A tool one can use to think about different ways of opening education is Open Learning Experience Bingo, a "game" you can apply to learning experiences and identify and/or imagine different ways to open them up.

I'm seeing a space of opportunity in the way we map and plan at the intersection of knowledge practices — like teaching and learning, research, publication, archiving — and tools. I'm thinking about ways we can use practices like Jennifer Hardwick outlines here to map and plan in new ways that emphasize human activity and connections rather than technologies.

What spaces of opportunity are you seeing?

Example of tension between indigenous IP and commercial use.

Indigenous people's license example.

Example of ethical open principles.

Interesting analysis about the lifespans of various EDU IT systems.

A manifesto calling on universities to become fully open knowledge institutions.

Digital education capability map/landscape from https://www.holoniq.com.

CC BY licensed framework for education landscapes from https://www.holoniq.com

A way of talking about what needs to be done in organizations to better support equity/representation.

On balancing informal qualitative and formal quantitative approaches to human-centered design.

Tech organization catalog example.

Technology tool catalog example.

You know I love a good framework, and the ACE framework from Robin DeRosa is aces! Adaptability: create flexibility for learners (and everyone). Connection: connect activities beyond the classroom. Equity: include everyone.

Data and analysis about student textbook use, online and FTF.

You can browse all the posts on this site that relate to either Learning Experience Bingo, or its parent category, Open Knowledge Practices

Zine learning experiences collected by Elvis Bakaitis.

You can browse all the posts on this site that relate to either Learning Experience Bingo, or its parent category, Open Knowledge Practices

You can browse all the posts on this site that relate to either Learning Experience Bingo, or its parent category, Open Knowledge Practices

Links to zine learning experiences collected by Elvis Bakaitis.

My annotations here are a (partial) record of how I'm going through this open education assignment while playing "open education experience bingo".

My bingo card for this learning experience record will be published on my blog. Caveat: I didn't end up making an annotation for everything I checked off on the bingo card.

Openness on including and/or creating new/different evaluation strategies that are sensitive to personal dimensions of works produced in the experience.

Openness on including people.

My annotations here are a record of how I'm going through this student's reflection on open education experiences while playing "open education experience bingo".

My bingo card for this learning experience record is published on my blog.

Openness in connecting to people.

Wow. This seems contradictory, but in a good way?

Trust in the system (of openness) because it will help you expand your horizons.

Openness in reflecting on roles and recognition, and connecting on recognition.

Openness on surfacing and including roles.

This is a very rich section: openness in developing skills, connecting materials, skills, roles, feedback and evaluation to other learners, and including other learners in the experience.

Openness on surfacing and reflecting on roles and design.

Openness on reflecting about design.

Openness on reflecting about materials.

Maybe one of the best definitions of open education I have ever seen.

I definitely recognize the value of metacognition in learning experiences; I'm wondering, though, how it's related to openness. Here is one of those places where I'm trying to work through what "open" means, and trying to connect these various dimensions together. The others I can see in terms of somehow reducing barriers/uncovering/connecting across boundaries.... is this one kind of like surfacing in that it's important to be able to open something in other ways? Like if you reflect, then you can better move in new directions?

Nice point here! I hadn't thought of it before but yes, if something isn't "surfaced" it's hard to then open it in some other way. And surfacing could be a form of opening insofar as it is related to something like transparency.

This one feels to me more like a "what" than a "how"; in other words, the way I'm thinking at the moment, design of a learning experience could be one of the ingredients that is opened up in some of the other ways (shared, participants can be involved in it, it can be inclusive or not, etc.). But perhaps I'm not quite getting the point here?

Even in the example it sounds to me like the design could be the thing that's opened and they way it's opened (by people representing different experiences and points of view) could be in terms of the "include" aspect.

As I'm reading through this I'm wondering how to differentiate "develop" from "create." On reading and re-reading I'm still seeing create/revise/remix and modify/extend as similar. Can you explain the difference further?

I am really intrigued by this project, and particularly by this list of "how" things may be opened. That's partly because for a couple of years I've been trying to think through for myself all these various dimensions and in what way they could all be said to share something that makes them "open" (if that's at all a possible task). I've gone through several iterations of talks/workshops about this at different places and still don't feel like I've got it! So I'm curious to reflect on this list further. A couple of thoughts follow below.

What I like to call "FreeBNOp", as in "Free, but not open" content.

I thought the term "renewable" as opposed to "disposable" came up later. The word "renewable" does not appear in David's 2013 blog post cited here.

While I personally agree that "learning by doing" is perhaps one of the or even the most powerful forms of pedagogy, a very large part of current and historical pedagogy does not really engage doing. So either not ALL learning involves doing, or the majority of education that happens without doing doesn't involve learning.

Definition of "OER enabled pedagogy".

Sure. And others also care about the way open is used in educational contexts beyond OER, to mean more than just specific copyright statuses.

First use of "OER-enabled pedgogy" outside of David Wiley's blog?

Literally LOLed.

"Stealing" from family is a core practice in OEP.

Lowering costs for learning materials via OER: A complicated problem vs what Dave calls complex problems, like open pedagogies.

A masterful way to help shape the conversation.

A call to act together as a community: "to go far, go together".

The core project of open knowledge practices.

Tanya Joosten chaired UWisc's Learn@UW Roadmap Task Force.

This is an incredibly important point: too often explorations of digital practices focus on skills (often even then too narrowly defined, as when specific software programs are taught, rather than higher level skills about using an entire software category, like word processing, or spreadsheets), when they should be focusing on how digital practices fit in to wider human life, as in citizenship.

You can also follow Jenae on Twitter.

Yes! The overall goal is to empower students to have agency over their digital fluency, not just enable them to use this or that software or technique.

Yes! For example: practice in using spreadsheets in general, rather than just what to click on in a single product like MS Excel.

And maybe librarians, who along with IDs are well-placed to work across curricula and embed digital literacies practices strategically?

Yay! I love the plural form in all cases. There is always more than one "literacy".

Like with writing, digital literacies/skills/fluency should be incorporated across the curriculum.

Yes! If we expect students to do something, we should devote learning time to helping them learn how/advance their knowledge.

Another definition of digital literacy, recast as digital fluency.

A definition of digital literacy.

A key point: a lot of people might have technology, but that doesn't mean they have built up knowledge and skills about how it works or how to do things with it.

I think the Linux kernel analogy breaks down even more in considering "the other 93%" of educational content, which David has already identified here as more niche, less kernelesque, than content for core courses. Seems to me, the more specialized and rarely used something is — either in digital technology or in content — the less likely it is going to be the focus of widespread, shared activity.

If commercial publishers could rely on OER content for core classes and generate revenue from wrapping them in additional services (as David describes here), what is their incentive to devote any resources to labor-intensive, niche content that would have far lower revenue margins?

This is the part of the argument here I don't find convincing. I'm not sure we can liken content — yes even "traditional textbook content" — to OS kernels or roads as a kind of "boring" infrastructure. Content is an expression of knowledges/understandings right? If anything, content seems more like the "interesting" part that relies on the kernels/roads.

Yet I am interested in the idea of thinking of content as PUBLIC infrastructure, in the sense that like roads, we have common interests in securing public sources for the resources necessary to produce and maintain educational content.

OECD report on the science of learning.

Ivanka's restatement of the Board's four goals, stated in more detail elsewhere.

Here's how Trump's now infamous possible misstatement has been transcribed, not as a mistake, nor with a slash ("to save time & words"), but with an em dash, suggesting that Trump was thanking both Tim, and his company Apple, together in shorthand.

Benefits of OKI for EDUs:

1. Wider access to info.
2. Reclaiming scholarly production.
3. Increased open info and technology creation.
4. Research ROI.
5. Greater openness -> stronger science.
6. Address unequal distribution of data/flows: expose "data shadows".
7. Lower scholcomm costs.

crises of discrimination in open projects

shift of power between knowledge makers and users

Data is crossing borders at a higher rate than people or goods. Wondering how this is measured as data, people, and goods are different types of entities.

DXtera Institute is a non-profit, collaborative member-based consortium dedicated to transforming student and institutional outcomes in higher education. We specialize in helping higher education professionals drive more efficient access to information and insights for effective decision-making and realize long-term cost savings, by simplifying and removing barriers to systems integration and improving data aggregation and control.

With partners across the U.S. and Europe, our consortium includes some of the brightest minds in education and technology, all working together to solve critical higher education issues on a global scale.

1. Design only the details that matter
2. Factor in the before and after
3. Involve users and employees

I'm going to forgive the automobilist metaphor because the point is just so dang right!

Amen! Even worse maybe in K12, where all the social issues we are not addressing elsewhere are expected to be solved in under-funded classrooms.

Great reading for answers to the question "yes, but does it scale?"

On "scaling-in" rather than "scaling-up".

I'm in strong support of an HTML-first approach for both humans and OER. Great stuff Greg! Love the offline, non-digital learning activities!

I don't really get this opinion, or how it pertains to Greg's otherwise important point about the format of OER. Seems like it ignores BOTH the great many tangible contributions folks have made in the field of OER AND the very important conversations that also take place around topics as or more important than technical formats, like pedagogy, and the socio-economic ecosystem in which OER participates.

David and Ian talk about the NGDLE in relation to open.

Tannis Morgan post on open infrastructure.

Great discussion of what questions to ask about artificial intelligence and learning from Dave Cormier.

Human contact supports success.

This paragraph is a core part of the main point I was trying to convey in this post. I was trying to celebrate respect for/comfort with/the value of ambiguity/messiness/"the other" in the term "open pedagogy" that the closed term "OER-enabled pedagogy" wasn't invented to support. As Maha Bali put it differently (better?) in part of a tweet about how truly open discourse might have: "Respect for the 'other' ... that does not reciprocate that respect. Comfort with ambiguity and messiness the 'other' does not have."

Read more about how I wasn't thinking about techno-determinism.

But no hard feelings.

David abandons debates about open practices/pedagogy.

Something everyone in the open education community might agree on.

All knowledge production is a remix.

Design is key to our collective liberation, but most design processes today reproduce inequalities structured by what Black feminist scholars call the matrix of domination. Intersecting inequalities are manifest at all levels of the design process. This paper builds upon the Design Justice Principles, developed by an emerging network of designers and community organizers, to propose a working definition of design justice: Design justice is a field of theory and practice that is concerned with how the design of objects and systems influences the distribution of risks, harms, and benefits among various groups of people. Design justice focuses on the ways that design reproduces, is reproduced by, and/or challenges the matrix of domination (white supremacy, heteropatriarchy, capitalism, and settler colonialism). Design justice is also a growing social movement that aims to ensure a more equitable distribution of design’s benefits and burdens; fair and meaningful participation in design decisions; and recognition of community based design traditions, knowledge, and practices.

Abstract: At the heart of the open educational resources (OER) movement is the intention to provide affordable access to culturally relevant education to all. This imperative could be described as a desire to provide education in a manner consistent with social justice which, according to Fraser (2005), is understood as “parity of participation”. Drawing on her concept of social justice, we suggest a slight modification of Fraser’s framework for critically analysing ways in which the adoption and impact of OER and their undergirding open educational practices (OEP) might be considered socially just. We then provide illustrative examples from the cross-regional Research on Open Educational Resources for Development (ROER4D) project (2014-2017) to show how this framework can assist in determining in what ways, if at all, the adoption of OER and enactment of OEP have responded to economic inequalities, cultural inequities and political exclusions in education. Furthermore, we employ Fraser’s (2005) concepts to identify whether these social changes are either “affirmative” (i.e., ameliorative) or “transformative” in their economic, cultural and political effects in the Global South education context.

That’s why 130 institutions are joining together to increase college access, student, and postsecondary attainment. The initiative, called Powered by Publics: Scaling Student Success, represents the largest ever collaborative effort to improve college access, advance equity, and increase college degrees awarded.

Analysis and solutions to better convey the economic impact of rising textbook costs.

Describes Duke University's Duke Kunshan project as an "open source" educational "exchange" program, built on the model of open-source rather than competition or knowledge transfer.

Another point to make is how Amazon's "other" business, Amazon Web Services (AWS) provides a wide array of widely used web infrastructure. AWS commercial infrastructure (among others) increasingly provides the digital infrastructure used by both public and private systems.

A compelling tour through the financial and human impacts of various initiatives to privatize public infrastructures — including public education.

I'll try to link related works here:

1. "A Comprehensive Framework For Evaluating Educational Vouchers" by Henry Levin.
2. "The common in higher education: a conceptual approach" by Krystian Szadkowski

DeAngelis uses the "fallacy of the inverse" to make his argument, which takes this form: "If some students who do X have good outcomes, then every student who does not do X will have bad outcomes." Read more in my annotation on DeAngelis's article.

Learn more about Krystian in his bio at Adam Mickiewicz University and at Academia. View Krystian on Google Scholar and Twitter.

A thoughful exploration of education as a/the commons.

I found this post from Sherri Spelic's post, "A Convention In My Mind.

Neoliberalism's ambiguity: it can describe anything, and yet is also everything.

The Tweet pride part of this hits home.

Critique as Russell's paradox.

Interesting: so something like as critique gets deeper (?) the agency of the critic disperses.

The three main varieties of critique of neoliberal knowledge production: marxist, poststructuralist, and neo-materialist (eg, big data, ai, machine learning).

Alternative practices to exploitative knowledge production have not kept up with critiques.

causality inferred

The four dimensions of evaluation for education.

Observation that public education exists in an ongoing (and unresolvable?) tension between providing for individual and social needs.

on the unique situation of the USA

Based on my understanding of public goods, I’m thinking most or all are not provided by government. A public good might be protected or endangered by government policy, but provided by it? There are examples like lighthouses, but most services provided by government are excludable and rivalrous. I agree education is not a classic public good.

You can learn more about Corey from his linked Cato Institute bio and list of publications, at The Heartland Institute, and at GMU's Mercatus Institute. You can see a record of Corey's citations on Google Scholar. Visit Corey on Twitter, where his account has a banner picture of Milton Friedman, and on LinkedIn. You might also find Corey's take on Trump's 2018 State of the Union address and his 28 Aug 2018 EdChoice interview interesting.

Another policy leap: no evidence has been presented that supports the idea of regulation increasing "the externalities associated with government schooling".

The important word here is "could". Is there evidence that market entry leads to any of these outcomes?

Note that there is a jump here from vouchers to ESAs that is nowhere substantiated in any of the previous argument or data.

Setting aside that this article is riven with logical leaps and unconvincing data, the bigger question is whether a purely economic evaluation of schooling mechanisms is enough to make a policy recommendations of such magnitude.

As the author himself argued that people are just mispeaking when they say education is a public good, we can just ignore this conclusion as a strawman.

No, these estimates should be treated with caution because they equal "about half of the U.S. GDP in 2016".

Near as I can tell, this study is just as likely to suggest that students that complete school are less likely to commit crimes than students that don't. The private school choice connection is a stretch.

So then included are the "less costly" types of crime, including crimes more often prosecuted against people of color.

Here the author admits that it is hard to quantify educational benefits.

Do the numbers being used here actually reflect the costs of the full 13 years of K-12 schooling? It seemed like most of the data was just for a few grades here and there.

I can't read this paper behind its paywall, but note that here we are grabbing a one-standard deviation measure from a study on teacher effectiveness and using it to extrapolate individual lifetime earnings based on standard deviations in math score tests from one meta-analysis of a a small collection of studies on voucher-based educations.

Except that the results from this study are pretty inconclusive overall and especially for the USA, so here the author is applying a global result to a USA context.

Here we go: now the author will extrapolate the spurious conclusions from above to the entire public school population.

Where "the preponderance of evidence" means the very small number of methodologically and statistically unconvincing studies included here that focus on private schools of choice.

Now that I've dug deeper, I see how unsubstantiated this table is. The primary issue is that very limited and methodologically imperfect studies that purport to show positive externalities for voucher-based choice programs are flipped to suggest that "government schooling" has negative externalities.

Here's an analogous argument: Because some small studies of people that ate carrots with lunch shows that they had less indigestion than control groups that didn't eat carrots with lunch, all lunches without carrots cause indigestion.

Also, if one explores the references, it turns out most of them are by one or more of the same set of authors.

Just to be clear here, the author is now talking about himself in the third person.

Based on this, the savings would be to the government though, right, not the individual taxpayer/voucher user? So the level of taxation is the same, but thanks to vouchers, the government would need to spend less on education?

Again, the view that taxes are inherently coercive.

The upshot of this section is there are no clear education advantages to vouchers in the USA.

It turns out the story is a bit more complicated that the author suggests here. The meta-analysis that these conclusions apparently rest on are not compelling for the USA context and the meta-analysis itself is riddled with questionable methodologies and conclusions.

I read this article, and found it to be even less supportive of the conclusions drawn here than in the dismal summary below.

Would someone who skated through medical school provide the same social/economic benefit?

OK, this at least seems like a social benefit a real economist might include.

Wait, what? This is the first, primary social benefit of education?

What happened to lowered crime and more informed voting? It will be interesting to see how an educated populace and social cohesion are measured.

exclusion by chance?

They could take those funds to other schools, but would they? Maybe the analogy with immunization would be better.

We shall also see if there is evidence of private schooling that can increase education (rather than just schooling) more efficiently than public schooling.

Two conclusions that the author has set out two prove.

One feels we are getting close to the author's reasoning about why government should support education at all.

There are more possible positive externalities from education than blog posts that aren't produced via market incomes, decreases in crime, and informed voting.

two of the possible individual benefits that might be derived from an education

maybe "as some economists would say" given that there is more than one definition of merit goods.

Sidenote: because it's easy to exclude houses from firefighting, no one can take advantage of firefighters without paying, that's why there is a healthy market in private firefighting.

If someone does not pay "me" [sic] to fight a fire at their house, I can simply let their house burn.

because it is easy to not fight a fire at one house and just prevent the fire from spreading

therefore, firefighting is rivalrous (and should not be provided by government)

if firefighters must fight fires at every house, they are less able to perfect firefighting at any one house

If the firefighters are fighting fire at one house, they can not fight fire at another house.

Synopsis of the argument so far: People mistakenly call public schooling a public good when they really mean it is good for the public. But nevertheless, we have proven public schooling is not a public good. We assert without evidence that government funding should focus on public goods. Therefore there is no reason for government to fund public schooling.

Hm. Not the example I would have reached for. The radio spectrum might be a better example. One could easily broadcast an excludable radio program encrypted that only people who had paid for a key could decrypt and listen to.

The UK has used a different system to support broadcast (receiver licensing) and public broadcasting in the USA uses yet another support mechanism, philanthropy.

Again, the idea that taxes are coercion rather than say, a common interest contract.

This seems like a bit of a jump: all taxation is coercion.

Agree: focus on reality.

Is anyone arguing that schooling is the only mechanism for education? Another strawman?

Is there any scholarship about relative social effects during this fairly long (70-year) transition period?

This is a somewhat buried, but key argument in this work: that schooling and education are not equivalent and that public schooling is not an effective mechanism for education.

Should the article stop here? Is the main point then that there is just a confusion in terms and folks are mistakenly saying school is a public good when they just mean it's good for the public?

Strawman argument: who pursues 10 college degrees?

Seems like a strawman recommendation as the author himself claims that folks are misspeaking when they talk about public education as a public good.

a bold statement

What I'd like to see addressed first is why it is helpful to categorize public schooling as one of these (or maybe any) specific economic good. What is the value of this framing overall?

Agree. So why should we even be debating it? According to the author, even the folks who say "education is a public good" meant something else, so let's move on.

see Wikipedia's definition

see Wikipedia's definition

see Wikipedia's definition

Supposedly the central question of this work, but very shortly, the author holds that what people mean when they say "public schooling is a public good" is really just "public schooling is for the public good" and so one is left wondering if a different consideration of that question might be more valuable.

An interview with Corey DeAngelis where he talks about what attracted him about school choice, his research, and how he thinks about talking with others about his views.

My reading of the data Corey relies on to make this argument is not so clear-cut. Meanwhile, he wants it all ways: people should rely on evidence, people should not use test score evidence to make educational decisions.

After looking at the evidence Corey relies on to make his case in Is Public Schooling a Public Good? An Analysis of Schooling Externalities, I find I care about the evidence, but don't find it compelling.

OMG, so say it. Giving people more funding for education has a bigger effect than giving less.

Why is this not the policy recommendation of the study?

Therefore public schools in the USA are not significantly different than privates?

I'm underwhelmed by the story the conclusions tell. Are most metaanalyses so unable to demonstrate credible results?

So results here are not applicable to the USA context.

Wait, again USA effects were basically zero.

Wait, USA results in reading were barely null?

Wait, what? Assumptions?

Wait, what? The control group managed to participate in the same experience as the other group?

Given this complexity, it may be hard to explain why any of the "control group" students experienced lower educational outcomes.

Note: random assignments within the population that has already self-selected to participate in voucher systems, so possibly a measure of that subpopulation.

Rubrics for evaluating government digital readiness.

Nonprofit succession planning.

accountability rather than decentralization

make centralization accountable

Recentralization of decentralized processes thanks to varying resources/skills of participants.

For decentralization as a process rather than a state.

How blockchain is decentralized and not.

being more specific about what is centralized and what is decentralized

Examples of centralization within decentralized systems.

Exploring decentralization today.

a platform for cooperative open communities

referred to by Nathan Schneider's "What to do once you admit that decentralizing everything never seems to work".

Read annotations on the Horizon Report: 2018 Higher Education Edition from EDUCAUSE. Sign up or log in above to add your own annotations and replies.