The Education Bazaar

Last summer I wrote a blog post that looked at many of the Open Content projects aimed at K-12 consumers and participants, and at the larger question of how those resources might fit into K-12 classrooms and curriculum.I learned quite a bit in the process of writing that rather long entry, and although much has happened since then, the essential points I made at the time are quite relevant in light of recent developments.

Is K-12 Ready for Open Content Textbooks?
http://teachers4schools.com/open/?p=10#more-10

One of the things I talked about in the post was the need to better characterize Open Content. This post uses a couple of newer projects to clarify my thinking on the need for way to better describe projects.

My morning news feed yesterday picked up a small article in the Miami Herald that talked about the Curriki project. The piece by Bridget Carey is pretty representative of the interviews and releases Scott McNealy has been making recently as he works at getting exposure for Curriki. I’ve followed this all winter, and it got me thinking again about the need for characterization of Open Content projects, and about their future.

Curriki.org Fuels Communities, Bridges Digital Divide
http://www.miamiherald.com/154/story/141532.html

So our biggest challenge right now is raising money to get all of the resources we need to go put all of this stuff together in a way that makes the website just stunningly attractive. I think if we do that we won’t need to advertise, but raising the money is probably the biggest time consumer and the biggest challenge we have.

Open Content initiatives of various flavors are springing up all over the place, and I think there are two basic approaches. Taken to their logical extremes, one is primarily associated with traditional ideas about expert vetting and control of knowledge, and the other is mainly linked to user-driven content prodcution and quality control.

At the current time the popular media, and to some degree the blogosphere, tends to lump these together. As the use of collaborative tools in education expands, I think that there is a need to distinguish between projects. When I hear Scott talk about the need for money being their biggest hurdle with Curriki I almost feel like I know what type of Open Content project it is – one that is focused more on expert vetted knowledge than user production and collaboration.

Perhaps each type has a place, but in most regards I would say that the highly vetted and controlled sites are not that much different than the current process used to create textbooks, and online subscription databases for education like Encyclopedia Brittanica Online.

For teachers truly interested in collabortive production and consumption of Open Content resources, limited communities of practice will offer little promise, and will not leverage the Web 2.0 technologies that allow us to really change the way teachers teach and students learn.

Last summer I wrote a blog post that looked at many of the Open Content projects aimed at K-12 consumers and participants, and at the larger question of how those resources might fit into K-12 classrooms and curriculum.I learned quite a bit in the process of writing that rather long entry, and although much has happened since then, the essential points I made at the time are quite relevant in light of recent developments.

Is K-12 Ready for Open Content Textbooks?
http://teachers4schools.com/open/?p=10#more-10

One of the things I talked about in the post was the need to better characterize Open Content. This post uses a couple of newer projects to clarify my thinking on the need for way to better describe projects.

My morning news feed yesterday picked up a small article in the Miami Herald that talked about the Curriki project. The piece by Bridget Carey is pretty representative of the interviews and releases Scott McNealy has been making recently as he works at getting exposure for Curriki. I’ve followed this all winter, and it got me thinking again about the need for characterization of Open Content projects, and about their future.

Curriki.org Fuels Communities, Bridges Digital Divide
http://www.miamiherald.com/154/story/141532.html

So our biggest challenge right now is raising money to get all of the resources we need to go put all of this stuff together in a way that makes the website just stunningly attractive. I think if we do that we won’t need to advertise, but raising the money is probably the biggest time consumer and the biggest challenge we have.

Open Content initiatives of various flavors are springing up all over the place, and I think there are two basic approaches. Taken to their logical extremes, one is primarily associated with traditional ideas about expert vetting and control of knowledge, and the other is mainly linked to user-driven content prodcution and quality control.

At the current time the popular media, and to some degree the blogosphere, tends to lump these together. As the use of collaborative tools in education expands, I think that there is a need to distinguish between projects. When I hear Scott talk about the need for money being their biggest hurdle with Curriki I almost feel like I know what type of Open Content project it is – one that is focused more on expert vetted knowledge than user production and collaboration.

Perhaps each type has a place, but in most regards I would say that the highly vetted and controlled sites are not that much different than the current process used to create textbooks, and online subscription databases for education like Encyclopedia Brittanica Online.

For teachers truly interested in collabortive production and consumption of Open Content resources, limited communities of practice will offer little promise, and will not leverage the Web 2.0 technologies that allow us to really change the way teachers teach and students learn.

For “more open” Open Content projects the biggest need is not so much money as it is energy and interest of the users. You can’t buy that, really, and the most highly successful Web 2.0 sites are not promoted as much as they simply “happen”.

If Curriki and other K-12 Open Content efforts focus too much on vetting the resources, and partnering with the usual suspects, they will fail over the long term in the same way that the original Wikipedia failed. The site was called Nupedia, and couldn’t
make the transition between traditional ideas of expert-vetted knowledge, and user-driven content and quality control.

Nupedia Entry – Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nupedia

If you look at the Curriki FAQ page you will see that gatekeeping is in place:

http://www.curriki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main/FAQ

Curriki is led by a seasoned team of experts in the education and technology arenas. Their experience as teachers, authors and technologists has given them the hands-on understanding of what it takes to make quality and easy-to-use curricula. Leveraging Curriki’s resources and leadership, led by its Chief Academic Officer, Curriki will expertly manage the curricula to ensure the community makes the best decisions. It is this trust in the right leadership, tools and community that will enable the development and distribution of quality curricula.

1) They are relying on key “partners” to convert and donate materials

2) The materials are filtered and evaluated by a “seasoned team of experts”.

Although this sounds rational, the problems that Nupedia and other projects that have tried to build content bases, including curriculum, have experienced are nearly always traced back to user activity and energy being derailed by the “gatekeeper” process.

The sense of ownership and membership that collaborative communities create can’t happen in this environment. Users roles are limited to that which most schools already have with the textbooks, subcription databases and other vendor produced educational resources – that of consumer. Most users can’t be producers of content.

This essential tension between expert vetted knowledge and user-driven content is the biggest challenge facing education publishing, and educational organizations in general at both the K-12 and Higher Ed levels. There are continuing disputes over which model to use, and all Web 2.0 approaches point to users driving content, and making decisions as to the value of those resources. Web 2.0 tools are rapidly maturing, and participatory everything is taking off.

The current holders of the deeds to vetted knowledge are trying to find “new markets” to replace what they have been selling to K-12 and Higher Ed. I think that right at this very moment there are many, many smart people trying to find ways to make money from the public funds channeled through grants to non-profits, NGO and other non-commercial organizations. Open Content projects are perfect candidates. There is serious money to be had, and such an approach allows organizations to take what appears to be the moral high ground, and yet still secure a place at the grant and endowment trough.

Although I’m told I’m a bit cynical at times – typically from early morning until just before bed – I must admit that I admire the beauty of this tactic. It’s a politically perfect position. Who can be against free, expert-vetted knowledge for schools? It’s like the concept of “accountability” in schools, or the idea of “Highly Qualified” teachers. Anyone questioning whether this is the best way to generate Open Content looks like someone in favor of lower quality resources. Wow.

ExpertsRUs

In fact, Larry Sanger, Jimmy Wales’ partner in the original Nupdedia and Wikipedia projects is now Director of Development for the ManyOne Networks projects ; these use a very clearly defined gatekeeper approach. Their initial offering has gained lots of press in the last six months, and is poised with key partnerships to fill rather nicely the niche discusssed above. Larry is not the owner, but rather works for CEO Joe Firmage. He is a key player in the development of the content, and his views on Open Content are somewhat well known.

Larry and Wikipeida’s Jimbo Wales disagree about the role of experts, and although Wikipedia is one of the most used websites in the world, Sanger sees openess as a problem, not a benefit. He thinks “quality” must be determined by experts.

Digital Universe is part of the ManyOne hosting platform for organizations, a larger effort that is clearly commercial in nature, but positioned for education, government and non-profit organization clients.

Digital Universe Project
http://www.digitaluniverse.net/

ManyOne Content Platform
http://www.manyone.net

ManyOne Networks Overview – Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Universe

Although Digital Universe does not directly host content, the ManyOne Network projects use a two-tiered structure of “Stewards” (gatekeepers), and “Volunteer Consultants” to populate content on affiliated sites of the ManyOne network.

Stewards get “invited”, and “Volunteer Consultants” can apply:

Stewards

Stewards locate the most reliable information in their areas of expertise and use the tools that the Digital Universe provides to construct portals. Where vital Internet-based information is lacking, they might create it—or enlist the aid of other experts with the help of the Digital Universe team. Eventually, they will develop entire coalitions to get the job done.

Stewards are passionate about their work and want to share it with the world. They are recognized by their colleagues as authorities in their fields. They are committed to using their expertise for the public good.

As a steward, you get to be part of a huge visionary project that brings the most reliable information to the world in a noncommercial, nonprofit framework.

Volunteer Consultants

If Stewards are the bricks of the Digital Universe, volunteer consultants are the mortar. Consultants help Stewards create portals in the Digital Universe.

Consultants have substantial experience in important supplementary areas and can act as advisors. They have skills to lend (being writers, photographers, web designers, artists, multi-media producers…).

Consultants may also have strong interests in non-academic areas—book collecting, Japanese anime, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles—and be interested in working with experts to build portals in those areas or in putting together a team of people to build them.

The website for the Digital Universe Project even makes the statement on their front page in bold letters:

If there are universal truths, this is where you’ll find them.

The Digital Universe site acts as a feeder site to their other associated content sites. The first effort seems
to be a series of online “encyclopedias”. The initial offering is the Encyclopedia of Earth that received lots
of press this past winter and spring.

The site models the same vetting and volunteer approach, using experts in their field to manage articles as
“Stewards” and “Volunteer Consultants”:

Earth Portal
http://www.earthportal.org/

Encyclopedia of Earth
http://www.eoearth.org/

Want to contribute to the EoE? Well, if you are a recognized expert, they may consider you:

http://www.eoearth.org/eoe/contribute

The qualifications are simple. First, you are a recognized expert in a subject area of the Encyclopedia. This means you are a scholar, educator, professional, or other expert from the natural, physical, and social sciences, the arts and humanities, the professional disciplines, the public or private sectors, or the nongovernmental organizations whose work focuses on some aspect of the environment.

You can submit your curriculum vitae for review, and someone may get back to you. If you are worthy

ManyOne’s next project is Encyclopedia of the Cosmos.

Encyclopedia of the Cosmos: Pre-Launch Wiki Site
http://collab.digitaluniverse.net/wiki/Encyclopedia_of_the_Cosmos

Don’t bother trying to add anything, or read any of the articles though…It may use MediaWiki as it’s content engine, but you will have no access to anything useful. From their site:

The EoC is in effect a closed, expert-only Wikipedia. Participation is by invitation.

Brief Overview of Projects That Are More Open

I will not rehash the details of the classifications I proposed in last year’s post. The link at the top of the page goes there

However, the two “lighthouse” projects for Open Content that allows users to drive content and quality control are WikiBooks, and Connexions. Both allow anyone to edit, create and use content resources, and provide a counterpoint to the gatekeeper controlled projects above. I will describe both very quickly here for reference.

WikiBooks
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Main_Page

Status	Project / Site	Type
Open Loose Structure		Textbooks All Level

Wikibooks has over 15,000 Wikibook modules, over 1000 Wikibooks, over 500,000 edits, with more than 25,000 registered users. Chart of growth. Completely open to editing and creation of textbooks resources. Uses Mediawiki engine. Although not perfect, I think this is the most useful resource model for curriculum and textbook development that exists right now. It is not designed to be used as courseware, and would not be good for that purpose…for a number of reasons.

Organic Chemistry
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Organic_chemistry

United States History
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/US_History

Trigonometry
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Trigonometry

European History
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/European_History/Contents
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/European_History/Challenges_to_Spiritual_Authority

More information on the WikiBooks Project

The Connexions Project is a non-profit startup managed out of Rice University in Texas. It is the only “OpenCourseWare” system run by a university that seems to have shifted toward open contributions of content and courses.

Connexions Project
http://www.cnx.org/

Status	Project / Site	Type
Open Loose Structure		Content Repository All Levels

Their philosophy statement is worth reading.

Connexions is a unique web-based teaching and learning environment that aims to change the way we develop and use course materials.

Connexions is based on a set of intuitions that are shared by a remarkably wide range of academics: that knowledge should be free and open to use and re-use; that collaboration should be easier, not harder; that people should get credit and kudos for contributing to research and education; and that concepts and ideas are linked in unusual and surprising ways.

For authors and instructors worldwide, Connexions combines free authoring, course building, and publishing tools with an open-access content repository (see cnx.org). For students, it provides modular, interactive courses that are freely accessible. In Connexions, an author can create “modules” of information that are small documents intended to communicate a concept, a procedure, or a set of questions. String some modules together, and you have a web course or textbook, or weave a curriculum entirely of your choosing.

Connexions directly challenges the current notion of a “textbook” by exploding it and asking different people to create its parts in a semi-structured but re-configurable manner, rather than having a single Maestro do it all and take all the credit. All Connexions content is open-licensed using the Creative Commons attribution license. All Connexions tools are free and open source.

Connexions is being used in traditional college and K–12 settings, in distance learning, and by lifelong learners around the globe. Demand is surging; in January 2006 alone, the Connexions servers handled over 16 million hits representing over 500,000 unique visitors from 157 countries. Volunteers are translating modules and courses into a range variety of different languages, including Spanish, Japanese, Chinese, and Thai. Many of these are already very popular.

It is one fo the few that specifically mentions K-12 education as both consumers and contributors, and allows for collaborative construction of resources and courses. Here is how their site describes their outlook:

Connexions is a non-profit start-up launched at Rice University in 1999 that aims to reinvent how we write, edit, publish, and use textbooks and other learning materials. It is a global repository of educational content that can be described in four words that borrow from an Apple advertising slogan and a great book by Larry Lessig:

Create – in Connnexions, everyone is free to create educational materials and contribute them to the repository

Rip – in Connexions, everyone is free to copy the material and customize it

Mix – in Connexions, everyone is free to mix the material together into new books and courses

Burn – in Connexions, everyone is free to create finished products like e-learning web courses, CDroms, and even printed books

All of this is accomplished using open-access software tools and free-use material through the Creative Commons Attribution license. Connexions is not a tool for creating lesson plans and it is not a container for course syllabuses.

Anyone can contribute, but a peer review process is being worked on that will borrow elements from Amazon style reviews and ratings, as well as tags and trackback style information. Some mention of “editorial boards” is also made in both their 2004 and 2006 white papers, but I see that as a potential retreat to the “cathedral” model. The way it is now involves only review by your “workgroup” – you and others you invite to collaborate with you – and then relies on “market forces”, which is as it should be:

After publishing a course, the market forces provide the course review. Namely, many Connexions users will link to the interesting and informative courses and few will link to the not so interesting or informative courses…

Over 3266 modules and 168 courses are in the system. Content guidelines call for each module to be able to stand alone, and provide links to pre-requisite knowledge. Modules can be linked together, versioned and repurposed, and strung together into courses. See the Knowledge Factory view of Connexions for a graphical representation of this potential.

Unlike a “course management system”, courses here are not run by specific instructors. The resources are open, and some self-check type quizes and questions are embedded in the content, but no testing facility or grade management for groups of students are provided. Connexions has a nice interface that is Plone / Zope based, and is quite flexible.

Atomic Molecular Theory
http://cnx.org/content/m12432/latest/Structure of an Atom
http://cnx.org/content/m12433/latest/Music of the Romantic Era
http://cnx.org/content/m11606/latest/

So What?

There are many other projects on both sides of the fence, and that is why we need a meaningful construct to talk about Open Content that tells consumers and potential participants what to expect. The various ManyOne projects are clearly at one extreme, and allow most users no way to do anthing but consume content. At the other extreme we would place projects like Rice’s Connexions , and WikiBooks. Curriki is somewhere in the middle. It has elements of openess, but still keys on the usual sources of expert knowledge through “partnerships”, and utilizes gatekeeping. It is closer to Digital Universe than, say, WikiBooks or Connexions.

I think that there needs to be a way to classify these projects as we move forward. There are larger issues at play than the simple question of how to do this in a practical sense. I’d like to hear the thoughts of others on this if there is interest.

In my next post I will look in more detail at the ManyOne Networks platform in a bit more detail. In many ways their platform represent a real challenge to advocates of truly Open Content.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 19th, 2007 at 6:44 am and is filed under New Roles for Knowledge, Open Content, Open Textbooks. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.