OLDaily

Let's talk about Bluesky
Chris Trottier, PeerVerse, 2022/04/08

Bluesky is a thing that Twitter may or may not be doing in the future. In a nutshell, it's a response to the growing popularity of federated social networking (by, for example, Mastodon, which I use) by saying "as a centralized company, we can do federated social networking better". Now as this article points out, there are things existing federated services could do better (content authentication, for example). But existing flaws in the fediverse don't mean Twitter can step in and fix it all. There are far too many contradictions between Twitter's business model and a decentralized open source communications network. Twitter's answer to Mastodon seems to be, "Oh boy, just you wait and see what kind of vaporware we're selling you!"

Web: [Direct Link] [This Post]

The Tech Trends that Will Most Reshape Companies Over the Next Decade
Irving Wladawsky-Berger, 2022/04/08

I don't really disagree with Irving Wladawsky-Berger's projections here - I've made many of the same points myself. I just think too much of his list consists of different ways to say 'AI'. That aside, we agree that things like distributed architecture, trust architecture (aka blockchain), advanced connectivity, biotech and next-generation materials are all important (as I've said in the past, the future is carbon, carbon and carbon (think things like neuro-computing, graphene, and bio-tech). Note, though, that the carbon stuff is longer-term (think 10-15 years) while the architecture stuff is short-term (think 5-10 years). Image: my carbon-carbon-carbon meme-style illustration.

Web: [Direct Link] [This Post]

Decolonising Open Educational Resources (OER): Why the focus on ‘open’ and ‘access’ is not enough for the EdTech revolution
Nariman Moustafa, EdTech Hub, 2022/04/08

This post looks at OER from the perspective of a 'power lens' that considers global issues around access, equity, language, skills and global imbalances. And of course we need more than a focus on 'open' and 'access' to restore historical and ongoing injustices. But I think if we're asking the people working on open access to change their focus, we're asking the wrong people. Even if it is not sufficient, open access remains necessary. We need other people to focus on the various issues around global justice. Yes, we need to address the development of local knowledge systems, knowledge production by historically under-represented populations, fairer flows of resources or reparations for a colonial past. But we can't keep asking the same people over and over to address all these things plus work on open access.

Web: [Direct Link] [This Post]

Discussing the strengths and weaknesses of synchronous or asynchronous teaching
Tony Bates, Online learning and distance education resources, 2022/04/08

Tony Bates offers text toward a revision of this open textbook, Teaching in a Digital Age, and in particular, the section on synchronous and asynchronous teaching and learning. The major change is an addition of a discussion of online versus in-person synchronous learning. Prior to the pandemic, Bates writes, most online learning was asynchronous, consisting of pre-recorded resources, but the sudden shift led us to reconsider both the online and offline form of teaching using live lectures, discussions, and the like. I'm not sure I exactly agree; before the pandemic tons of learning was happening in synchronous sessions online (through applications such as Skype, Elluminate, Connect and many more). And I'm not sure the claim that there was a 'lack of research' in these modes can be quantified. I'd be inclined to say that the lessons were relearned during the pandemic.

Web: [Direct Link] [This Post]

Open Science, Open Educational Resources, and Open Innovation
Ebba Ossiannilsson, Cristine Martins Gomes de Gusmão, Rosa Leonor Ulloa-Cazarez, Jane-Frances Obiageli Agbu, ICDE, 2022/04/08

These are important topics and I think it's a good idea for the International Council on Distance Education (ICDE) to work toward articulating them. UNESCO has already passed resolutions on open access (OA) and open educational resources (OER) and the next logical step is to address the resources and the infrastructure that supports these. The paper (26 page PDF), however, doesn't offer a consistent interpretation. I'm not even sure what the actual title is (there are two titles on the title page). The title addresses 'open innovation', the body addresses 'open science', and the framework diagram addresses 'open frameworks' and 'open infrastructure'. And at a certain point, without a clear understanding of what 'open' means (various definitions are embraced) it all collapses into a muddle. There is a set of five recommendations, and right after that, a set of 7 recommendations. Then three main points. None of these are specific to the topic at hand (they are the usual 'create legal framework', 'support institutions', 'create private sector incentives', 'translate and contextualize' and 'update documentation'.

Web: [Direct Link] [This Post]