Thinking Out Loud, aka The Broad Gaze – Page 11 – Thoughts on the social impacts of communication policy and educational technology.

Applying the Web 2.0 model to Education

O’Riley Radar has a thought provoking look at Education as a Platform. The basic idea builds on that described in a book called Disrupting Class, but I find some of the authors points more illuminating than the analogy between education and technology. First, the author calls out a false dichotomy:

I am of the opinion that the distinction between formal learning (school) and informal learning (museums, Internet, community classes, affinity groups, etc.) is one that is both artificial and obsolete. In Education 2.0 there should be multiple providers of educational experiences, and standard discovery mechanisms that allow great experiences to spread virally as well as standard ways to give students credit for what they know and can do rather than for what classes they’ve sat through.

If you ask a “typical” student, I think they would agree. That student, however, likely wouldn’t connect the dots to the author’s next point – that tests don’t quite do an adequate job of measuring learning. Their answer is, I believe, spot on:

In a world of assessment innovation, a student portfolio might contain a combination of completed projects in addition to state test results, richer third-party assessment results, and innovative assessments of non-traditional skills such as collaboration and creativity. Colleges and employers might value this multi-dimensional view of a student more than just grades and standardized test results when evaluating applicants. Parents and students might take ownership of enriching their portfolio of assessments according to their own values. Publishers of curriculum and educational experiences might be able to improve their offerings based on a broad set of assessments of student outcomes — driving innovation in educational content. Administrators and states might be able to reward teachers for many different kinds of critical achievements.

As we look at using portfolios on our own campus, I hope we’re able to keep this potential integration of formal and informal assessments in mind. My hope is (the smarter) students will demand it.

Latest on Net Neutrality

Ars Technica posts about the latest news in Net Neutrality (Waxman’s net neutrality compromise: solution or last gasp?). What’s interesting here is that they’re (finally?) calling it what proponents have been essentially asking for — classifying ISPs as “common carriers.”

We asked the FCC whether the agency’s latest net neutrality proposal, which would subject ISPs to some common carrier provisions, is still in the game.”All options remain on the table,” came the official reply. The problem is that “the table” is starting to shrink when it comes to open Internet enforcement—something along the lines of a small TV dinner tray, if that. And whatever entrees still sit upon on its surface at this point won’t be taken up at the FCC’s next Open Commission meeting, scheduled for Thursday October 14.

What the heck is a common carrier? Wikipedia isn’t much help in describing it, but this site does much better (especially the parts about “discrimination” and “interconnection”).

I think when put in this way, it’s easier to understand why Net Neutrality isn’t an attempt to “regulate the Internet.”

Tim Wu on why Net Neutrality is unbelievably important

Engadget recently interviewed Columbia professor, Tim Wu on the subject of Internet Neutrality. He mentioned a few things that may have been alluded to before, but perhaps with a more insightful turn of the phrase.

Once you have the right to block [access], you have the right to block speech. This is a country that cares about free speech, and people should be should be suspicious of gatekeepers getting in the way of what they want to get to.

This was, I think the issue that originally united people from across the spectrum, and has been an aspect that has been downplayed lately. The point that Tim is perhaps trying to make here is that, while the government is constitutionally obligated to protect free speech, telecommunications corporations are not. To ensure that we can read, see, and say what we want on the Internet, we need Neutrality.

There’s an effort to replace the norms of this thing [heartily pounds his iMac computer]: the openness, the original ideas of the original computer generation people, to give the power to the people — to replace it with the norms of the telephone company.

Those that don’t know their telecommunications history might not be aware of how vigorously the industry fought against their customers’ being able to hook unapproved devices onto their network. Had that battle not taken place, modems would have been provided by the telephone company and online access would never have been as cheap as it was in the dial-up days. Anyone who has tried to (legally!) unlock a cell phone knows that this battle is still very much taking place.

[Don’t] get carried away with the convenience [of these devices] and forget that you’re dealing with issues of speech, of innovation, and the right to tinker — things that we’ve taken for granted in the computer world. …
We are tool using animals. These are our tools… We need the rights to these things — they’re our ‘swords.’

I’m so glad that Tim brought up our right to tinker, and explained the rationale in such a clear way. Geeks like to use tools, and we don’t like being told how to use them. Efforts to minimize these efforts are met with fierce resistance because the curiosity that drives our tool use and tinkering is the very fuel that has driven innovation.

Bill would give Justice Department power to shutter piracy sites worldwide

Ars Technica reports about a bill that was introduced today:

If passed, the Justice Department could ask a federal court to for an injunction that would order a domain registrar or registry to stop resolving an infringing site’s domain name, so that visitors to PirateBay.org, for example, would get a 404 error.

The idea of an “infringing site” may be a legally tricky one. While it may host some material that infringes someone’s copyright, it also likely hosts a great deal of original information. This original stuff counts as speech, and as such receives a high deal of protection under the First Amendment. I don’t think this kind of “prior restraint” would ever withstand judicial review.

From the bill:

an Internet site is ‘dedicated to infringing activities’ if such site:
primarily designed, has no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator, or by a person acting in concert with the operator, to offer—
‘‘(i) goods or services in violation of title 17, United States Code [a.k.a. copyright], or enable or facilitate a violation of title 17, United States Code, including by offering or providing access to, without the authorization of the copyright owner or otherwise by operation of law, copies of, or public performance or display of, works protected by title 17

As suspected, the “primarily designed” language is potentially difficult to nail down. The infamous Pirate Bay even includes links and information about copyright which I believe may legitimately be considered political speech (especially given that they have a party, as well as the Bay).