Stephen Downes

There's an important point lurking in this article. "Having a university - or, indeed, many universities - in your region doesn't guarantee improved local social mobility," writes Dani Payne. "We must broaden how we assess universities' social mobility impact. To be able to understand when, why and how the benefits of an institution do or don't reach into local communities, we must also consider their roles as major employers, civic actors and research hubs." The main point here is the need to connect universities with their communities, to become an essential part of the community. The framing here is very traditionally classist, dealing with jobs and leadership and social mobility. I'd prefer to see something more along the lines of engagement and empowerment. But the main point remains sound.

I don't have this yet but I'm eager to get it. Meanwhile, the predictable caterwauls of people who "didn't appreciate this being added to my search engine list without warning" are being heard. For those who don't want an AI search, they have a choice: don't use it. Meanwhile, if it helps fund Firefox and it performs a useful service, I'm for it.

Let me preface this post by saying I have been super-privileged to be able to go to so many academic events around the world. But therein lies the exact problem with Congress (and similar events). Michael Holden writes, in defence of Congress, that "Congress isn't just an event, it's a community." Right. Exactly. It's an exclusive community where you need institutional and financial backing to have a seat at the table. And as more and more of these take place, the more attendees retreat into their own community and away from the wider world. In a way I'm not only been privileged, I've been lucky. The life of someone like me is that you're never actually a member of any of these communities; always an outsider, I can (sort of) see the wider world, and the incongruence insider societies foster is plain to me. I've always argued for open, and always made my presentations open (despite some reluctance from my hosts), and always wondered why more (or any!) academics don't do the same.

According to the email announcement, this platform "enables instructors to design renewable, collaborative long-form assignments and gives students meaningful opportunities to produce public-facing, openly licensed work... the Forge supports a learner-centered, participatory approach that scales across class sizes and disciplines." On the website it says, "the best way to assess the integrity of student writing in the AI writing era is through the depth and quality of students' effort while they are drafting and revising assignments. In essence, The Forge ensures that students honor the process." I will say, when I went to try it, I went through a looooong registration process (that very much wants me to be affiliated with some educational institution). And I can't actually write anything without an assignment key from an instructor. Not sure why that should be necessary. It all feels like an exercise in control, not openness.

This article appears to be advertorial content for Education Reimagined (I can't tell from their web page whether they're a company, advocacy group, or something else) and while I agree with the core premise that education should be learner-centered, everything else seems to work against that. The idea that"vision must be shared," for example, runs counter to the idea that there are multiple perspectives(especially among learners). The idea of "forming a community steering committee and cultivating strong civic partnerships" sounds great but in reality entrenches existing power structures. Collaboration is fine if it's student-initiated and vendor neutral, but programs are run through specific companies (like Spark NC and Big Thought). What we have here, I think, is 'shopping mall diversity' - different types of organizations, but all based on a buy-and-sell premise.

This of this as digital badges meets the fediverse. BadgeFed is "designed for communities to create and manage their own badge ecosystems with full autonomy." There's no single point of control. "Badge issuers maintain their own systems while staying connected." I haven't tried it yet but it seems like a natural for a decentralized learning ecosystem. Via Alan Levine. See also: deightful fediverse apps.