Talk:FLOSS/FLOSS and education

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Mel's notes[edit source]

note - this is from an email between myself and Janet, the original author. trying to move further discussion to this page. Mchua 05:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need references throughout to back this up - are there demographic profiles of FOSS contributors that show they're more likely to be active volunteers, etc?
* Agreed. Would it be ok if they were living references and not other academic papers. eg. Would you like to do case studies based on for example the olpc stuff happening near you?, What other open code/make culture happens in schools near you? http://code.google.com/opensource/ghop/2007-8/ for example. Perhaps with 
* experience comments from students
* experience comments from teachers
* experience comments from projects
* other community participants or perspectives eg Google (Leslie Hawthorn might be good for this)
  • Beware the correlation != causation trap; perhaps FOSS contributors have skills in negotiation and conflict resolution because only people with those tendencies go into FOSS in the first place.
* and students who step into it? 
* and teachers who step into it?
* and education systems which see it as valuable and want it to scale? How does that conversation work? i guess i am trying to look at the foss critical aspects of that conversation? how would you scale it and still have the characteristics of volunteering participation and reciprocity. if partnering with a system which is largely oriented around industrial efficiencies of scale and quantitative outcomes.
* I think there is plenty of contention on lists when there are folks learning the ropes or where people dont quite make it work. 
* Ive got a bit of thinking on the dynamics of contention in foss but not sure if it is useful in this paper (stuff from an email thread I'll paste it in the bottom of this page.)
  • What do you mean by "innovation"?
* http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2000/04/13/CFPkeynote.html
*http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/business/soa/Carr-calls-for-industry-to-submit-on-innovation/0,139023166,339286453,00.htm?feed=generic
* Students being able to make something which wasnt there to start with.
* Students being able to try something which the student and teacher might not have tried before.
* Being able to contribute something new to the world.
* Being able to contribute to projects which might not get attention from a commercial perspective. Distributed projects might not offer a financial bounty at the core perhaps so then it is in distributed communities that folks find its value and make it go. so this is a kind of social capacity?
  • What opportunities do people have for negotiation in FOSS? (Give sources.)
* What can I contribute?
* I have a bug, I can express it and contribute it, I can talk with someone about how it does or doesnt happen?
* I have an idea about something we could code? I need advice with these aspects, 
* How does my contribution fit in? Are there upstream issues? 
* if we include wikimedia as an open content community then disambiguation and this kind of conversation is a part of it?
  • Look up a paper called "Open Source Democracy" (it's available for free on the web). That would make an excellent source for this paper.
* Thanks. I read some work by someone called sayke which was about liquid democracy.
  • Also papers that have been published on the motivations of FOSS contributors, and etc. (and almost anything by Eric S. Raymond.)
* Yes Cathedral/Bazaar stuff is pretty close to this isnt it.
  • Some schools have implemented FOSS into their ICT curriculum. Look up Jeff Elkner's work, for starters.

Winner: Jeffrey Elkner, teacher, Arlington County Public Schools; project leader, Open Book Project Jeffrey Elkner currently teaches mathematics and computer science in the Arlington County, Virginia, Public Schools. He also serves as co-Web master of the The Open Book Project, a site that “aims to cover projects that are connected with either open source hardware or software. The Open Book Project seeks to encourage and coordinate collaboration among students and teachers for the development of high quality, freely distributable textbooks and educational materials on a wide range of topics. Through the Open Book Project, Elkner writes educational material and places that material on the Web for others to use. He also involves his students in active and positive ways.

  • Also look up the GASP project on Launchpad, which has some high school students as contributors,
*
  • there are far more examples of students doing FOSS outside the classroom, but they tend to be a self-selective demographic. Scott Swanson and Jim Gerry from IMSA, and a professor named Hans Sittler in the Chicago area, are good people to look up as well.
 * Thanks
  • Point to and cite the use and justification of open standards in government and other places (Groklaw is a good place to find this type of information).
 * Yes there is likely to be plenty around atm. eg Google's response to ooxml

 * Thankyou
  • FOSS-thought can extend far past software. Creation of open content for math, history, science, etc. classes can hook students into a participative community of learners in the field they're working in, in general. And I don't just mean Wikipedia. Look up Kevin Driscoll (Developing Curriculum, Inc.) and Free Culture chapters on any campus.
 * Lovely. Barbara Dieu does great language stuff in Brazil using online communities, not necessarily foss but open participation.

Peter is looking for evidence of

  • free and open source software(FOSS); enabling
  • higher order ICT skills.

This paper is looking at the policy and structural foundations which could support that kind of participative practice.

Discussion[edit source]

The first presentation you posted might be hard to cite in a paper and have people take it very seriously, but there's something called "hofstede cultural dimensions" that has a lot of papers out there that could serve the same purpose. Look it up. 66.108.80.238 00:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Mel I probably missed something but it didnt feel like hofstede was the right fit. It is about national distinctions between cultures? I am trying for something more about humans in context with biological diversity and responses to that based on how we scale cultures generally. As a technique for scaling monoculture grouping has implications on how we organise as people. I think we need to find ways to function at our current scale which do honour real and listen for high fidelity data about social and environmental costs and opportunities. lucychili 02:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This means we have to listen differently and to be able to process complexity in more distributed ways. More trust in our societal fingertips. I think this is what FOSS does. I think it is also what constructivist and connectivist learning are about. I used hoebeke in the presentation because he talks about our love of the abstract simplicity at the expense of the real. lucychili 02:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cormac's notes[edit source]

Nice paper so far - and interesting comments! I think the paper would be significantly improved by a literature review on 1) the development of FOSS and 'FOSSlike' initiatives, and their impact on their contributors; 2) collaboration in the classroom (and educational implications of collaboration in general); 3) participation as a paradigm. I'd also note that there is loads of relevant literature that is not confined to the post-FOSS world - for example, Stenhouse and Elliott's work on teachers designing their own curricula on the basis of student feedback ([1]), and any number of studies on conflict within democratic processes (which it's good you've recognised).

I'd want to make it clearly distinguishable between your literature and your data - not just using any old 'living source' when you feel like it. :-)

  • I know it is a great mess at the moment. If my paper is about being able to hear voices from our actual educational context about what is useful in a classroom how does the academic paper form enable that kind of 'living source'? eg I once did openoffice training in an Aboriginal community. I showed them the wikipedia article for their town which listed a different community/language group as being located in that place. It also listed their own language group as being *extinct*. The articles were correctly referenced to authoritative sources. I changed the article but had a sense of loss about how we define authority even in open community projects and what kinds of voice it costs us. Thoughts about making a credible paper with informal data welcome. Perhaps it is not a credible paper I am making but a question which asks for responses perhaps as credible papers but perhaps in other forms? lucychili 01:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In an industrial efficient context where decisions about technology and freedom are frequently centrally defined, often the individual instances of anomaly or innovation exist because people do things for themselves regardless. This means I am cautious about citing living sources of individual innovation in schools in case the attention around unique approaches causes problems. If the model itself is supportive of diverse approaches that is a different thing, but if I am writing about a system which is actually closing down projects which have been more open then there is a risk in listing pointing out projects which work differently. This is part of my concern about this paper. I am trying tolisten for whatI am trying to say but also to listen to ways it might be heard.lucychili 00:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also think, when you mention open source allowing people to see under the bonnet, you should look up the writings of John Seely Brown - see John Seely Brown reading group for some links (and please feed back if you do read them!). See also the following for background on FOSS and relationships to education:

Good luck with the writing - I'll try to follow its development, but let me know if you need my help in any way. Cormaggio talk 18:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't at all mean to suggest that using 'living sources' are a bad idea or somehow lessen the validity/authority of a paper. Absolutely on the contrary - and the case you cite from your own experience is a clear case where the context is not being done justice by academia, and where your/their stories need to be told. What I meant was to be able to distinguish the basis on which you choose your data, as opposed to your literature.

Thanks I see.

Usually, the literature will cover a wider range than your data, and your data will be selected from particular sources (interviews with groups of people, policy documents, etc) on the basis of what it contributes to the literature. Doing this helps the reader see the process by which the paper was written - with what assumptions, using what sources - so that they can see, more or less transparently, how it was constructed. So you're right to think of how the paper might be heard. And on your worries about analysing and making recommentations on the basis of one particular case study - I think it's always good to select your cases well, thinking of building a rich picture, and in being careful in the strength of your claims.

I am doing it a bit backwards as I have a question which I am looking for information about whereas I should probably start with the research and then look at thoughts based from what I find. The writing is really just defining a question or suggestion. Given that the material is pure wiki now (ie I need to do the conference work as a poster) the wiki pages are open for editing and lets see what other people think and find on the topic? Or if they disagree and have other pieces of puzzle.

If you think you've found something which deserves to be really looked at in more detail; or if you feel nervous about making recommendations on the basis of two case studies - say so! Research is helped so much by a sense of humility, I think - constantly asking yourself: "how might I be wrong?. However, 'humility' shouldn't stop you from making a strong proposal, claim or critique where you feel appropriate.. Cormaggio talk 22:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the advice folks. Quarantine is over. Show me how this should be done in the proper wiki sense =).

Janet

Well, now I think you're being too humble. ;-) I don't have a method for how to do this in "the proper wiki sense" - my advice is based on pretty canonical research training. And your method is actually bang on - start with a question. Without a question, research doesn't really have any meaning. But yes, of course, developing questions is a part of the research process - and you will inevitably end one cycle of inquiry with further questions that need addressing. I suppose this research process right here is an exploratory one - you're interested in finding collaborative models for education in order to influence policy. Perhaps that's your question: "what 'FOSSlike' models exist, how do (or could) they fit with educational practice, and what can we learn from them in developing educational policy?" Ok, that's kinda three questions - you could treat your initial phase as doing a survey-like study based on the first sub-question; or you could take one model and focus on its (potential) applications and implications. Or you could do whatever else you're interested in... But perhaps you don't want this to be 'other people commenting on your work', and want to reformulate this as a collaborative learning project - in which case, I'd make this page an explicit workspace (perhaps loosely based around the above three questions), and move the paper to a different page (or create the workspace on a different page - it doesn't matter). I could do this if you weren't happy with the technicals of wiki - but I want you to continue to define how this best serves your own needs/interests. Cormaggio talk 16:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh It isnt about humble or not humble. I was pulling together thoughts for a paper and wanted to get it right for the context it was heading to. I am not now and it is free wiki space, its context is here.

I am interested in what happens if we re-examine aspects of the education systems which use industrial thinking.

One of the core things which started me off is that I am interested in the potential for open code and communities in schools. My feeling is that if we use open code with centralised technical support we have only done half the job. Distributed community technical support would be interesting, could include student/cadet folks in shaping and maintaining the network. There could be people in the opn code communities who could help directly, the school communities may be able to help some projects directly. The main shift is that the schools need to be participants rather than dependent on central support. The capacity in technical skill which students are able to bring to their schools is currently an interesting question because there are teacher shortages and technical folk are not flocking to support schools. Particularly people with good skills who want to help things be adaptive and open. It is hard for teachers to risk and to make new things happen if there is no support for that in a technical sense or in a systemic sense. This is what started me on the series of thoughts. I think re-examining the implications of dependence and looking at local diversity and capacity and having permission to work with those elements, to make mistakes and to refine skills and connect p2p with other schools as well as to the wider internet offers more opportunities than the current model.

Schools participating in open communities which already exist need to be able to negotiate the culture shift from broadcast dependence to p2p participation to make it all go. So partly it is about how to make open code practice scale too.

Thanks for this - and I like the idea of schools becoming part of a community around their open source technological systems - a community which involves students as well as teaching and/or technical staff. I've been involved in a research project for the last two years about learning systems (VLEs, CMSs) in universities, with a working title 'technology at the planning table' (I can point you to publications if you like), and this would be a fairly radical departure from even the most radical of the case studies we looked at (which ranged from centralised, commercial systems like WebCT, to 'homegrown' open source systems). But your paper covers a much wider area as far as I can see - with not just FOSS, but also 'FOSSlike' solutions (FOSS as a metaphor for ways of working). However, it's also quite a specific paper - with a particular focus - and it could well be worked up for submission to another publication. Personally, I think I might be happier to start another workspace (perhaps more general at first, which might break into several specific topics), instead of directly editing this paper (for which I think I'd still like to talk more with you to see how I could contribute, as opposed to simply comment). How about something as general as FOSS and schools? Cormaggio talk 20:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: You added a gmail link twice (above) in this edit - I'm presuming this was by accident, or...? Cormaggio talk 20:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hmm posted in the wrong talk page.

here is a rerun

re: making new material in a different page go for it. I dont know how ideas are usually structured for wikiversity so it would be interesting to see what these thoughts look like in context. for me the core ideas are about the industrial model achieving coherence and clarity through excluding data/voices, fencing dependent participants/non-participants, and through systems which express direction/value from a centralised source. optimised for simply expressed centralised value.

the more distributed models are open, therefore require more effort and skill about working through fit for purpose. there is more effort, responsibility and skill required in negotiation of purpose and therefore what is useful to contribute. developing those skills, an appreciation of the different mistake tolerance and contention tolerance and methods of valuing etc are all required for adapting these systems for open participative practice.

there is likely to be concern that participative distributed open processes are difficult to budget, scope, support. i think fidning the distributed efficiencies and the value of local sharing will offset the simplicity of scaled broadcast models, and the fingertip knowledge and adaptability available for students and teachers will bring different rewards, but that this kind of thinking will be a process. there will need to be some practical trials and some looking at friction points.

if our culture does not re-examine the way that we structure we cannot function at this scale sustainably. i think foss in schools is a part of that but am interested in the wider social choice between fenced and central profit driven models(does it scale etc) and the kinds of value that geetha narayanan finds in structuring for local value and sustainability which require a sesne of local responsibility and preparedness to work through complexity to ge things done openly?

wade davis' TED talk is one of the ideas which made me want to look for what we could do if we did not assume blocks of monoculture were valuable and 'other' was not. http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/69

Looking for ways to hear or engage with multiple truths or values feel like prerequisites for being able to step back from systems relying on abstracted monopoly and industrial momentum and finance. ie its not just schools and software, but that seems a sensible place to think from because there are a lot of natural synergies with constructivist and connectivist thinking which we are currently trying to do in an industrial framework. Geetha feels like that thinking in practice. What needs to change for AU or anywhere to help us adjust for distributed sustainabile economics?

fair enough if the nation slicing is not useful in the wikiversity context and is something which could be done once some general ideas have been thrashed. i am just trying to find ways to listen for local realities students, teachers, projects, experiences, and to see what the policies look like around those opportunities. lucychili 23:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: You added a gmail link twice (above) in this edit - I'm presuming this was by accident, or...? Cormaggio talk 20:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes sorry didnt see that slip in. lucychili 23:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the water restrictions are not metaphors

but they do perhaps act as a fundamental motivation to look at the real and try and hear what we need to change, perhaps with more urgency and appreciation for the idea that things we do currently are not structured for local sustainability and that the systems have a kind of momentum or hearing which enables them to function at scale. that we need different methods for listening and also different kinds of responsibility for local value. hence an interest in local solar, greywater, wind power, all technologies which we could explore on a local level because the transport of power from a central source has a cost over distance and so there are opportunities in skill development grass roots innovation and more sustainable local energy in looking at these kinds of questions as an open community of practice with more support and interest in that model from the wider government in terms of valuing distributed practice.

Countrymike's Notes[edit source]

Famous Linux proponent John "Maddog" Hall used to have a lecture that he peddled around at various conferences called Free Software: It teaches you twice which was really good; the closest I've found on it so far is this slideshare presentation: http://www.slideshare.net/maddog/free-software-teaches-you-twice-242585. Countrymike 01:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ps. can you guys please, please, please start signing your contributions ... Alex! Its easy... either find the sig button the editing toolbar or add 4 tildes, like this ~~~~. Countrymike 01:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit source]

Are you using elements of activity theory in this paper? The newly added references are of that bent - Vygotsky, Rogoff, Saljö... Activity theory is a strong influence of mine in my own work - it would be interesting to see how it's being used here. Also, some of the newly added references (ie after the blanking) seem to have been suggested by User:Alexanderhayes - but not by him himself - is this being developed on another site simultaneously? It would be interesting to track how work like this grows - and interlinking co-workspaces seems like a good idea (if even simply to comply with GFDL). Cormaggio talk 22:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • alex is pretty tidy in his signing if it is unsigned it is probably me from different computers, the papers were at the end of a browse path initiated by alex from the Cofino blog. I was trying to find written examples of collaborative practice and to see if there have been shifts in policy around the groups which work that way or whether there is no shift and the change in practice is essentially local. lucychili 01:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Elliott's work on stigmergy may also have some neat sources - see http://mark-elliott.net/view/Public/ResearchPortal and look through his bibliographies. "Stigmergy is a method of indirect communication in a self-organizing emergent system where its individual parts communicate with one another by modifying their local environment," says Wikipedia. It describes quite well how wikis work, and how (in this context) students at a school can both (1) self-organize and (2) produce useful artifacts as a result of this self-organized work. (And thanks for the reminder, Cormac - I'll be sure to sign my comments now.) Mchua 11:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this link, Mel - I wasn't aware of Mark Elliott's work previously, but I've downloaded his PhD thesis as well as saved a link to a paper for further reading... :-) Cormaggio talk 20:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would happen to this concept if we assumed that a useful/pivotal portion of the audience was 12yo and didnt have a degree? lucychili

That's a very valid point - materials always need to be written for a particular audience, and I think that a lot of material on Wikiversity assumes quite a bit of knowledge and/or skills in order to be able to 'access' it fully. One thing I've been critical of in Wikiversity is that we don't always make explicit who our audiences are. I thought that this paper was mainly geared towards policy makers, but please feel free to rewrite or adapt it for a different audience (preferably on a different page). Cormaggio talk 09:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FLOSS/FLOSS_and_education&oldid=1134383"