Applying Open Source Models to Open
Learning and Open Universities
R. J. Clougherty Jr.
(School for Graduate Studies,Empire State College,State University of New York,USA)
Abstract:We live in a world of rapid change. I can take your photo and post it permanently in the
internet–the possibilities of what we can do with emerging technologies are endless. However,such details
only scratch the surface if we are truly to take the emergent world to its full possibilities,then we need
not change just the technology,but we must change the thought processes beneath,behind,and beside
them. Thus,while my topic is indeed the way in which open source software creates a model for open
learning and open universities,we must begin with the idea of openness and allow that to be the base
of its application to software,learning and universities.
Key words: open source software;open learning;open university
揖CLC numbers铱G642摇摇摇揖Document code铱A摇摇摇揖Article ID铱1007鄄2179(2012)01鄄0114鄄04
Today,we must begin by shifting from a nominalist world in which ideas and concepts are representative of physical objects. So long as we see the physical object as the reality as opposed to the interpretation of that physical object, then we find ourselves in a closed world. The possibility of openness occurs when we look at the world as an interpretive structure.
Historically,we have looked at both chronology and causality as being unidirectional and monocausal. Relationships are portrayed as “protomorphic.” Such relationships involve a protomorph,which is the starting or base point,and the isomorphs which are the imitations of the protomorph. An example would be the bird as the protomorph with the air plane as the isomorph. A protomorphic analysis
would say that the bird provided the model for the airplane,but that the airplane had no effect on the bird. However,when we look at these as ideas as opposed to physical objects,the modification of one idea on another indicates that the relationship is bi-directional. If the relationship were protomorphic experiments at flight would have ended with individuals trying to make wings of feathers as in the Greek myth of Daedalus. Because the relationship was bi-directional,the failure of that lead to the re-consideration of how flight works in a bird,beginning with the concept of lift ( early successful flights had no feathers),later forward motion and propulsion. Likewise,discoveries about human flight assists us in better understanding the function of the bird. Whether we’re discussing the relationship of birds to human flight or human arms to robotic arms,we need to shift to the realization that a radical rethinking is required.
In shifting out of protomorphic thinking,we find ourselves in the realm of homologous thinking. In these relationships,we have homologues which are entities whose relationships are interdependent–to modify one will always modify the other. As noted above,this model depends on treating all things as ideas and interpretations (i. e. ,all of reality is mediated). In a world of emergent technologies where communication occurs primarily in a digital form, all is,as in any language,mediated. It is best understood in information theory.
Information Theory
The progenitor of information theory is Claude Shannon–an electrical engineer who worked at Bell Labs. Among is many great contributions to the understanding of passing of information–be it by telephone,computer, or even human interaction, is a model which he created along with Warren Weaver,known,of course,as the Shannon Weaver model. This model represents communication in one direction for simplicity sake. the role of source and receiver alternate between individuals, but we are looking at roles and a process here as opposed to actors. The model represents the connection of a source and a receiver in the passing of information. Around the source and receiver are filters which modify the encoding as well as the decoding. The encoded message passes through the channel. The model remains open in that both source and receiver receive inputs from their life /world. While that life / world is individual,the participants must share a common social environment (be that language,protocol,exchange system,etc. ).
Two important factors upset the balance and become variables in what otherwise appears to be a smooth and closed system. First,there is feedback. This not only assists the source in encoding and framing appropriately,but is important in its existence to convey the sense that the receiver is “listening” and receiving. The second factor is noise–that which interferes with the transmission in either an external,internal or semantic form. This model,in this simplified and uni-directional nature,tends to be that which many would look at as the model for a traditional classroom. The assumption is that the source represents the teacher, and the receiver represents the student. The learning is passed in one direction. The teachers life / world(past education ) becomes the source of content where the student is expected to bring their life /world as motivation and application structure to that learning. All learning and teaching,is after all, good communication.
However,the Shannon-Weaver model represents communication in its most simple sense. It no more represents the image of larger and more complex communication structures. No one is simply a source or a receiver. We play both roles in the larger life / worlds in which we live,be it in conversation or electronic communication. We not only post to social networking sites,we read the posts of others. A more realistic model is one of public discourse in which we are both source and receiver with multiple connections in our lives. We speak with many;we listen to many;we see much;we show much;we write much;we read much. As social animals,our very nature and existence relies on such. A model of multiple connections and roles is much more complex and multi-dimensional beyond the linear nature illustrated above. We need to embrace and value the complexity as well and that the complex model is the core of openness.
Metaphor VS. Metonymy
Roman Jakobson, a Russian structuralist, in a study of those with aphasia,identified two primary structures of thought and language,and these manifest themselves in “metonymy” and “metaphor.” Jakobson assigned these to genres (i. e. ,metonymy to a long epic or novel and metaphor to a fairy tale or lyric poem);however,they have a larger application in the case of openness.
Metonymy is linear and uni-directional–each point connects to one another in a tempero-spatial sequence. It is the model of traditional software development,traditional learning,and traditional universities. Take curriculum,for example,the belief is that a student has a set entry point and proceeds to the end point of that curriculum. Deviation is virtually impossible as is the idea of starting or ending at an alternative point. The result is a structured form which not only lacks individuality but also verification,for only that student experiences the entire curriculum,and they are given minimal opportunity to alter it. If a student does not like a given mathematics curriculum,the option they are usually given is to select a different curriculum rather than modify the one they do not like. Because it is unidirectional and hierarchical,it is also protomorphic in nature. The one teacher who represents the protomorph is assumed to be the starting point who attempts to create imitative isomorphs similar in learning to themselves. The student contribution is considered to not flow in the opposite direction.
On the side of metaphor is a complex, multiconnection model wherein all connections flow in both directions similar to the model of homology posited above. In a metaphor model,an individual can enter and complete at any point. The individual fulfills many roles as with the public discourse model as well. In metaphor,one can make their decision of where to go next as they arrive at a given point allowing the model not only to be more flexible,but to be more agile. In a curriculum based on such a model,a student might arrive at a point where they realize they need something more basic rather than something more advanced. Such a model not only would allow it,but would not make it punitive. The expectation is not that one path is followed. The danger is,of course,the possibility of an infinite loop could develop,but in a learning environment, the connections to individuals helps one navigate such systems. The term open has been usurped in many ways in recent times,and I would argue that open is that whose framework follows that of the metaphor versus the metonymy.
Open Innovation
Often,one of the primary characteristics of Open Source Software. is that it is free;however,a more appropriate description may be that it is designed for function rather than profit and that part of that function is in the nature of sharing. The best metaphor for this is the title of Eric Raymond’s book The Cathedral and the Bazaar. While the authority and unidirectional style of the cathedral contrasts to the nature of the bazaar where much is available from many individuals and the individual visiting the bazaar chooses their own path and fulfills their own needs, success in the bazaar depends upon exchange. Likewise,in that bazaar,the individual has the option of acting in many roles from customer to seller to creator to service. All can contribute in the way in which they choose,and the success of their contributions is determined by their interactions. In Open Source Software,the same individual can be developer, tester, and user. Anyone who would like to participate is invited to, and if one does not like what another individual develops, then they need not use it. As with the example of the curriculum above, each user can make their instance unique and adapted to their own needs and wants.
Software is not the only place where openness is a factor. In the contemporary world economy, one sees the framework of Open Innovation as described by Henry Chesbrough in his book, Open Innovation. In this work,he compares an older closed economy of individual company R & D versus current information economy business stories. The current economy develops along the path of procurement of research and new developments and the company becomes responsible for integration of acquired technology into that company’s existing system. Chesbrough identifies the functioning of such companies:to identify,understand,select from, and connect to the wealth of available external knowledge;to fill in the pieces of knowledge not being externally developed;to integrate internal and external knowledge to form more complex combinations of knowledge,to create new systems and architectures; to generate additional revenues and profits from selling research output to other firms for use in their own systems.
We can carry this further in seeing these as the functions not only of the contemporary university, but of the contemporary faculty member. No longer does,or should,the individual faculty member create and deliver the entirety of knowledge in a given course. The content and material is out there and available–the faculty member knows that the student has access to it,and the faculty member then can assist the student in evaluating,applying, etc. The magnificent part of this system is that the faculty member can build upon this existing knowledge, making their courses go further, explore deeper, enrich.
Thus,an open university and open learning depend on a networked and interconnected model. Just as with the metaphorical model and open source model,the individual can choose their own learning path and define their contribution,their own needs, and how they are met. Not all will walk out of the bazaar with the same things,but no one ever said they were supposed to. Open learning functions through variety and shifting roles. Strategies such as experiential education and learning by teaching allow the learner to develop by changing the traditional roles. Other strategies such as experiential education and adventure learning function on being networked outside the walls of an institution. Gamification works on the individualized interaction of a learning environment. Social learning,language exchange,and many of the strategies identified here function on an individuals networked connections to other learners. In short,open learning is about using networks of people and society as opposed to the singular node of a single lecturer in a single classroom. The Open Learning Environment thus respects and takes advantage of the easier formation of groups and communities online and through other technologically mediated structures. As a result,it continuously evolves and develops,not out of requirements and punitive grades and marks,but from crowd-sourcing,crowd accelerated innovation,and a sense of community betterment. No one gets a grade for contributing to Linux,but look at how many do. Individuals respond to challenges as much,if not more so,than they do to a requirement.
These changes in learning structure cannot only happen between individual learners and learning communities, but also have to happen between learning communities and institutions. Open universities also have to participate in and commit themselves to networked resources. This includes the production and sharing of Open Educational Resources and Open Assets. Participating in Open Science where data and raw research are shared for the good as opposed to being drive by individual advantage. New systems are developing to support these such as Badging ( in which the Mozilla Foundation is doing incredible work) and MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses). All of these support the networked environments which enhance learning. Imagine an Open Educational Resource in which students could conduct a home experiment in biology based on samples of pond water form near their home. Imagine that a student in New York and a student in Nanjing each do the same experiment and post their results. Imagine what they can learn not only from one another’s results,but about one another and the world they live in. Consider the richness of discussion which may ensue.
In the Medieval period,when Peter Abelard first founded his university,he was called in to account for it and explain it. Two important points he made were that a university is a place of discussion rather than lecture and a place of ability rather than authority. His students who travelled to Paris to study with him were fortunate. Now we have the ability to use emerging technologies to take those discussions global and receive the strength of the abilities of entire communities. As with Abelard ‘s university,today’s open university must be risk taking, willing to try, willing to err, and willing to learn. In other words,it must model the very behaviors and curiosity it hopes to elicit from its learners. The next logical step is to become agile and innovative to put its learning into practice and to synergize the speed at which it learns.
The true key to this for a university is its learners and the university’s ability to relate to them not as clients or customers,but as valuable resources. A university can place students in the role of Knowledge Receivers ( KR ) or Knowledge Creators (KC). In a KR model,if a student takes a course at two different colleges,then nothing is gained by either institution. Student A is in two courses,but as the information only flows in one direction,neither college is able to learn from the student ‘ s knowledge. The same principle is even true on a single campus where student learning cannot pollinate across course and disciplinary lines.
A student in the KC model would share their knowledge with their professor, their peers, and those would likewise be shared out through their connections,not only within those institutions, but also outside those institutions,into communities,businesses,and the like. In such a model,the walls are not only removed for knowledge to come in,but also for knowledge to go out. In this model,the university (and all of its micro elements of departments,classes,faculty,etc. ),is not the distributer of knowledge,but becomes the public commons upon which knowledge and learning are shared.
The advantage to emerging technologies is that they make this effect exponentially more effective. The learner’s connections,not only occur in a single room,but go to micro-blogs,telephones,augmented reality,social networks,games,profile sites,online libraries, repositories, e-portfolios, virtual worlds, text messages. Every transference of information becomes a tool of learning,and functions in both directions. This,then is what open means,the use of a network in which resources flow in both directions. It does not always mean free,it means an individual has the opportunity to choose which resources they want as well as many possible ways and vehicles to choose how they learn it. Just as the bazaar may offer the option of many variations of the same item in different places with different details,so too does open source,open learning,and open universities.
Conclusion
How do we get there? For starters,transforming our environments requires the practices of Open Leadership as spelled forth by Charlene Li. This requires authentic truth sharing, engagement, and shared vision. In this way,the leadership writes the rules for risk taking as opposed to avoiding risk. The key is that leadership has to believe in each individual. If our universities are to be built on networks of individuals. Each of whom is a resource and a contributor,then we have to begin by seeing and treating individuals as resources and contributors. That has to occur first.
It is about the courage to take the risk,but the only way that it can happen is for us to see the world differently. To see the university as its mediated ideas and not buildings. To create a world different even from that which we once envisioned. In the early days of e-learning,universities spoke of the ability to deliver a single professor to huge numbers of students. Later,we envisioned that the technology would allow us to deliver multiple professors to one student. Now, we remove the line and all of us are learners,part of multiple learning communities. Seth Lloyd once noted that the computer which can best model the universe is the universe itself. In the same way,the world itself is the best learning community for learning about the world.
References
[1]Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology[M]. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
[2] Gleick, J. (2011). The information: A history, a theory, a flood[M]. New York: Knopf-Doubleday.
[3]Li, C. (2010). Open leadership: How social technology can change the way you lead[M]. New York: Jossey-Bass.
[4] Lloyd, S. ( 2006). Programming the universe: A quantum computer scientist takes on the cosmos[M]. New York: Knopf.
[5]Raymond, E. S. (2002). The cathedral and the bazaar.Open Public License.
(The editor: WEI Zhihui)
Submit Date:2011鄄12鄄02 The Author:R. J. Clougherty Jr. ,Ph. D,Dean of School
for Graduate Studies,Empire State College,State Univer鄄
sity of New York(Robert. Clougherty@ esc. edu).
开源模式在开放学习和开放大学中的应用
R. J. 克劳格蒂
(纽约州立大学帝国州立学院研究生院,美国)
摇摇揖摘要铱摇我们生活在一个快速变化的世界。我们可以用不断涌现的技术做很多事情,例如,我可以给你拍
照并同步上传到互联网上。然而,如果真要挖掘世界的潜力,这些只是表面现象,我们必须改变思维的过程。因
此,本文认为,开源软件为开放学习和开放大学提供了一个模式。文章首先介绍了开放的理念,并以此作为软
件、学习和大学的基础。
揖关键词铱摇开源软件;开放学习;开放大学
No comments:
Post a Comment