Embedded Link

TPP – ONG Derechos Digitales
Antecedentes de la negociación para la ampliación del Acuerdo de Asociación Trans Pacífico de Libre Comercio (conocido como TPP, por sus siglas en inglés) suscrito por Brunei, Chile, Nueva Zelanda y Singapur (P4) en el año 2005, al cual pretenden incorporarse Estados Unidos, Australia, Perú, …

Google+: View post on Google+

"Thursday, May 09, 2013

MOOCs: old narratives v new narrative – open, scalable, diverse & relevant

Narratives

There’s been a lots of different reactions to MOOCs and a few fi8xed narratives have energed:

1. ‘US Valley’ narrative around Khan, Stanford, not-for-profits, investors, Coursera, Udacity, NovoED and so on.
2. ‘Canadian connectivist’ narrative that MOOCs originated with Siemens & Downes and have been usurped by the ‘US valley’ folks.
3. ‘Out of OER’ narrative, where MOOCs are seen as building upon the Open Educational Resource culture.
4. ‘Traditional backlash’ narrative, that MOOCs dangerously undermine the traditional values and funding of Universities. 
5. ‘Silver bullet’ narrative where MOOCs are seen as the future savior for higher education.

In my view, none are wholly true, yet all have a degree of truth. What we have to do is stop seeing all of these as mutually exclusive and look to the future not the past. This is a phenomenon or movement that, whatever its origins has the momentum that none of the past initiatives seemed to gather. It’s a time to drive forward with debate and discussion, not constantly checking the wing mirror.

New MOOC narrative

My own position is that we need a future-looking narrative that lies beyond all of these. Here’s a thought. MOOCs will not replace or even undermine Universities. In fact, they are likely to make our Universities even more important as the future keepers of cultural capital. No one wants to see our University system fail or crumble. Then again, many want to see aspects of the closed ‘ivory tower’ reshaped into something a little flatter, more open and accessible. There are genuine worries about insularity, quality of teaching, cost, access and relevance. If we can reposition academe as more open, transparent and relevant, that could be to the benefit of us all. There are seven components to this narrative:

1. Open

Being more open, through MOOCs, will engage and re-engage potential school leavers, parents, alumni, adult learners and the majority of people worldwide who may see it as a realistic aspiration. Just as important are those who,frankly, have no chance of ever seeing the inside of a University. The data from MOOCs already show a huge appetite from an untapped audience around the world for knowledge and learning. I suspect that academics, research and reputations of Universities would be enhanced of that knowledge were seen as more open and accessible

2. Scalability

Higher Education does face the problem of increasing costs. In most other areas of human endeavour, increased volume leads to decreased costs. Along comes a solution that promises to ease that problem. Sure the business models have yet to be refined, but they will. Sure there may be less teacher-student face-to-face contact but this is the ‘trade-off’, namely that a MOOC may have less student/professor contact but some of that may be worth sacrificing for openness and access. Sebastian Thrun was teaching 200 students at Stanford, on his MOOC it was 169,000. That would have taken 800 years at his old teaching rate. Even with the 26,000 that completed, it’s 130 years. The benefits of scale and literally ‘massive’.

3. Diversity

The philosophy Professors at San Jose, who recently wrote an ‘open letter’, complained that MOOCs undermine the ‘diversity’  of the student mix. How they came to that conclusion beggars belief. MOOCs are massively diverse in terms of age, nationality, ethnic origins and background. This is precisely is a consequence of them being Massive, Open and Online. This is an important point in learning, as critical thinking may well be enhanced by having a larger, more diverse set of globally-based, learners engaged on courses. It shifts us out of our cultural groupthink and brings in a wider range of experience, example and perspectives.

4. Academic status

Rather than the occasional academic making an appearance through a TV series on art of history, we could see a renaissance of interest in knowledge and learning if they engaged more directly and openly with society. A good example in the UK are Classical scholars, such as Mary Beard and Robin Lane-Fox, who have headed up TV series on Roman history. With MOOCs, many more talented academics will have a chance to reach out to audiences beyond their own yearly intake of students.

5. Relevance

This may also realign university subjects and activities more closely with the needs of their communities, economies and student needs. I live in a relatively small town, Brighton, with two large Universities, yet there is precious little engagement between them and the local population. The vast majority would hard pressed to name the Vice-chancellors or even a single academic at either institution. As a local employer , who employed many students from both Universities, it worried me over many years how disinterested they were in even minor curriculum tweaks or the fate of students beyond graduation date. Engagement with the local community through the arts, debates, public lectures and reuse of low-occupancy buildings and sports facilities would make Universities more loved.

 6. Giving

Rather than the educational colonialism of setting up shop in the developing world with new-build campuses, the developed world could funnel educational aid through MOOCs. This would have greater impact through scale and lower costs. The evidence from MOCCs so far is that huge numbers of people are accessing them from countries where HE is not affordable or even remotely accessible for the majority of citizens. I’d like to see some foreign aid budgets go to MOOCs, especially further down the educational ladder into schools.

7. Reframe away from ’18 year-old undergrad

When something new, and let’s even use that word ‘disruptive’, hits a sector, debate erupts, especially on social media and blogs. This is all good as it helps us think through the many issues that emerge, some predictable, some not so predictable. But one thing has happened that surprises me in the debate is the framing of this new phenomenon (MOOCs) into the old, restrictive model of the 18 year old undergraduate course.

If you believe that the purpose of a MOOC is to mimic the standard undergraduate course, you will be disappointed as many of the participants in MOOCs are not young undergraduates. You will also see drop-out, rather than drop-in, a category mistake that sees anything other than passingthe final exam as failure (a BIG mistake). There is also a false assumption that face-to-face teaching is a necessary condition for learning. It is not. We learn most of what we learn, not from direct teaching but informally from all sorts of sources and interactions. This is not to say that teaching is unimportant. In practice, on MOOCs, human contact takes all sorts of forms, from teacher to student, student to student, content to student, peer assessment, physical meetups among students, forums, social media. This is a rich blend of human interaction and, in connectivist MOOCs, it is this very feature that, their connectivist founders claim, makes them work so well. There are demands for more rigour in summative assessment, despite the fact that many learners may not want summative assessment at all and others lighter forms of assessment. MOOCs are taken for all sorts of reasons by all sorts of people from all sorts of places. For many it’s not a paper-chase. Squeezing the debate back into the ‘do I get a credit for this course – if not it’s a waste of time’ is wrong-headed.

God’s in the detail

Sure, there’s the old world that has to adjust to new ideas but we can’t hang on to old practices just because they’ve been around for a long time – we’d never have got rid of slavery! On the other hand we must be careful not to totally abandon old practice and look for readjustments, for example, the recording or inclusion of active learning within lectures. We can surely borrow from the work that’s been done on OER, connectivist MOOCs, adaptive learning and so on. MOOCs are not the preserve of one group, country or group of elite Universities.

To move forward we have to look at the different species of MOOCs, new target audiences, different economic models and the pedagogic detail.  There’s more to MOOCs than just cMOOCs and xMOOCS – the taxonomy is much richer and wider. Vast new audiences are also emerging. New players in new combinations are trying new ways of making education cheaper. On pedagogy, we have different forms of recorded lectures (much progress been made here), peer assessment (very promising), forums, groups, adaptive learning, social media, physical meetups arranged by students (this is interesting), summative assessment (lots of options here) and so on. Kites are being flown and no doubt some will go into free-fall, others hover and yet other soar."

Embedded Link

Donald Clark Plan B: MOOCs: old narratives v new narrative – open, scalable, diverse & relevant
In my view, none are wholly true, yet all have a degree of truth. What we have to do is stop seeing all of these as mutually exclusive and look to the future not the past. This is a phenomenon or movement that, whatever its origins has the momentum that none of the past initiatives seemed to …

Google+: View post on Google+

La cultura se decanta en prácticas y objetos, si privatizas los objetos restringes…

La cultura se decanta en prácticas y objetos, si privatizas los objetos restringes el ejercicio de la cultura.

Estos sujetos del IMPI sufren de un reduccionismo producto de considerar que la cultura es una industria.

o-o-o-o-o-o

El Instituto de la Propiedad considera "sobredimensionado" el caso Disney

La autoridad mexicana sobre derechos de propiedad descartó que una película del Día de Muertos dañe la forma de celebrar de esta tradición
Por Juan Pablo Mayorga, Miércoles, 08 de mayo de 2013 a las 18:39

CIUDAD DE MÉXICO (CNNMéxico) — La reacción ante el intento de Disney por registrar una marca sobre la celebración mexicana del Día de Muertos se está sobredimensionando, debido a que no tiene base en ninguna base oficial, dijo el director del Instituto Mexicano de la Propiedad Industrial (IMPI).

“No hemos recibido solicitud alguna y no por eso se va a privar al pueblo de México o ninguna comunidad fuera de realizar esta celebración”, dijo en entrevista Miguel Ángel Margáin, titular del IMPI. El organismo es el encargado de administrar el sistema de propiedad industrial en el país.
“Creo que se está sobredimensionando esto porque es algo hipotético”, añadió.

Usuarios de redes sociales en México colocaron este martes como uno de los temas más comentados el Día de Muertos, después de que el blog StitchKingdom.com reportara el intento de registrar la celebración mexicana.

En 2012, la compañía de animación Pixar —comprada por Disney en 2006— anunció durante el CinemaCon una producción con el tema del Día de Muertos bajo la dirección de Lee Unkrich, el director Toy Story 3.
Disney buscó “proteger cualquier título potencial” de una cinta sobre el Día de Muertos en la que actualmente trabaja Pixar, según confirmó una vocera de la compañía a CNNMexico, a través de un comunicado.
Sin embargo, Disney reculó en su intento de registro tras una modificación en su proyecto de película. “Se ha determinado que el título de la película cambiará, y por lo tanto estamos retirando nuestra solicitud de registro de marca”, añadió la compañía estadounidense en el comunicado.
CNNMéxico buscó a representantes de la compañía para tratar de precisar detalles sobre su solicitud de registro, pero una vocera de la firma respondió este miércoles que no haría “más declaraciones más allá del comunicado emitido”.

“No es privar una tradición”

Aun en el supuesto de que Disney consiguiera un registro de marca sobre Día de Muertos para un título de película, esto solo ampararía la obra cinematográfica para actividades específicas y en un lugar definido, dejando a salvo la celebración y comercialización de la tradición, dijo Margaín.

El abogado especialista en propiedad intelectual comparó esta situación con el registro de marcas como La Pasión de Cristo y El Mariachi, dos películas estadounidenses que no han impedido que las tradiciones que abordan continúen celebrándose de forma popular.
“No porque haya una película que se llame El Mariachi no podemos llamarle mariachis a los mariachis cuando vayan a dar una serenata”, dijo Margáin. “No por eso se va a privar al pueblo de México o a ninguna comunidad fuera (del país) de realizar esta celebración”.

El Día de Muertos, celebrado el 1 y 2 de noviembre, es una de las fiestas con más tradición en México. Los mexicanos suelen visitar los cementerios y colocar ofrendas de comida y regalos para las almas de sus seres queridos fallecidos. La forma en que los pueblos indígenas del país celebran esta tradición es considerada Patrimonio Oral e Intangible de la Humanidad a partir de 2003 por la Unesco.
Un historial de polémicas

Desde Blancanieves, en la que es usada la expresión “pila de negros” en una escena en la que los siete enanos están uno encima del otro, Disney ha generado controversias con distintos proyectos.
La última ocurrió en octubre pasado, cuando la compañía presentó como una “princesa latina” la protagonista de la serie televisiva Sofia The First: Once upon a princess. Latinos en Estados Unidos criticaron al personaje pelirrojo de piel blanca y ojos azules, rasgos físicos que no regularmente no caracterizan al segmento.

Disney defendió a Sofía argumentando que “todos los personajes vienen de lugares de fantasía que pueden reflejar elementos de diversas culturas y etnias, pero no tienen un propósito de representar específicamente las culturas el mundo real”.

Embedded Link

Juan Pablo Mayorga

Google+: View post on Google+