even potentially contribute to the development of an online only educational system where students would be able to obtain a quality higher education but pay only a small amount in fees. As Jim Taylor (2007) remarks OER are not “intended to threaten existing models of higher education provision, but to create a parallel universe capable of ameliorating the apparently insurmountable problem of meeting the worldwide demand for higher education.” Just “India alone would need nearly 2400 additional universities in the next 25 years – or roughly two new universities per week” to meet the demand for higher education (HE) as  more students finish secondary education or need to return to school in a search for a new career or simply for enjoyment (Daniel et al., 2007).

The objectives of people involved in WikiEducator vary by member, yet they all share the conviction of its founder, Dr Wayne Mackintosh, whose vision is to turn “the digital divide into digital dividends using free content and open networks” (WikiEducator, 2010). Similar to Wikipedia’s Jim Wales, Wayne Mackintosh shares some of the charismatic appeal and friendliness of a “benevolent dictator”. Yet, Mackintosh is only one of many scholars who have written about the transformative potential of OER.

Although the term OER was first coined by UNESCO in 2002, open educational resources have been available since educational materials (formal and informal) were first developed and freely shared with someone else. As social interactions fill our world with meanings, the first educational material was probably a story that was shared orally by members of the community. Hearing a story and retelling it with a slight modification is the equivalent of the remixing idea promoted by OER. More than just free of cost, OER are concerned with freedom of access and the ability to build upon previous works by modifying or remixing them (Baraniuk R. , 2006). OER today are associated primarily with digital resources yet, depending on the definition, OER also include many non-digital materials. For OER supporters, it is important for information to be available through a multiplicity of formats. One of the benefits of OER is their potential to increase the amount of high quality educational materials available online, and to reach individuals with different learning modalities, who can then access materials through a number of devices, asynchronously, at no or much reduced costs.

Since 2002 the OER movement has been spearheaded by the OECD and the Hewitt Foundation together with UNESCO. Various institutions such as MIT, UK Open University, Carnegie Mellon, Rice, Stanford, Yale, and Berkeley have developed, or promoted the development of, OER (OECD, 2007; UNESCO, 2011; Walsh, 2010).  Other organizations or online communities have also been pivotal in promoting OER, such as Saylor.org, Opencollegetextbook.org, Creativecommons.org, and Opencontent.org. Yet one of the few communities that has centered specifically on the development of OER content is WikiEducator.

This paper is a report of an ethnographic study of the WikiEducator community I conducted during the spring semester of 2011, as the precursor to a larger analysis and more in depth study of WikiEducator. This paper used a constructivist methodology in the hope of understanding what WikiEducator represents for its members and to understand some of the inner functions of this online community. As an exploratory study, this study also attempted to establish long term relationships with various members of WikiEducator through the use of semi-structured interviews and participant observation.

Value Premises

Whether we like it or not, bias is there, and despite attempts to reduce it, a researcher should be aware that his/her interactions will affect the results of the study. His/her interaction with participants will be unique and could never be fully replicated (Wolcott, 2008; Fetterman, 1989; Kouritzin, 2002). Because bias is unavoidable scholars stand to benefit and aid their readers by stating their beliefs openly (Myrdal, 1972). As a researcher, I find it difficult to separate the private and the public; writing is to me, as to many critical theory researchers, inherently political (Hanisch, 1970; Elliot, 2009; Crotty, 1998). As Foucault eloquently wrote; “knowledge is not for knowing; knowledge is for cutting” (Foucault, 1984). Through my writings, I hope to show both the limitations and capabilities of OER, yet personally I am interested in the success of this model and the reduction of HE costs worldwide. Having benefited to a great extent from the opportunities that were available to me through a result of both hard work and serendipity, I am aware that while I have succeeded others were not as lucky. Many individuals out there deserve the chance to explore their full potential, to have the opportunity to access higher education, obtain an advanced degree, and feel empowered through their education. To break the cycle of dependency, we need to work so that more and more individuals from low income economies can obtain this opportunity.  It is my personal objective to increase access to educational resources and, by doing so, reduce the achievement gap. Yet, while I am passionate about the possibilities of OER, as a scholar it is important to question assumptions and explore even counterintuitive ways to bring about the necessary changes. As OER scholars debate whether or not private primary schooling may have certain advantages over public primary universal schooling in terms of quality, even at low income levels, so too should the sustainability of OER and its financial model continue to be questioned (Wiley, 2007; Downes, 2007). One of the most frequently expressed concerns by WikiEducators is the need for increased government support and the limited amount of grants available from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) or national governments. Other organizations are hesitant to support the initiative, citing fears that the spread of OER could endanger their job security. Another important concern relates to the distinction between universal knowledge, or “free culture,” and knowledge that should remain private to stimulate further innovation and  for national security purposes (Lessig, 2005; Kramer, Starr, & Wentz, 2009).

Methodology and Methods

This study conducts an online or virtual ethnography of the WikiEducator community by comparing it to the literature on online learning communities and online ethnographies (Palloff, 2009; Gee, 2003; Nardi, 2010; Boellstorff, 2008). While the digital world offers new possibilities, it also brings new challenges for ethnographic research due to indirect nature of the interactive space (Fetterman, 1989). Online environments, such as Second Life and World of Warcraft, offer their users the possibility to escape their physical environment and live in a world of fantasy (Boellstorff, 2008; Nardi, 2010). Researching on the internet raises a number of complications, such as the limitations of interacting through the internet, complications of obtaining access to information or observing behavior online, difficulties of real vs. constructed fictional identities and lack of context apart from text or voice. However, some of these concerns are being addressed through the increased capabilities of information communication technologies (ICT) as well as through the graphical representation or increased complexity of online environments (Bilir, 2009; Harry, 2005; Wittel, 2000) Online ethnographies will become increasingly relevant as more and more individuals spend time interacting with digital technologies (Correll, 1995; Hine, 2000). This study builds on prior literature by providing a window into an increasingly popular wiki environment (Friesen & Hopkins, 2008). WikiEducator illustrates the possibilities of open-source economics and how a small group of people can effect macro changes through online collaboration (Benkler, 2009; Reagle Jr., 2010).

Methods

To increase the reliability and transferability of the study, I triangulated my methods using participant observation, a literature review, interviews, and discourse[YUN4]  analysis of forum data (Wolcott, 2008). This enabled me to understand the community more deeply. By reading forum discussions as well as conducting interviews, I developed a deeper relationship with respondents. This paper focuses on my interviews and the participant observation aspects of the study.

For this study, I spent various hours a week visiting WikiEducator.org and related OER organizations. During my study the interrelated nature and support between different OER organizations was evident. Other websites that were visited include the OERU Google Group website (Pic 1), Scope OERU Forum (Pic 2), and the WSIS OERU forums (Pic 3). While these sites are managed separately and have their own community numbers, many of the members of one of the communities are also members of the other three. The other three communities visited include a forum for discussion, yet it is only in WikiEducator (Pic 4) where participants are developing content. During my study of the community I came to feel that I was becoming a part of it, transforming myself into a WikiEducator. As part of my participant observation, I wanted to participate in the development of resources and observe how they were developed. In addition, to feel more integrated within the community, I developed a WikiEducator profile page and became involved in the creation of OER, but I was unable to develop as much content as I originally intended. Collaboration when developing OER is primarily asynchronous and it seemed to be at a lower level than I had originally expected.

During the interviews, it was common for WikiEducators to mention having a personal relationship with Wayne Mackintosh and the close knit nature of the OER community, with many of its administrative members communicating regularly over Skype or via e-mail. As an online community the members are spread throughout different countries and the use of ICT technologies is needed for the coordination of events and the development of objectives that guide OER production. Despite of the high level of interest and possibilities for OER in the developing world, most of the members of WikiEducator lived in countries with[YUN5]  high income economies such as the USA, Canada, New Zealand, France, Australia, and the United Kingdom. However, there were also members from countries with low income and middle income economies, including Jamaica, Guyana, India, Trinidad, Samoa, Brazil, among others.

To understand the OER community better and, in particular, WikiEducator, I attended a number of OER / WikiEducator sponsored events, which included a planning meeting on February 23^rd and a five day course on Open Content Licensing for Educators (OCL4Ed). By attending[YUN6]  these two events, I was able to participate as a student in WikiEducator’s educational activities, and learn more about the OERU University initiative. The February 23^rd  meeting was broadcast live through UStream, an online environment that allows attendees to interact digitally with those in the meeting through the UStream chat or by posting messages in indenti.ca, an open social microblogging service similar to twitter. The OCL4Ed course allowed me to see firsthand the quality of their education materials and to become familiar with key texts on OER.

Participant Observation

The February 23^rd meeting shed light on the different connections WikiEducator has with the Commonwealth of Learning and UNESCO, as well as Athabasca University, Otagon Polytechnic and the University of Southern Queensland. The meeting included presentations from a number of professors including Jim Taylor, Phil Ker, Robin Day, David Porter, Paul Stacey and Wayne Mackintosh. The model to follow for the development of an OERU was discussed, as was the history of OER and the need to increase credibility. The concept of the OERU and whether or not the accreditation system would be free were two other major topics of debate. Contrary to popular opinion, OER are not necessarily free. While most of the content may be obtained from the internet free of charge, the OERU was primarily envisioned as consortium of universities that would, after accepting a commonly agreed upon standard for a particular degree, accept a standardized set of courses from any university and provide the students with a degree. Starting with three open universities in three countries, the OERU would originally cost students only a small administrative fee (Pic 5).  In theory, the project would allow anyone to take courses from a variety of places, to register and obtain a diploma or take the courses they have yet to complete to obtain the degree. This added flexibility would permit students to receive credits for courses they have taken in the past, or even in different countries. During the meeting they opened an identi.ca feed #OERU and after a few suggestions they decided to project microblog posts on a wall via a projector. However, despite efforts to include the voice of those attending via the internet, the ability to participate virtually was limited. The planning session also included a couple of closed meetings, yet, as can be seen in the agenda, most of the event was open to the public and the conclusions to those meetings were shared with virtual attendees when the general assembly reconvened[1]. A number of prominent OER figures such as Stephen Downes and Pheo Martin as well as 202 other members from 46 countries registered for the meeting, many of whom attended virtually. Various virtual participants later expressed their opinion about the event through their personal blogs[2].

At the beginning of the meeting, Sir. John Daniel talked about the need for focusing on innovation in only a few aspects at a time to increase credibility, and the need for an open but tough institution. Daniel, the CEO and President of the Commonwealth of Learning (2004-Currently), is considered the founding patron of WikiEducator. As the former Vice-Chancellor of the UK Open University (1990-2001) and having served as UNESCO’s Assistant Director-General for Education (2001-2004), he is enthusiastic about finding new ways in which to extend education to individuals who currently are unable to attend a university. Various countries now face a situation where millions of students are college ready, having benefited from the successful growth in attendance and graduation from primary and secondary education, but lack access to higher education (Taylor, 2007; Daniel et al., 2007). It is important to meet this challenge, but in a way that allows students to obtain a credible credential at an affordable rate.

Following the meeting, I visited a number of blogs from participants and familiarized myself with the resources available through WikiEducator.org.[3] I completed the wiki editing tutorial and edited a basic wiki page.[4] I then visited the page catalog, which includes links to all of the wiki pages available through WikiEducator.org and the number of editors who have worked on those particular wikis. With over 500 wikis between the letters A to C, it was evident that the site included thousands of wiki pages. The community currently has 19,484 users and holds regular Learning4Content workshops to enable visitors to “familiarize themselves with their new neighborhood” (Mackintosh, 2011). Various wiki pages indicated the multinational reach of the initiative. WikiEducators in Colombia, Argentina, and Africa, among other groups, had created a wiki for individuals interested in developing context specific resources and learning about courses for educators being taught in these locations. Considering knowledge as a common good, editors are forewarned that material published on WikiEducator will be licensed under a Creative Commons (CC) CC-BY license. CC-BY is currently the most open Creative Commons license, permitting the remixing, reproduction and commercialization of the content. The only two types of materials accepted by WikiEducator are CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. By adding the SA or Share-Alike condition to the OER, individuals are required to openly share any derivative of the original OER under the same, or a more restrictive license. Other institutions such as MIT have adopted a CC-BY-NC-SA license, requiring individuals to share any modified products under the same license and prohibiting the commercialization of materials.

Apart from visiting various OER resources and collaborating in their development, I also attended the OCL4Ed course for a week to experience WikiEducator as a course participant. After enrolling online free of charge participants were taught a number of basic OER concepts such as open licensing, creating and using an identi.ca account and the objectives of WikiEducator. Readings by OER advocates and videos on various key issues about licensing and the possibilities of OER were assigned. To aid participants in familiarizing themselves with various creative commons licenses, scenarios were presented and participants were asked to explain if the individual had violated copyright law and how that could have been prevented.

Another important objective of the OCL4Ed course was the development of a peer learning environment. The course began by asking everyone to share with the class their name, their country of origin, and their opinions about OER. By posting these answers on a Moodle site, others were able to comment and inquire about the member’s responses. Additionally, through identi.ca, participants were asked to share their opinions on the class topic in less than 144 characters. Posts that were particularly insightful were then retweeted by Wayne Mackintosh (Pic 6). Hosted in New Zealand but offered to participants worldwide, learning took place asynchronously and participants were able to share their thoughts about the course subject-matter in their own time frame and schedule.

Individuals could visit and learn from these materials any time of the year as all of the resources are accessible through WikiEducator. By encouraging multiple types of feedback OCL4Ed was a very effective and efficient course as individuals were able to obtain a good understanding of CC and the importance of open content, and the course provided for a high level of interaction between participants. While some individuals were more expressive than others in their tweets, there seemed to be a high degree of satisfaction with the course, eliciting comments such as  “this is the best course I have ever taken”[5]. However, as with other online courses, interaction with other class members was entirely textual and no interactive meetings with other class members were held. While in the future interactions in online classes may increasingly include the use of video conferences and provide for a more personal environment, online classes today, due to their asynchronous elements and distance between participants, allow some participants to feel more comfortable in expressing themselves more freely.

Other important elements of my study as an active participant included visiting the WSIS OER website and responding to the debate regarding whether or not OER should allow commercialization. Voting ended with 57% in favor of commercialization to 43% against it. (WSIS, 2011) Further investigation of this issue would be helpful and a future study should include additional observation of relationships in the wider OER community.

Interviews

After attending the meeting, in an attempt to become better acquainted with the community, I used the list of 226 attendees to construct a database of participants’ names, organization, and email address as well as their administrative position, their blog (if available), and their country of origin. Following the development of this list, an email message was drafted and individuals were subsequently contacted for a 30 minute interview. This process[YUN7]  allowed me to meet 13 different WikiEducators and OER supporters.

A first email was sent only to the 23 individuals who registered to physically attend the OERU meeting. This email included not only the purpose of my study but also a brief disclaimer about my personal views and value premises (Annex 1). Receiving only one hesitant response from 23 emails the letter was shortened, removing my value premises. While the lack of responses to the first email was discouraging, it was not unexpected as many of these individuals hold high level administrative positions and are also some of the most prominent members of the community. The second letter (Annex 2), sent to 226 people, resulted in a higher response rate with 13 individuals being interviewed through Skype.  Participants were able to sign up for any date in March, April and May where there were times available (Pic 8).

Surprisingly, several of the individuals who responded were administrators or directors of different OER programs. The rest of the individuals who were interviewed were OER producers and university professors at their particular institutions. Respondents included Cable Green (Director of Global Learning – Creative Commons), Abel Caine (UNESCO – OER Project Administrator), Joyce McKight (SUNY Empire State College, April 2011 WikiEducator of the Month), Richard Heller (Director of the People’s University), Steve Forester (LCO Ojibwe Community College, Consultant), Pheo Martin (Director of the Realizing Education’s Potential Institute (REPI)), Joan Garfield* (College Open Textbook Communities)[6], Simon Yalams (Professor at the University of Technology, Jamaica), Anna Gruszczynska (C-SAP – University of Birmingham OER initiative), Sean Linton (PhD Student – Otago Polytechnic), Jane Park (Creative Commons Education Coordinator), Dennis Taylor (HIRAM College – Co-Director STEM Program), Benjamin Steward (Autonomous University Aguascalientes) and David Porter (Executive Director – Bccampus.ca, British Columbia). Having scheduled interviews through an email, without prior personal contacts, the project obtained a respectable 5% response rate. While five percent of individuals responded to my request for interviews, another five percent communicated with me to express an interest in scheduling an interview at a later date or contributing to the research project, and 90% of those emailed did not reply or participate. As individuals are bombarded by emails, 10% represents an acceptable response rate yet, for an open community, their cooperation with the study was not unusually high.

Some of these interviews were subsequently transcribed and emailed to the participants for further clarification. It is the project’s objective to develop a reciprocal relationship with participants and, once they are finalized, I will email all of the transcripts to the participants. To prevent the unexpected loss of data, interviews were recorded through three electronic[YUN8]  devices simultaneously, a digital recorder (Olympus DS-61), a desktop screen / video recorder (Camtasia), and a virtual video recorder (Audacity) (Pic 9). On more than one occasion one of the recording devices experienced a minor malfunction. Having three recording devices increased reliability. The interviewees were asked whether they wanted their interviews to be private or public and under what license they could be shared. With one exception, all of the participants interviewed were comfortable with the open publication of the interview and the use of an open license without first reading the transcript.

After transcribing the interviews and obtaining further feedback or clarification from the interviewees the interviews were coded according to themes. Some of these themes are discussed in the following section. As mentioned by one of the interviewees, despite a degree of philosophical homogeneity among participants, members who were interviewed had differences of opinion regarding the goal of OER, the future outlook of OER, whether OER is a social and/or international movement, their sustainability, and ways in which the community could conduct further outreach and raise awareness about OER.

The interview questions were analyzed by two graduate students  and a faculty member from Curriculum and Instruction after the original draft and modified to increase their effectiveness as well as to single out questions that would be of greater interest to the participants. A list of questions can be read in the annex section (Annex 3). Apart from recording the interviews and analyzing differences of opinion and similarities through the interviews, the study also hoped to find out how open the community is to outsiders, what  it takes to be accepted as a member of the community and whether members would be willing to support a researcher from a closed institution? During my study, I was not questioned as to why I was studying OER and WikiEducator, rather respondents were sympathetic and keen to help a PhD student interested in their subject area. They encouraged me to play a stronger role in the community in the future.

Preliminary Findings (Pilot Mini Ethnography – Spring 2011), Openness, OER, and WikiEducators:

Defining the term “open resource” and the degree of openness of OER and WikiEducator are questions of heated debate within the OER community. Various individuals interviewed were unsure which open license they regularly used for their materials. In addition, the licenses recommended by major OER producers varied. While WikiEducator recommends the use of CC-BY licensing which does not require remixed materials to be shared or to be limited to non-commercial endeavors, the United Kingdom’s (UK) Joint Information System Committee (JISC) promotes the use of CC-BY-NC-SA for most materials, and the CC-BY-NC-ND license for ‘sensitive’ resources[7].  Despite the support for open licenses among OER advocates, I noticed that several OER supporters have published books that sell for a price similar to that of an average paperback book. The books were not expensive, but it symbolizes the balance that individuals have to make between their ideological beliefs and their financial reality.

An inclusive and diverse movement, OER are not all produced under the same license. WikiEducator, through their OCL4Ed course, has attempted to promote the advantages of CC-BY over other licenses. By providing individuals with the freedom to use the resource as they see fit, OER follow closely Stallman’s quote of Open Source Software (OSS) being more like free speech than free beer (GNU, 2010). With the goal of increasing society’s creative output and the amount of knowledge accessible to all, Mackintosh hopes that others will also decide to share their remixed or original OER under the CC-BY license yet individuals are free to choose the license they are most comfortable in supporting. For WikiEducators, OER should contain four essential freedoms: the freedom to use a resource, to adapt it to your needs, to help your neighbor (by sharing copies), and to help your community. Focused on the practical and improving the living conditions of not just the user but the community, WikiEducator hosts courses and hopes to reduce barriers for people who cannot attend Higher Education courses or obtain credentials.

Sustainability

A major concern of my informants was the need for greater government support. According to Joyce McKnight (SUNY), without the support of the government, various OER programs will likely experience financial difficulties. However, Cable Green (CC) explained how the disappearance of a particular OER, due to lack of maintenance or a server crash is likely to happen at times, but the community will likely either replace the lost material, or have uploaded it to a different site before the server went offline, lost or erased the data. Yet, grants for OER projects are increasingly competitive and it is likely that some programs will lack the financial resources to sustain their OER , as has been the case with many dot com initiatives.

During my interview with Anna Gruszczynska (JISC) she mentioned the likelihood of her program losing financial support at the end of this year. While the project has received funding for two years, the inability to be self-sufficient financially may result in the loss of their expertise. While she believed that OER created by independent producers will continue to be developed without financial support, larger scale initiatives could expand rapidly if only they were given the right type of incentives. While all of the individuals interviewed expressed their desire to continue producing OER and wished to spend more time developing these resources, full time faculty members and many other educators already have a very busy schedule. If administrations were to offer benefits for teachers to publish in open access journals or develop open education resources, their quantity and quality could grow exponentially. Abel Caine (UNESCO) argued that concerns of educators regarding a loss of job security from the growth of OER is a “red herring,” or misconception, as many students would continue to prefer living the college experience, going out and socializing, and living away from home to exclusively using online resources. In addition, there is a large unmet demand of students who are capable but unable to attend a higher education institution (Daniel et al, 2007; Taylor, 2007).

Jane Park (CC) reiterated that recent policy changes, such as the US government recently requiring educational resources produced with a $2 billion grant to be published under a CC-BY license are steps in the right direction that will hopefully continue (DOL, 2011). Similar pressure from national governments and grant makers in the future would provide the OER movement with much needed support and legitimacy, increasing the chances of obtaining a critical mass of supporters, and reaching a tipping point (Rogers, 2003).

Networking and Relationships

From the interviews, it became apparent that many participants communicated with each other on a regular basis. Unlike in larger networks, it seemed that the most active members of the OER community were regularly in touch with each other. New information communication technologies (ICT) have clearly played a role not only in making it possible for almost 20,000 individuals to develop OER through WikiEducator alone, but also to build a sense of community and camaraderie. A recent survey of WikiEducator members showed that 60.5%   had found out about the site from a friend or a referral, 19.3% had found the site through a search engine, 2.7% through a social tagging site, and 20% through other ways (WikiEducator, 2008). It appears that the open nature of the movement, in particular its leadership, has aided its early expansion.

Unlike more traditional academic fields, OER scholars are few and they appear to hold minor or mid-level management positions within their institutions, making it difficult to influence high level administrators. In addition, while it was MIT which first opened its courses to the World Wide Web, and was soon followed by Yale and other top tier US universities, members from these institutions do not seem to be present on a regular basis within any of the OER communities I studied. Having started my study by visiting the OCW Consortium website, it quickly becomes clear that while the universities within the consortium are producing some of the most valuable content within the OER movement, their online forums are not very active. WikiEducator seems to have, and be increasingly developing, this interactive environment yet, as David Porter (BC) stated, the quality of WikiEducator resources has still not reached the desired level. However, just as the internet and wiki technologies proved to be essential to the success of Wikipedia, these technologies can also enable WikiEducators have a broader societal impact. The ability for anyone with access to the internet to use OER from any place in the world, reduces the number of individuals who are needed for the movement to develop a critical mass.

This will be particularly helpful for the success of OER as their supporters are growing but limited in number in comparison to the broader population. Out of 7 billion people, what can be achieved by 20,000 members? Cumulatively, much more that most would expect! However, while some respondents considered OER to be part of a social movement, most of them asserted that OER is not a commonly known term, and has only moderate support. Abel Caine (UNESCO) envisions a steady growth in the use of OER and its support, yet he does not envision its development or use growing exponentially. David Porter emphasized the need to promote the reuse of OER, increase quality, and encourage new members to advocate for OER. In his view, OER communities are led by various charismatic individuals who, while they have been essential for the growth of OER, have also not provided much of a space for new voices to be heard.

The “benevolent dictator” is considered an influential aspect of other Free Culture initiatives such as Wikipedia, Linux, and OSS. While there are OSS initiatives without a charismatic leader, some of the most successful projects do have a key figure who plays an important role in guiding and developing the initiative. Functioning as CEOs these members hold considerable influence and contribute to the overall success of the initiative. This seemed to hold true for WikiEducator, according to my respondents. All of the individuals who were interviewed knew or had spoken to Wayne Mackintosh on some level, and had connections with various other OER members.

Apart from the regular exchange of ideas between different members of the OER community, David Porter mentioned that there is a high level of philosophical homogeneity among supporters. This was seconded by Joan Garfield*, as well as Joyce McKnight (SUNY), and Pheo Martin (REPI). Yet, Pheo Martin and others emphasized that, given the small size of the OER community, this degree of homogeneity is not surprising. However, as the community expands, it will be more likely for subcultures or subsets of the community to develop. As of now, the number of developers and advocates is small and their sense of community has increased the sustainability of the OER movement by constructing a network of knowledge and support. Surprisingly, despite the collective spirit of WikiEducator, several of the individuals interviewed mentioned that resources are currently developed primarily by individual contributors and cooperation is not as common as one would expect.

Conclusions from Interviews and Participant Observation

After conducting 13 interviews and being part of the community for most of the spring 2011 semester, it became apparent that WikiEducators, despite sharing a belief in the importance of developing OER, have different motivations for joining the community. Reasons given ranged from having been hired by an institution supportive of OER to having a desire to make education free for all and developing resources during their spare time. Despite my interest in learning more about the importance of WikiEducator for developing countries, only one participant from a developing country was interviewed. Simon Yalams (Jamaica Technology University) expressed a strong interest in OER, but had not been able to spend as much time developing them as he had hoped. He saw the need for more resources to be developed locally, but was primarily interested in increasing their use and support across Jamaica. With 47 countries represented in the OERU planning meeting it would be beneficial to analyze WikiEducator from a multicultural perspective. In regards to sustainability, it would be interesting to see if they will have financial difficulties in the upcoming years, or whether the open model will continue to sustain itself. The WikiEducator website generates between 8 and 10 million online hits per month. Developing a sustainable financial model will require a substantial amount of donations and grant awards. To meet this challenge, they have developed packages for individuals and organizations to buy a membership and be part of the OER Foundation (OERF). Members did not answer whether they thought WikiEducator itself was sustainable, but rather discussed economic problems in terms of the broader OER movement. In general, WikiEducator is a very open and community oriented environment. They have concerns over quality, but they have continuously increased the number of resources available and participating members, and they are confident about meeting the quality challenge over time. Reaching a critical mass of contributors and supporters is key to increasing adoption and to the overall success of the initiative. Opinions about the future of OER and WikiEducator or whether OER was a social and/or an international movement varied, yet respondents generally agreed that the community will continue to grow over time. A very close community, OER have benefited from inter-institutional cooperation and support. Having members from a long list of countries and places, but being a project of the Commonwealth of Learning, whose countries communicate primarily in English, parallel WikiEducator projects in different languages may not be as successful. Further study will help clarify some of these questions.

Conclusions – Research Framework

While this preliminary study provided me with a broad understanding of WikiEducator and the OER community and the relationships between different institutions supporting OER, asking questions that deal with more specific details would be helpful in producing a more nuanced and in-depth study. Additional interviews would enable me to find out more about certain issues, as well as increase the number of members from other countries who participate in WikiEducator, adding their perspectives to my analysis. Aiming to provide the reader with the thickest description possible, spending 9 months to a year participating in WikiEducator would help me to develop deeper and more nourishing relationships with community members who may then be more open to sharing further details about their experiences. Perhaps I would eventually obtain access to some of the people in key administrative roles within WikiEducator.

Thank you WikiEducators for your help and collaboration in making this idea a reality!

Works Cited

Alexa. (2011, May 07). Wikipedia.org – Wikipedia. Retrieved May 07, 2011, from Alexa.com – The Web Information Company: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wikipedia.org.

Baraniuk, R. (2006, August). Richard Baraniuk: Open Source Learning. Retrieved November 3, 2010, from TED Ideas Worth Spreading: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_baraniuk_on_open_source_learning.html

Benkler, Y. (2009). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Bilir, T. E. (2009). Real economies in virtual worlds: A massively multiplayer online game case study, Runescape. Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology.

Boellstorff, T. (2008). Coming of Age in Second Life: An Anthropologist Explores the Virtually Human. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Correll, S. (1995). The Ethnography of an Electronic Bar. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography , 270-298.

Daniel, J., Kanwar, A., & Uvalić-Trumbić, S. (2007, 6 15). Mass Tertiary Education in the Developing World: Distant Prospect or Distinct Possibility? Retrieved February 20, 2011, from Commonwealth of Learning: http://www.col.org/resources/speeches/2007presentations/Pages/2007-massTertiaryEd.aspx

DOL. (2011, January 20). US Labor Department encourages applications for Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College . Retrieved January 23, 2011, from United States Department of Labor: http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/eta20101436.htm

Donner, J. (2008). Research Approaches to Mobile Use in the Developing World: A Review of the Literature. The Information Society , 140–159.

Downes, S. (2007). Models for Sustainable Open Educational Resources. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects , 29-44.

Elliot, A. (2009). Contemporary Social Theory. New York: Routledge.

Fetterman, D. M. (1989). Ethnography: Step-by-Step. London: SAGE.

Foucault, M. (1984). The Foucault Reader. New York: Pantheon .

Friesen, N., & Hopkins, J. (2008). Wikiversity: or education meets free culture movement: An ethnographic investigation. First Monday .

Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.

GNU. (2010, November 12). The Free Software Definition. Retrieved April 25, 2011, from GNU Operating System: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Hanisch, C. (1970). The Personal is Political. Notes From the Second Year: Women’s Liberation: Major Writings of the Radical Feminists .

Harry, D. (2005). Bridging the Gap: How Offline Relationships Affect Online Sociality in World of Warcraft. Needham: Olin College.

Heeks, R. (2008). ICT4D 2.0: The Next Phase of Applying ICT for International Development. Computer , 26-33.

Hine, C. M. (2000). Virtual Ethnography. London: SAGE.

Kafker, F. A., & Loveland, J. (2009). The Early Britannica: The Growth of an Outstanding Encyclopedia. Oxford: Voltaire Foundation.

Kamenetz, A. (2010). DIY U: Edupunks, Edupreneurs, and the Coming Transformation of Higher Education. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Katz, R. N. (2008). The Tower and The Cloud: Higher Education in the Age of Cloud Computing. Boulder: EDUCAUSE.

Kouritzin, S. (2002). The “Half-Baked” Concept of “Raw” Data in Ethnographic Observation. Canadian Journal of Education , 119-138.

Kramer, F. D., Starr, S. H., & Wentz, L. (2009). Cyberpower and National Security. Washington D.C.: Potomac Books Inc.

Kurzweil, R. (2006). The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. New York: Penguin.

Lessig, L. (2005). Free Culture – How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control. New York: Penguin Press HC.

Levine, R. (2006, September 6). New Web Sites Seeking Profit in Wiki Model. New York Times .

Mackintosh, W. (2011, May 5). EL4C50 – WikiEducator Learning4Content Workshop . Retrieved May 5, 2011, from WikiEducator: http://otago.wikieducator.org/Learning4Content/Workshops/eL4C50/Workshop_schedule#Getting_started_.28Pre-workshop.29

Murley, D. (2008). What Second Life Taught Me about Learning. Law Library Journal , 787-792.

Myrdal, G. (1972). How Scientific are the Social Sciences? Journal of Social Issues , 151-170.

Nardi, B. (2010). My Life as a Night Elf Priest: An Anthropological Account of World of Warcraft (Technologies of the Imagination: New Media in Everyday Life). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Naughton, B. (1993). Deng Xiaoping: the economist. The China Quarterly , 491-514.

OECD. (2007). Giving Knowledge for Free: The Emergence of Open Education Resources. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Palloff, R. M. (2009). Building Online Learning Communities: Effective Strategies for the Virtual Classroom. Hoboken: Jossey-Bass.

Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching Digital Natives: Partnering for Real Learning. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.

Prensky, M. (2010). Why You Tube Matters? The Horizon , 124-131.

Reagle Jr., J. M. (2010). Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.

Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Williams, P., Huntington, P., Fieldhouse, M., Gunter, B., et al. (2008). The Google Generation: The Information Behavior of the Researcher of the Future. Emerald Insight , 290-310.

Sachs, J. D. (2005). The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time. New York: Penguin Press.

Schaller, R. R. (1997). Moore’s law: past, present and future. Spectrum – IEEE , 52-59.

Somekh, B., & Lewin, C. (2006). Research Methods in the Social Sciences. London: SAGE.

Tapscott, D. (2008). Grown Up Digital: How the Net Generation is Changing Your World. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Taylor, J. C. (2007). Open Courseware Futures: Creating a Parallel Universe. e-JIST , 1-9.

UNESCO. (2011). Shifting Focus to Open Education Practices – Opal Report 2011. Paris: UNESCO.

Vest, C. M. (2006). Open Content and the Emerging Global Meta-University. EDUCAUSE Review , 18-30.

Walsh, T. (2010). Unlocking the Gates: How and Why Leading Universities Are Opening Up Access to Their Courses. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

WikiEducator. (2008). WikiEducator Survey for New Accounts. Internet: WikiEducator.

WikiEducator. (2010, December 24). WikiEducator:M and E Overview. Retrieved April 20, 2011, from WikiEducator: http://wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:M_and_E_Overview

Wiley, D. (2007). On The Sustainability of Open Education Resource Initiatives in Higher Education. Paris: OECD.

Wittel, A. (2000). Ethnography on the move: From field to net to Internet. Forum: Qualitative Social Research , 23 Paragraphs.

Wolcott, H. F. (2008). Ethnography: A Way of Seeing. AltaMira Press.

WSIS. (2011, May 6). Should OER favour commercial use? Retrieved May 07, 2011, from WSIS Platform of Communities: http://www.wsis-community.org/pg/debates/group:14358/phase/251476/252291

Yee, N. (2006). The Demographics, Motivations and Derived Experiences of Users of Massively Multi-User Online Graphical Environments. PRESENCE: Teleoperators and Virtual Environments , 309-329.

Annex #1 – Original Letter Sent to OER and WikiEducator Supporters

To: Mark Brown

Dear OER and Wikieducator.org supporter,

My name is Alfonso Sintjago, I am a PhD student from Venezuela studying at the University of Minnesota and I am currently conducting an ethnographic study of the OERU – Wikieducator.org initiative (http://wikieducator.org/User:Sintjago). Apart from engaging in the community as a participant observer and analyzing forum data through discourse analysis, I am hoping to conduct interviews regarding OERs and investigate how individuals become involved in this initiative, their aspirations, their outlooks, and other personal opinions.

I hope to record video conferences with users, OER advocates, developers, and other community members and share the interviews through the use of a CC-BY license. These interviews may be podcasted, vodcasted, and placed on a YouTube channel for increased viewing. The interviews could also be private and anonymous if this is in the interest of the participant. I appreciate your time and collaboration. Please contact me if you are interested in scheduling an interview. My schedule is currently flexible and I am available most days.

To increase transparency, I wanted to clarify my personal beliefs and possible biases. I am currently promoting the increased use of OER in Latin America and development of them from educators in the United States in institutions such as the University of Minnesota, as well as through academic communities whose work focuses on development issues or public studies. I am also interested in promoting the development of OER by academics who have left developing countries, by promoting a brain gain or the production of “knowledge remittances”. However, I am interested in learning about your opinion and experience, and listening to the multiple influences, perspectives and voices about OER, its local and global implications.

These conversations have the flexibility to be private or open to accommodate different opinions and desires. Participants will have the opportunity at the beginning and the end of the study to express their desire for the information to be considered private, confidential and anonymous. I truly hope you are able to participate. While I plan on doing my personal remix with materials captured through the conversations, by being CC-BY, this material could later be used in a number of additional ways. Willing your participation, this material could also later be expanded through focus groups organized according to type of interaction (student, developer), region, or mixed groups to further discuss some shared topics, goals, and experiences.

I hope you are able to share with me sometime in the upcoming weeks your motivation, your experience and your thoughts as an OER developer.

Thank you for your time,

Alfonso Sintjago

352-359-4026

sintj002@umn.edu

Do not reply to this email. To respond to this invitation, click the button above or the link below.
http://my.timedriver.com/af3248798sd98u89uu98uu98agsdf  – Powered by TimeTrade

To: Dennis Taylor

Annex #2 – Modified Letter Sent to OER and WikiEducator Supporters

Dear OER and Wikieducator.org supporter,

My name is Alfonso Sintjago, I am a PhD student from Venezuela studying at the University of Minnesota, USA and I am currently conducting an ethnographic study of the OERU – Wikieducator.org initiative (http://wikieducator.org/User:Sintjago). Apart from engaging in the community as a participant observer and analyzing forum data through discourse analysis, I am hoping to conduct interviews regarding OERs and investigate how individuals become involved in this initiative, the broader OER movement, their aspirations, their outlooks, and other personal opinions.

I hope to either take notes during the meeting, or record the audio or video from the interview, depending on the wishes of the participant. The interview can be private and anonymous if this is in the interest of the participant. If the participant wishes, the recorded audio, video or written notes from the interview can be posted online and shared through the use of a CC-BY license.
I appreciate your time and collaboration. Please contact me if you are interested in scheduling an interview. My schedule is currently flexible and I am available most days.

I hope you are able to share with me sometime in the upcoming weeks your motivation, your experience and your thoughts as an OER developer.

Thank you for your time,

Alfonso Sintjago

352-359-4026

sintj002@umn.edu

skype: fastfonz

Do not reply to this email. To respond to this invitation, click the button above or the link below.
http://my.timedriver.com/af3248798sd98u89uu98uu98agsdf

Powered by TimeTrade

Annex #3 – Original List of Questions for Semi-Structured Interviews

OER Ethnography Study – Questions (1^st Draft)

Thank you for deciding to contribute to this study. Below are some of the questions that we may discuss during the interview. The interview will be semi-structured and I am also interested in learning from you what you consider relevant. Feel free to expand on any point or make suggestions about other areas to explore. These questions are only an outline of potential topics. The questions will be refined and modified after a predetermined number of interviews to better address relevant issues. Some of the questions will not be addressed due to time constrains and availability.

Thank you for your collaboration,

Alfonso Sintjago

How and when did you first become involved with OER? How has your involvement with OER changed over time? What attracts you the most about OER?

If the answer is different from the previous question, how and when did you first become involved with Wikieducator.org and the OERU initiative?

How does OER influence knowledge and technology transfers? locally and globally what, in your opinion, is the goal of the OER movement? Is the OER a social movement?

Do you consider Wikieducator.org and OERU an international movement or an international initiative? Why or why not?

What are some of the greatest obstacles facing OER? Should every country participate in the development of OER?

Should OER be produced in least spoken languages as well as major languages?

Would you say they are currently being developed in a large number of languages, which languages are most prevalent? How important is contextualization in the production of OER?

What license should OER be produced under (if Creative Commons, what type of Creative Commons)? What license do you publish most of your work under?

Are you currently employed? Does your employer support the development of OER?

How important is strong support from the university administration for the development of OER?

How important is grass roots support of local communities for the development of OER? Is Wikieducator.org sustainable? Which other OER supporting websites are, in your opinion, sustainable?

What are some obstacles that limit you from spending a greater amount of time developing OER?

What are some of the greatest obstacles the OERU and the WikiEducator initiative face? What are some of the initiative greatest strengths and greatest weaknesses?

What are some limitations of OER? Wikieducator.org and the OERU initiative?

Are most people aware of what OER means or are they passive users of OER?

What leads a person to become more active in the community? How does the community strengthen itself?

Is Wikieducator.org doing enough in terms of outreach? Is the OER community doing enough in terms of outreach?

How are the wikieducator.org and OERU community different from the OER community at large?

Should the term OER be a household or commonly known term?  Have you taught your children about OER? Are your family and friends supportive of OER?

Are most of your friends aware of what OER are and are they supportive of the idea?

Have you met people within Wikieducator.org? Have these relationships extended between the online community? What has been the nature of these relationships?

To what extent do you consider OERU and Wikieducator.org to be an online community? What has limited it from growing?

If you do not mind me asking, how do you identify yourself; political conservative, liberal, independent?

How do you envision the OER movement to be in 2 years, 5 years, 10 years? What role with the OERU and Wikieducator.org play in the future of OER? What role does OER play within ICT4D?

How many hours do you devote a week to the development of OER? How frequently do you visit Wikieducator.org or affiliated websites? Which other websites do you visit?

Which OER sites do you frequently visit?  How did the OERU idea develop? What has been your level of involvement with the OERU initiative?

What do you think is the greatest barrier for other universities when considering whether or not to join the OER movement?

What has the OER community done to increase awareness of OER? What other steps need to be taken?

What to you is the ultimate goal of OER? Are OERs sustainable? Why or why not?

Please explain your work within OER and what led you to choose this approach when developing education resources? What is your average day like? Have you recently participated in OER courses?

If there was one variable missing from the OER that is most hindering its growth and expansion, what would that be? What is the greatest piece missing in the OER movement?

Annex #4 – Modified List of Questions for Semi-Structured Interviews

Most Frequently Asked Questions (2^nd Draft)

How and when did you first become involved with OER? How has your involvement with OER changed over time? What attracts you the most about OER?

What are some of the greatest obstacles facing OER? Should every country participate in the development of OER?

How important is strong support from the university administration for the development of OER?

What are some obstacles that limit you from spending a greater amount of time developing OER?

What leads a person to become more active in the community? How does the community strengthen itself?

Should the term OER be a household or commonly known term?  Have you taught your children about OER? Are your family and friends supportive of OER?

Are most of your friends aware of what OER are and are they supportive of the idea?

Have you met people within Wikieducator.org? Have these relationships extended between the online community? What has been the nature of these relationships?

If you do not mind me asking, how do you identify yourself; political conservative, liberal, independent?

Which OER sites do you frequently visit?  How did the OERU idea develop? What has been your level of involvement with the OERU initiative?

What do you think is the greatest barrier for other universities when considering whether or not to join the OER movement?

What has the OER community done to increase awareness of OER? What other steps need to be taken?

What to you is the ultimate goal  of OER? Are OERs sustainable? Why or why not?

Please explain your work within OER and what led you to choose this approach when developing education resources? What is your average day like? Have you recently participated in OER courses?

Motivational Videos – OER – CI5323 Assignment – Week 6

February 23, 2011

As part of a UMN Class, I recently had to send to the instructor a motivational video for week 6 of the course. The course online learning communities is taught by Cassie Scharber and has been an interesting experience.

– Steve Johnson: “Where Good Ideas Come From”

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NugRZGDbPFU&w=640&h=390]

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NugRZGDbPFU (Riverheadview) – Looks like an RSA Animate

– Tim Berners-Lee: The year open data went worldwide

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YcZ3Zqk0a8&w=640&h=390]

> http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/tim_berners_lee_the_year_open_data_went_worldwide.html (TED Talk – Short – 6 mins)

Together these videos symbolize how we can all benefit from the growth of Open Education Resources, not only could individuals anywhere in the world obtain access to high quality educational materials, increase lifelong learning and perhaps help some individuals with limited financial means to obtain a university degree, but how the development of OER can also contribute to worldwide innovation.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

Other videos by Steven Johnson:

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7a5YZ_m0Ys (Fora TV – 5 mins)

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0af00UcTO-c (TED Talk – 16 mins)

Other videos by Tim Berners-Lee:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM6XIICm_qo (TED Talk – 16 mins)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IQFjTnDozo (UnitedBritannia – 3 mins)

• Note: How does the ability to change your image regularly change how others interact with a person and how will it change a person’s behavior? Will individuals within an online community be colorless and be judged more by the context of their character than by the appearance?

• Will conflict be promoted in this course? What is your opinion of the quote? And if conflict will be encouraged and regulated, how will it be regulated and encouraged within the course?

Online Communities Week 3

2/7/2011

1) Quotes:

a) The use of online communities such as Second Life for the delivery of online classes may change this picture, however, by providing “noisier” spaces that make use of graphic three-dimensional avatars and voice, as well as the use of text. (Read more at location 790 – Kindle)

–      Note: How does the ability to change your image regularly change how others interact with a person and how will it change a person’s behavior? Will individuals within an online community be colorless and be judged more by the context of their character than by the appearance?

b) So if conflict is not such a bad thing, and if it is necessary in order to achieve group cohesiveness and intimacy, why do so many fear it and attempt to avoid it, especially in the online medium? And how do we as educators establish norms and procedures for resolving conflict in this virtual community of online learning? (Read more at location 945 – Kindle)

–      Will conflict be promoted in this course? What is your opinion of the quote? And if conflict will be encouraged and regulated, how will it be regulated and encouraged within the course?

2) –Discussion Puzzle:

Quote: It is clearly no longer enough to be simply social animals, babbling together at cocktail parties and brawling with each other in business and over boundaries. It is our task—our essential, central, crucial task—to transform ourselves from mere social creatures into community creatures. It is the only way that human evolution will be able to proceed. (p. 165) – Location 714 (Kindle – Sorry but I won’t be able to quote pages — while the Kindle software should include both the page number and the location, it currently includes only the a fixed text location)

– When I read this quote, I thought about in which ways are we truly different today than we were yesterday? In what ways are the homo sapiens different today? Communism tried to create a more gregarious altruistic “new” man, and develop a stronger community built upon the idea of togetherness. Yet, despite their efforts, neo-liberalism or capitalism proved to be more akin to human nature (requiring less government control and coercion to be successful), more economically productive, and along with a much longer list of reasons, capitalism and individualism triumphed.

With this in mind, why would technology or digital communities create society that would be any more community oriented (in broader terms) than it has been before? Narcissistic and individualistic tendencies are on the rise (1). More importantly why would man be more community oriented tomorrow? Thinking about tomorrow, I came across a TED talk while reading an article on CNN (2) regarding “homo evolutis”.  While the technological advances explored in this video are very promising, they made me question the assumption that the digital divide is shirking, instead than it has only been bridged within certain technological advances. What are your thought on the effect of technology on man and culture? While mobile technology is becoming increasingly ubiquitous, other technologies may also be increasing exclusion and depending on future policy changes our own health may in the future be prolonged according to our financial capacity.  (As it will be the case with many of my future post, this post was written to hopefully generate an educated debate and some degree of controversy)
1 – http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/content/sep2010/bs20100913_429948.htm

2 – http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/02/06/enriquez.gullans.human.species/index.html

3) I am interested in seeing to what degree “groupthink” develops within our community. I also visited WELL’s website (Whole Earth ’Lectric Link) and found their site somewhat antiquated but the site appeared to still be active. I wanted to learn more about them, their development and transitions. It was interesting how the book encouraged celebrating events together and also the need to during unfortunate times mourn together. One of the questions I had about WELL and other communities was: How do most online communities form and what is their bonding element? Be it through an MMORPG or through a shared interested in Hispanic food, do all communities share a common element? Also, what are the most successful online communities and did some of them become social movements, and if so, how? The reading was interesting but it brought forth more questions than answers.

3