::fibreculture:: WebCT, Open Source and Beyond

[Julian Knowles]

On 09/08/2005, at 2:38 PM, Anna Munster wrote:
> Julian - your point below:
>> i think there are some pragmatic problems/issues in using FOSS in 
>> teaching environments in that a lot of FOSS is very 'alpha' and 
>> unstable...
>
> don't you think that in choosing to steer students away from the 
> "unstable" you are also making certain assumptions about what you want 
> as your learning outcomes from them?

Hmmm not necessarily... i think that students need to grasp some basic 
concepts before they enter "experimental/unstable-land"  For one.. most 
beginners assume they are making the mistakes rather the software 
simply throwing wobblies. This isn't that interesting from a teaching 
and learning point of view. I think free open-source stuff is generally 
better for more advanced students, who can distinguish between the 
instability of the platform and any shortcomings in their operation of 
it.

I was quite careful to point out that i was not steering students away 
from FOSS. I am using it where it works, and to provide some 
perspective on the communities that develop it and the philosophies 
behind it.  It is more that I am concerned that students have a rounded 
perspective on the pros and cons of various kinds of software and have 
a developed appreciation of the differences. This is a learning 
outcome. A student who gives up on a task (or thinks they are hopeless 
with technology) because they get frequent 'unexpectedly quit' 
messages, does not learn a lot.

I have run introductory subjects using FOSS only and have directly 
engaged with some of these problems.

The thing I often encounter in online space, however, is a strongly 
ideological (almost religious)  view of FOSS versus commercial 
software. That is, the use of commercial software in a course makes you 
a low down korporat faszcist..  whereas the exclusive use of FOSS makes 
you a peace loving, tree hugging, god fearing internet citizen.

I'd have to say that I've seen a number of FOSS ideologues go to great 
lengths to ban any other form of software from a work environment. 
Where is the peace and love in that?


> What if instead of wanting them to be good "users" you are trying to 
> assist students in dealing with a very unstable, mobile and alpha 
> world (ie the contemporary life we all lead outside of protected 
> proprietary bubbles) in which they will constantly have to encounter 
> changes in software, crashes breakdowns of communications services, 
> outages etc.

I see this as being of theoretical/practical interest at higher levels 
of study, but not for the greater part of an undergrad degree where 
students are struggling to acquire quite simple skills. I am actually 
of the view that too much is made of the 'bleeding edge' of technology, 
as if that is the overwhelmingly important concern for all. Many 
artists prefer to stay behind the bleeding edge and utilise things that 
work. You can be deeply engaged with technology, but not be anywhere 
near the bleeding edge of it (and quite consciously so). I think the 
work has matured to the point that you can position yourself quite 
consciously in relation to this.

There are rich experiences to be gained through aiming at a kind of 
virtuosity within known parameters, as opposed to being in experimental 
space the whole time. Indeed the concept of virtuosity hinges on a 
stable, limited interface.


> My problem with WebCT is not just the fact that one has to pay for it 
> but that it comes with a whole set of assumptions about the world -ie 
> it's enclosed, it is a space in which one monitors and is monitored, 
> it draws strict bounds etc.

True to a point, but you can include a link to whatever space you like. 
(a Wiki etc...) Most blog software is pretty limiting too... (word 
press, moveable type etc...) They are simple tools designed for certain 
needs (eg rapid update of html via a CMS). I guess what I am trying to 
say is that there is nothing particularly creative about wordpress. The 
creativity comes into play when you engage intelligently with the 
limitations.

Re 'monitoring' - I don't think there is anything within a university 
IT network which is not 'closely monitored'. There are all kinds of 
bots at work, flagging material for closer examination!!!  If I run an 
outward stream from my computer, IT will see it within minutes and 
listen to it.

> Sure a lot of FLOSS is not useable but a lot is. And the arguments 
> about WebCT vs using other things ie blogs, wikis etc in universities 
> is increasingly centred around the issue of IP as Ned states.

The issue I was trying to raise is the one where 'versus' is assumed, 
ie people see WebCT in a  'one solution fits all'  context. WebCT is no 
more a solution than a Wordpress/Movable Type or a Wiki, or 
whatever.... They are all quite specific and limited tools. I agree, 
however, that WebCT is not a public space, and therefore subject 
materials are restricted to those enrolled (which is a form of IP  
'protection'). The irony here is that many academics feel quite 
protective of their course materials... It is not necessarily a case of 
the big bad institution wanting to protect the IP it is paying for in 
its salary bills, as tempting as that may seem.

> However IP is a very complex issue - it is not just about who 
> financially owns the knowledge produced but how the knowledge is 
> associated with the overall image of the institution and who owns and 
> has access to that image/branding.

completely agreed

>  So, one of the  issues around use of web-based tools in the 
> university classroom and also by staff (rather than the use of 
> intranets such as WebCT) has to do with the ways in which students 
> and/or staff 'speak" for the university in spaces that the institution 
> cannot directly  monitor and control.

agreed... but until these institutions stop people from publishing in 
public space, then this is a 'threat' to freedom, rather than a 
limitation of it. I'm not sure about your universities, but no one is 
stopping me from putting things up in public spaces.

> Believe me this is not Big Brother paranoia. Right now a key debate at 
> UNSW is about whether staff are going to be allowed to identify 
> themselves as staff AND publicly speak (including on their blogs) in 
> areas deemed outside their expertise. (whatever that means - 
> presumably that one is not supposed to be a uni staff member and have 
> opinions)

No doubt following the recent Macquarie University scandle. Well it is 
interesting to see UNSW has weighed in on this. It is interesting to 
see them become more corporate in their approach. Google has sacked 
people for discussing the company in their blogs.

> Blogs and the like are deemed by university management as unruly and 
> potentially damaging to the professional image of the university.

Yes, because they are a form of publishing, and therefore start to come 
under their policy on 'media comment'.

The tension is this. universities are largely private enterprises these 
days. A large portion of their income is from essentially commercial 
activity. Academics are therefore part of a corporate sector, whether 
they like it or not, although they think they are not. Just like any 
corporation, the institution wants to protect its brand image (as it is 
essential for its commercial survival) and does not want to have 
salaried staff damaging that image.  I don't want to sound resigned, 
but the days of the old university are well over...  Perhaps I am 
having a bad night, but I think this battle has already been lost, many 
years ago....


> IP is as much about IMAGE property as it is about intellectual 
> property and the debate about what software to use in the tertiary 
> sector is very much imbricated with the question of image.

I'm not sure I get this last assertion. Can you elaborate?

regards

julian