The purpose of my session was to provide a frame to explain while Law is nowadays having more trouble than usual in trying to solve many of today’s problems. In other words, the goal was not to enter in specific issues that Law can difficultly fix, but to reflect on how the foundations of our industrial society are being challenged by digitization and Information and Communication Technologies and, thus, how the Law that was built upon those foundations is shaking from head to toes.

The (long!) session was split in three parts

1. The Network Society, or how industrial institutions’ feet became of clay, which explains how the end of scarcity and transaction costs in the areas of knowledge is questioning most of our institutions — Law amongst them.
2. The Web 2.0, or how individuals became mass media, which explains how the addition of the social layer to the World Wide Web has transformed communication, culture and creation as we knew it.
3. The Internet, or how Law became (even) more complicated, where some specific practices and malpractices are identified on a typical task done through the Internet — and challenging the concepts of who or what is the sender, the receiver, the message, the channel or the code.

Here follow the materials that I used in the session and a short collection of bibliographic references.

The Network Society, or how industrial institutions’ feet became of clay

Downloads:

Prezi slides:
Peña-López, I. (2012). The Network Society, or how industrial institutions’ feet became of clay. Seminar at the Magister Lvcentinvs on Intellectual Property, University of Alicante, 14 May 2012.

Prezi slides:
Peña-López, I. (2012). The Network Society, or how industrial institutions’ feet became of clay. Seminar at the Magister Lvcentinvs on Intellectual Property, University of Alicante, 14 May 2012.

The Web 2.0, or how individuals became mass media

Downloads:

Prezi slides:
Peña-López, I. (2012). The Web 2.0, or how individuals became mass media. Seminar at the Magister Lvcentinvs on Intellectual Property, University of Alicante, 14 May 2012.

Prezi slides:
Peña-López, I. (2012). The Web 2.0, or how individuals became mass media. Seminar at the Magister Lvcentinvs on Intellectual Property, University of Alicante, 14 May 2012.

The Internet, or how Law became (even) more complicated

Downloads:

Prezi slides:
Peña-López, I. (2012). The Internet, or how Law became (even) more complicated. Seminar at the Magister Lvcentinvs on Intellectual Property, University of Alicante, 14 May 2012.

Prezi slides:
Peña-López, I. (2012). The Internet, or how Law became (even) more complicated. Seminar at the Magister Lvcentinvs on Intellectual Property, University of Alicante, 14 May 2012.

Further reading

Amongst all the questions, there were two the answers I provided I would like to keep… and share. I answered quite quickly and they come here in the rough. I am sure a thorough reflection would present more accurate thoughts, but I don’t think the general idea would change a lot:

What are the main advantages of teaching-learning using social web technologies?

• More control on the learning process by the learners themselves.
• More focus on the learning part, trading with a lesser weight on the teaching part.
• Increased importance of the learning process, with decreased (relative) importance of the content in the syllabus.
• Opening of the formal learning processes towards scenarios belonging to the scope of non-formal learning and, especially, of informal learning.
• Dramatic increase of the learning resources (content, experts, tools) at the learners’ reach.
• Merging (and confusion) of the different areas of life: learning, professional, personal, leisure.

What are the main disadvantages of teaching-learning using social web technologies?

• They demand high (or highest) digital competences. These are a must to make the best of social web technologies and an important barrier of entrance.
• They require a certain knowledge in identifying one’s training and educational needs and being able to formulate them as such.
• They require a certain capacity to design (autonomous) learning strategies.
• Abundance of resources imply that filtering becomes necessary and, thus, filtering competences are important.
• Even with the appropriate filtering competences, noise and distraction will happen.
• Merging (and confusion) of the different areas of life: learning, professional, personal, leisure (indeed, this is a double edged sword).

Amongst others, there are four important issues that are guiding this reflection:

1. What has the impact been so far.
2. How has the techno-social scenario changed since they were initially born: increasing adoption of ICTs, importance of broadband, mobile Internet, etc.
3. How has the socio-economic scenario also changed, i.e. the economic and debt crisis in Europe.
4. According to the preceding points, what should be done in the future and how, that is, how public policies to foster the Information Society should be designed in matters of universal access/usage.

In this framework, the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) organized an Expert Workshop on Measuring the Impact of eInclusion Intermediaries in Europe: towards an impact assessment practice?, that took place in May 3-4 in Seville, Spain, and to which I was invited to participate and to contribute with a position paper.

My position paper should verse on the future of telecentres in Europe in 2020, and it was supposed to be what I call a “grounded opinion”: grounded, because it is based on both personal/professional experience and lots of readings; opinion, because, all in all, I was asked to provide my own point of view, what would I do was I to design the policy that would deal with e-Inclusion Intermediaries.

Position paper: eInclusion Intermediaries in Europe: horizon 2020

State of the development of the Information Society

I believe that the development of the Information Society has come not to a dead end, but near a point of stagnation:

• The industry and governments are most of the time still thinking in terms of infrastructures: how much, how are they managed, what is the regulation to bind them and what is they state of usage (usually in percent of saturation).
• Users only care about a huge supply of content and services (for whatever the use) and that these run on affordable infrastructures.

This is, of course, a simplification. But a peek at what governments are measuring and what media are broadcasting gives us an idea of the tremendous bias towards the preceding aspects of the Information Society.

The problem with this scenario is that it has no future, as policies centred in infrastructures are targeting an almost non-existent problem:

• In general terms, physical access is becoming a minor issue (remember: Europe 2020). It already is, especially if we do not take into account as an indicator “households with Internet access”, but “people covered by access to Internet”.
• The former point is due, in part, because many last mile issues have been solved (e.g. with mobile Internet, e.g. with public Internet access points such as telecentres, libraries, cybercafes, schools and many other venues).
• The supply of content and services is buoyant.

The missing gap: capacity building

On the other hand, the two growing problems remain unaddressed by public policies:

• A stable share of ‘refuseniks’, that choose not to use the Internet for several reasons.
• A growing share of citizens that do need digital skills and literacies that they lack or have to acquire when and if possible.

These two gaps have two main consequences:

• An ICT sector which a shortage of supply in terms of highly qualified workers and human capital in general.
• A quality of usage of the Internet characterized by inefficacy and inefficiency, and that many find will be (already is) the core of a second digital divide, deeper that the digital divide of access and more difficult to fix because of its (human) nature.

State of the question, the missing gap and e-Inclusion Intermediaries

How do e-Inclusion Intermediaries face the state of the question and the missing gap? In my own (grounded) opinion, either they change or they will perform badly.

1. Telecentres (understood as not-for-profit and for-development-aimed) will suffer from economic resources shortage, because of the economic crisis and because of Internet penetration. Cybercafes (understood as for-profit and comercially-aimed) will suffer from social sustainability shortage, because of the economic crisis (what solutions are you providing?) and also because of Internet penetration.
2. Most e-Inclusion Intermediaries have traditionally provided or recently began to provide services related to e-skills. The problem is that those skills are becoming much more complex than simple techonological skills and, indeed, it is a set of digital literacies and capacities that is required. Are eI2 responding to that?
3. In the same train of though of literacies, what we have found in our conversion from an Industrial Society to an Information Society is that we have done quite good in learning or appropriating technologies an to applying/adapting them to our usual processes. But we have definitely failed in improving most processes and socioeconomic transformation is but a good bunch of “good practices” that we all know but cannot replicate.

A forecast/proposal for e-Inclusion Intermediaries

• The telecentre should become an eCentre, a centre that is not a physical place, but a reference resource that can actually be located in a specific location, or embeded within an organization. Telecentres should be insourced in other institutions: in a firm, in a civic centre, in a library, in a government, in an NGO…
• Complementary to the former statement, many of the telecentre functions can and should be outsourced. There is evidence that the probability of survival of a telecentre is linked to it being part of a telecentre network: share knowledge, share resources, share contents and services. Outsourcing can take the shape of a core+franchises or a flat network. But reinventing the wheel should be forbidden.
• If we believe in the insourcing/outsourcing pair, partnerships come naturally: e-Inclusion Intermediaries should complement a shared project with their added value, while other partners should be left to do the same. Partnerships with governments in the field of sheer “for development” inclusion or fostering e-government; partnerships with the private sector to leverage the expertise in the field and sell it for the sake of economic sustainability; look out for firms to be included as targets of eI2.
• Of course, purity should be abandoned: no more either telecentre or cybercafe. It’s about e-Centres and it is about to provide knowledge. The function is what matters and not the means: the function is part of the mission, the means are part of the business/operating plan.
• But the function is not fostering ICTs, the function is Inclusion. The ICT centre has to become a Centre-on-ICT-steroids. It is the community — the target — what matters, it is about supporting neighbourhoods, schools, entrepreneurs, living labs… not about supporting ICTs. But we do it with ICTs because we believe in its huge potential.

Some bibliography

Based on my own experience

Bibliography on the impact of telecentres

The idea of my speech in the session — which I shared with Marc Bogdanowicz — was to perform a quick overview of how the development of the Information Society has been measured in the last 20 years and how the design of these measurements inevitably conditions (or just determines) the design of policies that would come after measurement.

In a nutshell, what was presented is that governments, in general, have focused on infrastructures and what is related to them (infrastructure level of usage, the ICT sector and some regulation of the ICT sector market). And, on the other hand, citizens (in fact, customers) demand a sufficient supply of content and services at affordable cost.

But, it does seem that the long term is missing in both approaches. Besides daily usage or investment, it looks that especially policies focusing in the long term and the strategic level are totally non existent and, thus, we are riding the change but not levering the transforming potential of ICTs. And digital skills might be the what could fill the gap between simple adoption to sheer transformation.

Some examples in the context of Spanish politics/policies were provided at the end in the field of institutional design, education and ICT, open government and teleworking.

More than wires: measuring the Information Society

Some bibliography on the topic

Information Society: where to? with whom? by Marc Bogdanowicz

Discussion

It had been long since the site had gathered a remarkable amount of different kinds content. Broadly speaking, there were like three web pages lived under the same roof:

• My personal/professional page, with information on who I am, what I do and, above all, what is my scientific production.
• Resources I use in my work (teaching, research and outreach).
• And the two blogs — academic, personal — with up-to-date content.
• …and all the activity on several social networking sites and that, somehow, was also reflected here.

On the other hand, those very same social networking sites as well as the widespread use of search engines caused that the main point of entrance to the site ceased to be its homepage, and to literally become any page.

It thus became an urgent need to undergo some reforms, while bearing three main goals in mind:

1. To rethink how content was sorted and the overall site architecture.
2. To make possible that any page could operate as a homepage (as a good landing page).
3. To provide the user with access to related content from any page they were on, and to facilitate the identification of the author where this was particularly important (e.g. from the scientific production page).

Unlike what had been the norm in the past eight years, this time I asked out for the help of professionals. In particular the help of Anna Fuster and Daniel Julià, from the Pimpampum studio. They were able to rethink the site without luggages from the past or sentimentality.

The result is in plain sight.

At the visual level, I would like to highlight the immense work of updating and managing the graphic look and feel, focusing on the the different on how different kinds of content use different colours, or how was repositioned when it was repetitive or ‘interfered’ with other content, to name but a few amongst a long list of details.

At the technical level, the most notable is the idea of ​​”widgetizing” the site so that one can put any piece of information (a blog, the literature, the “about me”, etc.) elsewhere when deemed necessary. Furthermore, the management of the whole thing or the creation of new pieces has been made really easy and robust, so the site can now grow without the bounds to which was constrained.

I can only thank the good times — as creative as challenging — that I spent with @tartanna and @daniel_julia, from whom I learned a lot in a short time.

And to the reader, both the regular and the occasional, thanks for being there, at the other end of the wire. As always, any comments are welcome.

]]> http://ictlogy.net/20120423-ictlogy-v6-0/feed/ 2 http://ictlogy.net/20120421-the-conquest-of-internet-new-maps-for-new-territories/ http://ictlogy.net/20120421-the-conquest-of-internet-new-maps-for-new-territories/#comments Sat, 21 Apr 2012 08:24:10 +0000 Ismael Peña-López http://ictlogy.net/?p=3931

Nous Horitzons — the review of the Fundació Nous Horitzons — has released issue #204 with the quite explicit title of Democratizing communication, communicating democracy (original title: Democratitzar la comunicació, comunicar la democràcia).

I was asked to write a piece where to reflect about what can be done and what cannot be done on the Internet, in the sense of what is allowed, what is not, where are the boundaries of our civic rights, where do different rights collide (e.g. freedom of expression vs. intellectual property rights), etc.

My article, The conquest of Internet: new maps for new territories, is originally written in Catalan (La conquesta d’Internet: nous mapes per als nous territoris — Spanish translation also available) and takes its title from William Gibson’s documentary No Maps for These Territories!.

I ended writing what it looks like a slightly different thing: that there is not an actual collision of rights, but the dawn of a totally new model of society. And what looks like a collision of rights is, indeed, the fight to set up new institutions, appoint new leaders and shape up this new model according to each one’s own views. Thus, the apparent collision of rights is but the symptom of a higher level matter: what is the “global order” going to look like in the next decades after the actual order, based on the industrial paradigm, has become obsolete by Information and Communication Technologies.

I want to heartily thank Marc Rius for the invitation to write this piece, for his patience on my repeated delays and, most especially, for not changing a single comma on what I acknowledge is a dense text that goes way beyond the simple answer to what can and cannot be done on the Internet.

Downloads


Peña-López, I. (2012)
La conquesta d’Internet: nous mapes per als nous territoris

Peña-López, I. (2012)
La conquista de Internet: nuevos mapas para los nuevos territorios

Nous Horitzons (nº204)
Democratitzar la comunicació, comunicar la democràcia
]]> http://ictlogy.net/20120421-the-conquest-of-internet-new-maps-for-new-territories/feed/ 3 http://ictlogy.net/20120413-the-needed-shift-in-policies-to-foster-the-information-society-skills-and-refuseniks/ http://ictlogy.net/20120413-the-needed-shift-in-policies-to-foster-the-information-society-skills-and-refuseniks/#comments Fri, 13 Apr 2012 17:43:58 +0000 Ismael Peña-López http://ictlogy.net/?p=3929 In early 2010, the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration issued Digital Nation: 21st Century America’s Progress Towards Universal Broadband Internet Access which, amongst other things, provided data on why people did not use the Internet. Two years later, the Pew Internet & American Life Project provides similar data in Digital Differences. It is very interesting comparing how the reasons for not using the Internet have evolved.

Before entering the analysis, please note that the NTIA actually provided the reasons for not using broadband at home, while PIP measures the reasons for not using the Internet in general. As the difference between broadband and dial-up at that time (October 2009) was circa 5%, and now (August 2011) being 3%, we believe that comparisons, though inaccurate, do indeed provide good enough insights for a quick analysis.

The first chart shows the reasons that non-users state for not using the Internet, measured in percent of non-users. Thus, the chart pictures the share or weight that each reason has in relationship with other reasons for not using the Internet:



Bearing in mind the caveat on the slightly different variables measured by the indicators, we can easily see that the barriers to access (usually lack of infrastructure, affordability and personal disabilities or lack of appropriate/adapted infrastructure) have decreased drastically in less than two years (Oct 2009 to Aug 2011). Yes, there still is an important 30% of non-users that state that the reason for not using the Internet is infrastructures, but the reason has decreased. More competitive markets, the deployment of infrastructures in remote areas and public access points sure are the main causes for this decrease.

On the contrary, lack of skills has sky-rocketed and multiplied its weight by 13%. It is possible that this figure is not actually true, and that the 3% in 2009 is not gathering non-users because of capability reasons (this is most likely — more on that later).

The interesting thing to notice, though, are the steady “Lack of interest” and “Other” reasons, which almost add up to 50% of the people that do not use the Internet. Besides their high share, it is worth stressing their steadiness or even slight increase. There is a constant share of refuseniks that will not use the Internet whatever the government, the market or their peers do to convince them to do otherwise.

The second chart shows again the reasons that non-users state for not using the Internet, but this time measured in percent of the total of the population. Thus, the chart pictures the share or weight that each reason has in relationship with the whole, then giving us an idea of the aggregate number of people that state a specific reason for not using the Internet:



The good thing to note here is that most reasons are decreasing. This is just natural as the overall adoption of the Internet is increasing. So, by construction, one would expect just that.

The not so good thing to note is that the amount of people stating they are not skilled enough to use the Internet does increase. Even if this figure can be (or is) distorted by the different things that data are depicting, it is consistent with other data and observations around, namely (1) the increase of a second-level digital divide caused by different levels of digital skills and (2) the increase of the amount of people that access public access points (telecentres, libraries, cybercafes) not because of the infrastructures — which most have at home — but in seek of advice or help.

Before this scenario, which is not new, a change or shift of public policies to foster the Information Society should take place. Not that policies aimed at more, better and cheaper infrastructures should be abandoned (or yes, that is another debate), but the provision of digital competences to the citizens should be having an increased if not a major role in public policies.

And, of course, it is about much more than putting computers in the classroom.

Bibliography

Celedón, A., Pequeño, A., Garrido, M. & Patin, B. (2012). El Rol de los Telecentros y las Bibliotecas en Situación de Catástrofe: El Caso Chileno. Seattle: Technology & Social Change Group, University of Washington Information School.
DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C. & Shafer, S. (2004). “From Unequal Access to Differentiated Use: A Literature Review and Agenda for Research on Digital Inequality”. In Neckerman, K. (Ed.), Social Inequality, 355-400. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Hargittai, E. (2002). “Second-Level Digital Divide: Differences in People’s Online Skills”. In First Monday, April 2002, 7 (4)
Min, S. (2010). “From the Digital Divide to the Democratic Divide: Internet Skills, Political Interest, and the Second-Level Digital Divide in Political Internet Use”. In Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 7 (1), 22-35. London: Routledge.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (2010). Digital Nation: 21st Century America’s Progress Towards Universal Broadband Internet Access. Washington, DC: National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
Peña-López, I. (2010). “Policy-making for digital development: the role of the government”. In Proceedings of ICTD 2010. 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development. London: IEEE.
Sciadas, G., Lyons, H., Rothschild, C. & Sey, A. (2012). Public access to ICTs: Sculpting the profile of users. Seattle: Technology & Social Change Group, University of Washington Information School.
Zickuhr, K. & Smith, A. (2012). Digital differences. Washington, D.C.: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
]]> http://ictlogy.net/20120413-the-needed-shift-in-policies-to-foster-the-information-society-skills-and-refuseniks/feed/ 0 http://ictlogy.net/20120413-conference-series-on-trends-in-the-information-and-knowledge-society/ http://ictlogy.net/20120413-conference-series-on-trends-in-the-information-and-knowledge-society/#comments Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:21:57 +0000 Ismael Peña-López http://ictlogy.net/?p=3927

(crossposted from Debates sobre tendencias de la Sociedad de la Información y el Conocimiento).

With the goal to analyse and propose a debate on the nature and depth of this new framework of social relationships, the challenges it entails, for example, from the point of view of social inclusion, or opportunities from the perspective of health systems, social participation and education a series of conferences has been planned in Seville (Spain): [sic]*: Conference series on trends in the Information and Knowledge Society

The conferences are made up by six debates, and I am taking part in two of them:

1. Introductory session. 18 april 2012.

• Topics: information society, network society and technological revolution, how ICTs have penetrated into European, Spanish and Andalousian societies, and what are or what should be the public policies in this area.
• Participants: Eva Piñar, General Director of Technological and Information Society services at the Andalousian government; Ramón Compañó, programme coordinator at IPTS-JCR; Josep Lladós, director of the PhD on Information and Knowledge Society at UOC.

2. Progressing towards the Information Society. 2 may 2012.

• Topics: present of the implementation of ICT at different levels: infrastructure, knowledge economy, legal framework, content and services. And delving into the economic dimension of the information society: business, resources, innovation, etc..
• Participants: Ismael Peña-López, professor a the School of Law and Political Science at UOC; Marc Bogdanowic, leader of the Information Society Unit at IPTS-JCR.

3. Technological prospective. 16 may 2012.

• Topics: what will be the future technologies, usage standards, protocols, etc..
• Participants: César Córcoles, professor at the School of Computer Science, Multimedia and Telecommunication at UOC; a TBC representative from IPTS.

4. ICT and Education. 6 june 2012.

• Topics: aspects of the relationship between training and ICT, how educational technology is already helping to change the way it delivers training, how can ICT help in shaping tomorrow’s education.
• Participants: Magí Almirall, director of the Office of Learning Technologies at UOC; Yves Punie, senior scientist at the Information Society Unit at IPTS-JCR.

5. ICT for Health. 20 june 2012.

• Topics: use of ICT in healthcare: telemedicine, diagnostics, digital files, etc.
• Participants: Eulàlia Hernádez, director of the MSc. in Psychology, Health and Quality of Life in the Information Society at UOC; Francisco Lupiáñez, researcher at IPTS-JCR; José Antonio Valverde, executive advisor to the General Secretary of the Andalousian Health Service.

6. ICT and citizen participation. 4 july 2012.

• Topics: how ICT have changed the relationship between citizens and the government, what are the new forms of participation based on the use of ICT, Transparency, e-government, etc.
• Participants: Ismael Peña-López, professor a the School of Law and Political Science at UOC; Gianluca Misuraca, researcher at the IPTS-JCR.

The [sic]*: Conference series on trends in the Information and Knowledge Society is organized by the General directorate of Technological and Information Society services of the Andalousian Government, the Institute for Prospective Technological Studies of the European Commission, and the office in Seville of the Open University of Catalonia (UOC).

I want to thank Eva Piñar and Alfredo Charques both for the initiative to organize the conference — when reflecting on what kind of Information Society we want is so necessary — and, of course, for inviting me to take part in it.

]]> http://ictlogy.net/20120413-conference-series-on-trends-in-the-information-and-knowledge-society/feed/ 0 http://ictlogy.net/20120401-education-and-development-in-a-world-of-networks/ http://ictlogy.net/20120401-education-and-development-in-a-world-of-networks/#comments Sun, 01 Apr 2012 17:12:14 +0000 Ismael Peña-López http://ictlogy.net/?p=3924 Plan Ceibal is the one-to-one laptop programme that Uruguay is running nation-wide since 2008. It is, in my opinion, a good example of what I would like to see in this kind of programmes. I spoke a little bit more on that programme on From laptops to competences: bridging the digital divide in higher education, but for a brief approach, these are the three main aspects that I like most:
• It is not a one-to-one laptop programme, but an inclusion through education programme. Laptops really come into the programme as a tool.
• The core of the programme is the community, the neighbourhood, the classroom, and not technology. It is social capital — and not technological capital ‐ what is built as a priority.
• They run a honest, thorough, yearly evaluation which highlights the best achievements, identifies the weaknesses and feeds the programme back with rich and useful information.


One of the main commitments of the programme is to create resources for the educators involved in it, including the yearly publication of a book. The latest edition of the “Ceibal book” has already been published as El modelo CEIBAL: Nuevas tendencias para el aprendizaje and I have contributed to the book with a chapter.

My chapter, Educación y Desarrollo en un mundo de redes (Education and development in a world of networks) is a reflection on how ICTs are radically changing what we understand by teachers, educational resources, and infrastructure. It actually is a slight adaptation of the homonymous materials that I had recently prepared for UNDP’s Virtual School.

The resulting chapter is the result of the contributions of some other people with which I am in much debt. Giovanni Guatibonza and Amagoia Salazar more than supervised the first edition for the UNDP, providing very good guidance and suggestions, which I all add to the text. Marion Ikwat is an astonishing editor and proofreader that did not rest until the final text was utterly spotless. Last, I want to thank Graciela Rabajoli not only for inviting me to be part of the book, but for all the information on the programme that she has always fed me with.

Downloads:


Peña-López, I. (2011).
Educación y Desarrollo en un mundo de redes.

Báez, M., García, J. M. & Rabajoli, G. (Comps.) (2011).
El modelo CEIBAL: Nuevas tendencias para el aprendizaje.

Bibliography used in Educación y Desarrollo en un mundo de redes

Abraira, C. F. & Santamaría, F. (2007). “Creación de comunidades de aprendizaje en entornos de e-learning 2.0: Una experiencia en formación didáctico/matemática de maestros”. In Comunicación y Pedagogía, (223), 9-16. Barcelona: Centro de Comunicación y Pedagogía.
Adell, J. & Castañeda, L. (2010). “Los Entornos Personales de Aprendizaje (PLEs): una nueva manera de entender el aprendizaje”. In Roig Vila, R. & Fiorucci, M. (Eds.),
Claves para la investigación en innovación y calidad educativas. La integración de las Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación y la Interculturalidad en las aulas. Stumenti di ricerca per l’innovaziones e la qualità in ámbito educativo.. Alcoy: Marfil – Roma TRE Universita degli studi.
Baumgartner, P. (2005). “How to choose a Content Management Tool according to a Learning Model”. In elearningeuropa.info, 17 May 2005. Brussels: European Commission.
Borges, F. (2005). “La frustración del estudiante en línea. Causas y acciones preventivas”. In Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (Ed.),
Digithum, Núm. 7. Barcelona: Universitat Oberta de Catalunya.
Cabero, J. (2006). “Bases pedagógicas del e-learning”. In Revista de Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento (RUSC), 3 (1). Barcelona: Universitat Oberta de Catalunya.
Calzada Mujika, I. (2004). Una forma organizativa para intervenir en las organizaciones: Comunidades de Prácticas (CoP). Barcelona: Gestión del Conocimiento.
Carnoy, M. (2004). Las TIC en la enseñanza: posibilidades y retos. Lección inaugural del curso académico 2004-2005. Barcelona: UOC.
D’Antoni, S. (Ed.) (2008). Open Educational Resources: the Way Forward. Paris: UNESCO.
D’Antoni, S. & Savage, C. (Eds.) (2009). Open Educational Resources: Conversations in Cyberspace. Paris: UNESCO.
de Haro, J. J. (2010). Redes sociales en educación. Ponencia para la Jornada Educar para la Comunicación y la Cooperación Social, Universidad de Navarra, 28 de mayo de 2010. [online]: EDUCATIVA.
Downes, S. (2005). The Living Arts: The Future of Learning Online. Moncton: Stephen Downes.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogia do oprimido. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.
Monge Benito, S. (2003). ¿Es aplicable el modelo de producción del software libre a contenidos educativos?. Leioa: Universidad del País Vasco.
Muñoz de la Peña, F. (Coord.) (2009). Eduwikis en el Aula 2.0. [online]: Universidad de León.
Peña-López, I. (2005). e-Learning for Development: a model. ICTlogy Working Paper Series #1. Barcelona: ICTlogy.
Peña-López, I., Córcoles Briongos, C. & Casado Martínez, C. (2006). “El Profesor 2.0: docencia e investigación desde la Red”. In UOC Papers, (3). Barcelona: UOC.
Peña-López, I. (2007). “El portal personal del profesor: El claustro virtual o la red tras las aulas”. In Comunicación y Pedagogía, (223), 69-75. Barcelona: Centro de Comunicación y Pedagogía.
Peña-López, I. & Adell, J. (2010). The Dichotomies in Personal Learning Environments and Institutions. Keynote speech at the Personal Learning Environments (PLE) Conference. Cornellà de Llobregat: Citilab.
Peña-López, I. (2011). De la enseñanza de las instituciones al aprendizaje de las personas. Conferencia en el TEDxUIMP: Desafíos de la Educación en el Siglo XXI, Madrid, 19 de mayo de 2011. Madrid: Universidad Menéndez y Pelayo.
Planella, J. & Rodríguez, I. (Coords.) (2004). “Del e-learning y sus otras miradas: una perspectiva social”. In Revista de Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento (RUSC), 1 (1). Barcelona: Universitat Oberta de Catalunya.
Prieto Castillo, D. & van de Pol, P. (2006). e-Learning comunicación y educación. El diálogo continúa en el ciberespacio. San José: Radio Nederland Training Centre.
Reig, D. (2009). Open Social Learning en España. Aclarando términos. Working Session on Open Social Learning, organized by UOC UNESCO Chair in E-Learning and held in Barcelona, Spain, on June 30th, 2009. Barcelona: El caparazón.
Sen, A. (1980). “Equality of What?”. In The Tanner Lecture on Human Values, I, 197-220. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Serrano, J. & Prats, J. (2005). “Repertorios abiertos: el libre acceso a contenidos”. In Revista de Universidad y Sociedad del Conocimiento (RUSC), Monográfico: “Uso de contenidos digitales: tecnologías de la información, sociedad del conocimiento y universidad”, 2 (2). Barcelona: Universitat Oberta de Catalunya.
Tinio, V. L. (2003). ICT in Education. New York: UNDP.
UNDP (2001). Informe sobre Desarrollo Humano Ecuador 2001. Las tecnologías de información y comunicación para el desarrollo humano. Quito: UNDP.
UNDP (2006). Desarrollo humano en Chile. Las nuevas tecnologías ¿un salto al futuro?. Santiago de Chile: UNDP.
Vygotsky, L. (1991). A formação social da mente. São Paulo: Livraria Martins FontesEditora Ltda..
Vygotsky, L. (2001). Pensamento e Linguagem. São Paulo: Ridendo Castigat Mores.
Welzel, C., Inglehart, R. & Klingemann, H. (2003). “The theory of human development: A cross-cultural analysis”. In European Journal of Political Research, 42 (3), 341-379. Oxford: Blackwell.

CEIBAL books

Báez, M., García, J.M. & Rabajoli, G. (Comps.) (2011). El modelo CEIBAL: Nuevas tendencias para el aprendizaje. Montevideo: ANEP/CEIBAL.
Cyranek, G. (Ed.) (2010). Movilización social para CEIBAL. Miradas al contexto nacional e internacional de proyectos de un computador por niño. Montevideo: UNESCO.
Cyranek, G. (Ed.) (2009). En el camino del Plan CEIBAL: referencias para padres y educadores. Montevideo: UNESCO.
Cyranek, G. (Ed.) (2008). CEIBAL en la sociedad del siglo XXI: referencias para padres y educadores. Montevideo: UNESCO.

CEIBAL evaluation reports

Martínez, A.L., Díaz, D. & Alonso, S. (2009). Primer informe nacional de monitoreo y evaluación de impacto social del Plan Ceibal, 2009. Montevideo: Área de Monitoreo y Evaluación de Impacto Social del Plan Ceibal.
Pérez Burger, M., Ferro, H., Baraibar, A., Pérez, L., Salamano, I. & Pagés, P. (2009). Evaluación educativa del Plan Ceibal 2009. Montevideo: Administración Nacional de Educación Pública.
Pérez Burger, M., Ferro, H., Pérez, L., Salamano, I. & Pagés, P. (2010). Evaluación del Plan Ceibal 2010. Montevideo: Administración Nacional de Educación Pública.
]]> http://ictlogy.net/20120401-education-and-development-in-a-world-of-networks/feed/ 1 http://ictlogy.net/20120313-ipad-for-researchers-and-scholars-the-leap-to-enhanced-reading/ http://ictlogy.net/20120313-ipad-for-researchers-and-scholars-the-leap-to-enhanced-reading/#comments Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:53:03 +0000 Ismael Peña-López http://ictlogy.net/?p=3916 For the last 15 months I have owned an iPad, which I use for many purposes but, mainly, for my academic activity. Every now and then I am asked or find myself involved in a debate on why and how to use an iPad (or, in general, tablets) for research. Although an offtopic in this blog, this post here will save me lots of typing and talking elsewhere.

For the sake of the context, I must say that I am a social scientist working in the crossroads of the Knowledge Society and development, especially in what is related with individual empowerment (education) and social empowerment (governance). I teach at a 100% online university, which means that all my working tools are a computer, some common software and access to the Internet. My professional life is mostly digitized, and gathered in my personal research portal. I mostly do not work with paper and mostly do not work offline. I am quite a fast typist (my liveblogging sessions a proof of it) and have a very light (circa 1,000g) while powerful laptop which I can take anywhere without hesitation. I do not own any Apple computer and do not plan to own one in the nearest future (i.e. I am not an Apple fan).

So, how does an iPad or a tablet fit in this context at the professional level?

Enhanced Reading

Reading it not anymore what it used to be.

Reading used to be sitting with a bunch of papers. Maybe a pen would be handy to scribble some notes on the margins, underline some sentences. Maybe not on the margins, but on a piece of paper. Maybe even on a notebook. You would stand up to look up something on the dictionary or the encyclopaedia. And that was it.

Now reading is, for starters, not knowing what you will be feeling like reading. Maybe it will it be a couple of academic papers, maybe it will be correcting some assignments, or proofreading a paper of yours. Or them all: some trips are long and you want to carry everything with you. What is the weight of 500 pages? And the weight of 5 MB?

Besides the dictionary, or the encyclopaedia, you might search for a description of Aztec god Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli or you might even want to see how Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli looks like; you can wonder how Dexter Gordon and Wardell Gray would sound like when playing before Jack Kerouac or just listen to a live performance by Gordon & Gray; or you can imagine Jon Krakauer’s Stampede Trail or locate it on a map and pay a visit to it.

Now combine everything said above: picture yourself with a dozen papers; reading all them at the same time (those papers with interesting bibliographies…); underlining and taking notes on them; writing some other notes on a separate file which you can tag and categorize and store and search and retrieve; accessing on the go the authors’ personal websites and their curricula and their list of published works; writing a short e-mail to them asking them for a pre-print of a difficult to find paper; forwarding your annotated copy of the paper to a colleague; or copying and pasting a table of data on a spreadsheet to plot some graphics (why hadn’t they in the original paper?).

And that is enhanced reading.

Picture yourself doing all that sitting (or standing) on the train. Or sitting on your couch.

And that is a tablet.

Why not an eReader

I tried several eReader devices based on e-ink before trying the tablet. There are two main reasons why an eReader is not an option for me:

eReaders are very slow for academic papers reading. They may be fair enough to read a book (whatever its kind) whose content has been repaged for your device and for you to turn the pages sequentially, once a minute or two.

But if you are reading a PDF, A4-sized, with footnotes or endnotes and definitely with a bibliography, you will find yourself turning pages very often. Mainly because it is not optimized for the eReader. And also because the eReader is not prepared (yet) for continuous and quick page-turning. And if you want to compare different papers in parallel, the exercise of exiting a paper, opening a new one, closing that one and going back to the former one… that is simply not bearable for the common human being.

The second reason is that, usually, e-readers lack everything that is not strictly for reading purposes: browsing the internet, writing an e-mail or running an application (notebook, spreadsheet, etc.) are not usually supported by e-Readers. And if they are… aren’t we already talking about a table?

An eReader is mainly to read and to read plain text. But academic reading, enhanced reading, is much more than that.

Why not a laptop?

First of all, there is weight. Even if we assume that your laptop does not weight much more than your average tablet (which is quite an assumption), the iPad, one of the heaviest ones, is similar in weight as a 200 pages hardcover. You are already used to handle that weight. The best ultralight laptop will normally double that weight (and cut to a half the autonomy, BTW): if you think a hardcover edition of a book is heavy, try holding a pair of them for more than a while.

Second, there is comfort. Let’s speak only about reading for a while: for reading purposes, the extra keyboard in the laptop and the tactile screen in the tablet make a huge difference. Not only a keyboard is almost useless when reading — almost because you just type scattered notes ‐, but it is only uncomfortable: it takes extra space (and weight) of your surroundings (remember the crowded train: I spend, on average, 2h on it, daily) and key operating is much more difficult than simply touching a screen.

Besides weight and comfort, there is a third aspect, very subjective, but that I have tested several times, and is friendliness.

I’ve been to several “serious” meetings where people brought their laptops to take notes while I tapped and typed on my iPad. Unbelievable as it might sound, laptops all raised suspicion on whether their owners would be taking notes or reading e-mail or checking their preferred social networking site. On your iPad “of course” you are taking notes. Laptops are for writing and working and iPads are for taking notes, and you are supposed to take notes during a meeting.

And the fact that laptops raise a wall (the screen) between the owner and the rest and the iPad does not (because it rests on your lap or almost flat on the table) makes a huge “emotional” difference. Really.

Related to that, working at home is also different. We scientists know that there is no big difference between reading a paper for work or for leisure. But there actually is a tremendous difference between reading that paper in your home studio sitting in front of your desktop, or reading it sprawling on your couch. Especially if you do not live alone and it’s Sunday. Believe it or not, my Sundays or afternoons are very different now.

On the other side, laptops — or desktops — are unbeatable for writing. But we were talking about (enhanced) reading, right?

The added value of the tablet

In my own experience, the main added value of the tablet can be summarized in some keywords: read, notes, train, couch, shoulder bag.

Having get rid of most my paper usage in the last years, with the tablet I succeeded in getting rid of all paper. Period. This means, specifically, getting rid of:

• The annoying collection of separate sheets and stickies with casual notes you will never revisit but never dare to trash: the tablet keeps them all together, searchable and easy to transfer (to other people by e-mail, to more serious documents).
• Printouts of readings with limited life-span (destroy after read): thousands of times more digital documents in your tablet than printed ones in your usual bag, immediate transfer, time and paper saving — and healthier back.

Even more important than working paperless, the tablet provides full mobility, especially if accompanied with an Internet connection (embedded 3G or using your cellphone as a hotspot). And full mobility means that the tablet is always in my shoulder bag. Instead of everything else. The laptop is something you consider bringing with you: the tablet is always with you, as a pen or a notebook used to be.

For those more curious, I’ve shared my setup (or most of it) in the following set of snapshots. Enjoy.

]]> http://ictlogy.net/20120313-ipad-for-researchers-and-scholars-the-leap-to-enhanced-reading/feed/ 2 http://ictlogy.net/20120218-from-micro-evolutions-to-macro-revolutions-icts-in-education/ http://ictlogy.net/20120218-from-micro-evolutions-to-macro-revolutions-icts-in-education/#comments Sat, 18 Feb 2012 11:06:16 +0000 Ismael Peña-López http://ictlogy.net/?p=3912 When we speak about the impact of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) on Education, there are two main approaches that we can follow.

The micro-level approach deals with the impact of ICTs on learning processes and/or the different components of a learning process. The point in the micro-level approach is to tell what the impact will be on how things work and howshould or will they change. The micro-level is about evolutions.

The macro-level approach puts the stress on the system and its foundations. The point in the macro-level approach is to tell what the impact will be on what things work into that system and why. and which will be the new foundations upon to which build a new system. The macro-level is about revolutions.

See, for instance, the following examples, picked at random and with no aim of comprehensiveness:

Item	Micro-level approach Evolution	Macro-level approach Revolution
Teacher	How can the teacher use an interactive whiteboard to support lecturing?	What is the role of the teacher? A mentor? An instructional designer? Who is the teacher? Who is an expert? Is there a need for a teacher?
Student	What is the use of laptops when attending classes or doing homework?	What is a student? Does the dychotomy student-worker still apply? Will ICTs empower people so that they can master their own learning processes?
Textbook	What will be the e-book like? Can it be interactive? Searchable?	Is there any need for a textbook? How can we turn any information resorce into a learning resource? Who should design learning resources? What is the role of publishers in this (new) scenario (if any)?
Classroom	Can we use (or ban) wi-fi in the classroom? For what purposes?	Will meeting physical spaces become irrelevant in a no-time- and no-space-boundaries digital environment? What is the added value of physical gatherings? Is there a reason to keep thinking in terms of classmates and cohorts?
Assessment	What is the best way to apply self-correcting surveys for assessment?	Do we need assessment or certification? Is peer-to-peer assessment possible? Can we redefine reputation and authority in an open Knowledge Society?
Syllabus	Should the syllabus self-adapt according to performance of the student?	Just-in-case or just-in-time learning? Can we unstructure learning?

Both approaches are worth being followed. Most times, there will be no revolution without a well paced set of little evolutions (contradictory as this may sound), and evolutions may eventually lead to sheer revolution when all added up. But. But when a revolution is — a digital revolution, as it now seems to be — clearly coming up in the horizon, time is of the essence: the debates on the evolutions that might be should give way to the debates on the revolutions that may or very likely will be.

Two reflections or corollaries arise from the former statement.

1. The first one is that we have to be able to tell evolutions from revolutions. Statement the like of tablets — or laptops or interactive whiteboards or e-books or iBooks or you-name-it — are going to revolutionize Education are very likely to be either misleading or plain wrong. At least in the way they are usually stated or framed. All the aforementioned examples-in-the-classroom belong to the world if evolution, of innovation: they improve or even radically change the way we do some things, but not things themselves. In other words, tablets may revolutionize lecturing and, as such, make a huge contribution to the evolution of Education. But not revolutionize education.
2. The second one is that if a revolution in Education is about to come — as many people see sings of it, and even work towards it — we certainly should put the focus on systemic changes and not in changes within the system. In other words, we should analyse how evolutions relate to or can contribute to a deep revolution, instead of focusing on evolutions themselves.

It is just normal that, as educators, we feel the urge to deal with the present, with solving the impact of ICTs in our daily lives inside our classrooms. But I believe we should put more effort in looking ahead in the future, in making our evolutions shift towards the path of the systemic change and not in parallel or diverting from it.

During the III European Conference on Information Technology in Education and Society: A Critical Insight (TIES2012) I felt like there was much concern on the micro vision of ICTs in education and just a little bit on the macro side of things. And I sometimes wondered whether that was thinking on your pedicure before having your leg amputated — and, by the way, not having a plan for the upcoming haemorrhage.

]]> http://ictlogy.net/20120218-from-micro-evolutions-to-macro-revolutions-icts-in-education/feed/ 7 http://ictlogy.net/20120214-e-research-social-media-for-social-sciences-revisited/ http://ictlogy.net/20120214-e-research-social-media-for-social-sciences-revisited/#comments Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:02:42 +0000 Ismael Peña-López http://ictlogy.net/?p=3911 On February 15, 2012, I am speaking at a research seminar at the Internet Interdisciplinary Institute on how to use online tools on the process of doing research. This is a very slightly modified version of a former seminar that I did back in January — e-Research: social media for social sciences —, so all the things that were said there apply here: RSS feeds (and a feed reader) are your best friends, a personal website is not an option, adopt tools as you need them (not all of them in a row and without a sense of purpose), and be digital.

Since I began my crusade for the adoption of web 2.0 tools (now social media) to enhance research, I have evolved from the “you do need all this stuff” motto to “you do not need all this stuff… but a couple of things are a must”. So, I would really like to stress a couple of points:

1. In a knowledge society, ICTs are a must. They are a train that you cannot let pass: you will either jump in or you will be crushed under its wheels, but there is no stepping aside. This especially applies for knowledge workers (e.g. scientists). Some people still see the use of some tools (blogs, twitter, RSS feeds) in science as rocket science: this is not even wrong. ICTs are to scientists what tractors are to farmers. Of course you can live without them, but it is very likely that you will be working with less efficiency and less efficacy.
2. Yes, mastering ICTs and those always changing social media require a certain degree of digital competence, which is not innate and, thus, has to be acquired. As the Spanish saying says: there are neither hurries, nor pauses. But lack of digital competence should not stop you from trying to use social media for research (“those ain’t for me”), the same way you began with your elementary maths to end up calculating multinomial logistic regressions.
3. Be digital. Just be it. If you are duplicating your tasks, you are not being digital (enough). Social media is about leveraging what you already did on your computer by putting it online. Your papers, your slides, your notes, your readings… if they’re on digital support, they can be online with minimum effort (if they ere not on digital support, please see point #1). I tend to say that e-Research is about making your “digital life” overlap 90% of your “analogue life”. There is an added 10% extra work, indeed, but it is worth doing it compared to benefits.

[click here to enlarge]

Downloads:


Prezi slides:

Peña-López, I. (2011). e-Research: social media for social sciences. Research seminar at the Internet Interdisciplinary Institute. February 15, 2012. Barcelona: ICTlogy.

Slides as a PDF:

Peña-López, I. (2011). e-Research: social media for social sciences. Research seminar at the Internet Interdisciplinary Institute. February 15, 2012. Barcelona: ICTlogy.

Book chapter:

Peña-López, I. (2009). “The personal research portal”. In Hatzipanagos, S. & Warburton, S. (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Social Software and Developing Community Ontologies, Chapter XXVI, 400-414. Hershey: IGI Global.
]]> http://ictlogy.net/20120214-e-research-social-media-for-social-sciences-revisited/feed/ 0 http://ictlogy.net/20120203-ties2012-xii-educational-policies-on-icts-and-educational-innovation-analysis-of-the-programme-escuela-2-0/ http://ictlogy.net/20120203-ties2012-xii-educational-policies-on-icts-and-educational-innovation-analysis-of-the-programme-escuela-2-0/#comments Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:31:45 +0000 Ismael Peña-López http://ictlogy.net/?p=3905 Notes from the III European Conference on Information Technology in Education and Society: A Critical Insight, in Barcelona, Spain, in January 1-3, 2012. More notes on this event under the tag ties2012.

Educational policies on ICTs and educational innovation: Analysis of the programme Escuela 2.0

(this symposium, coordinated by Manuel Area Moreira, is framed in the research project Las políticas de un “ordenador por niño” en España. Visiones y prácticas del profesorado ante el Programa Escuela 2.0. Una análisis comparado entre Comunidades Autónomas.)

Manuel Area Moreira
An introduction to Escuela 2.0

Escuela 2.0 is a 1-to-1 or one laptop per child project that aims at:

• Offering social equity.
• Develops a national industry in the Knowledge Economy.
• Breaks the isolation of the school.
• Prepares the student to be a XXIst century citizen.
• Enables the innovation of teaching-learning methodologies.

But is technology changing the way we teach and/or students learn? What is being the impact of this project at the methodological level?

Juan de Pablos Pons (Universidad de Sevilla).
Educational policies and good practices with ICTs.

Beyond the typical issues related to infrastructures, it is still difficult that the teachers accept ICTs as an educational tool. And only after this has happened we will be able to talk about producing and/or reusing educational content.

To foster this adoption of ICTs in teaching, a good practices project was started so that actual implementations were shared and, after them, critical elements of success be identified. Good practices, to be qualified as such, must generate a transformation and cause a change.

Good practices were chosen in the field of training, pedagogical guides, teaching innovation, usage of the LMS and international projection.

As an overall conclusion on how the Andalousian teachers felt about Escuela 2.0, they are happy to have more infrastructure, quite well on being able to be trained on the use of instructional technology, but not very confident on the impact of ICTs on teaching.

Cristina Alonso Cano (Universitat de Barcelona).
Policies and practices around ICTs in compulsory education: implications for innovation and improvement.

The consolidated research group “Esbrina, Subjectivitats i Entorns Educatius Contemporanis” (2009SGR 0503) is dedicated to the study of the conditions and current changes in education in a world mediated by digital technologies and visual culture. The research group has a clear goal to acknowledge the potential of ICTs in education.

What should change in policies, schools and people so that the potential of ICTs in education can be realized?

• Questioning policies is a healthy exercise to be able to tell what is causing an impact and what not.
• It is very different to speak about Information and Communication Technologies and Learning and Knowledge Technologies, which ones are we talking about when we speak about technology and transformation in the learning process?
• Local and educational leaders and the community are normally banned from participating in ICT for education policies.

José Miguel Correa Gorospe (Universidad del País Vasco).
Eskola 2.0 Programme: What is it bringing to the educational change in the Basque Country?

(Eskola 2.0 is the Basque version of the Spanish state-wide Escuela 2.0)

Teacher training has been one of the most important flaws of the Eskola 2.0 programme. The programme was also imposed to the Basque school system, ignoring the dynamics of the centres, causing several tensions within the educational system and within schools.

Jesús Valverde Barrocoso (Universidad de Extremadura).
Escuela 2.0: unlearning and transformation vs. continuity and tradition.

During 2002, the region of Extremadura began introducing computers at school, on a one-computer-per-two-children basis. This happened in a much broader initiative (LinEx project) in the region to opt for free software and technological autonomy for the government as a whole, and for the educational system in particular.

Escuela 2.0 had several (and sometimes opposing) goals:

• Academic performance.
• Economic development of a local IT and digital content industry.
• Equity and fight against the digital divide.
• Digital competence.
• Quality of teaching.

Reality in schools: 1/3 of teachers use computers in the classroom on a daily basis, 1/3 use it occasionally, 1/3 never use it. 4/10 teachers use often the interactive digital whiteboard in the classroom.

Related to the methodologia, lectures are still the norm and there is few collaborative work. Indeed, the textbook is the pedagogical resource per excellence, even if there is an increasing demand of digital content.

The role of the IT coordinator is highly valued.

What are the effects of ICTs in the classroom? Above all, engagement. Then, digital competence. And at a distance, some minor improvements in academic performance in general or in some specific tasks.

Hints for the future:

• Flexibility in the kind of resources at the students’ reach.
• Adaptability, getting rid of the syllabus, use of Personal Learning Environments.
• -kess teaching, more learning.
• Sociability, teamworking, networking.
• Creativity.

Ángel San Martin Alonso (Universidad de Valencia).
Educational policies on ICTs and educational innovation: Analysis of the programme Escuela 2.0

When we foster innovation, is it to solve an emerging problem or because we need to keep the wheel of innovation moving and some innovation niches be fed?

Discussion

Teacher training appears on and on during the discussion. There is a total agreement that teachers have to be trained on the application of ICTs in education, on changing curricula, on adapting and transforming learning methodologies. But ICT for Education policies keep on insisting and spending most of the resources in infrastructures.

]]> http://ictlogy.net/20120203-ties2012-xii-educational-policies-on-icts-and-educational-innovation-analysis-of-the-programme-escuela-2-0/feed/ 0 http://ictlogy.net/20120203-ties2012-xi-david-istance-technology-use-and-broader-models-of-schooling-and-learning-common-arguments-re-examined/ http://ictlogy.net/20120203-ties2012-xi-david-istance-technology-use-and-broader-models-of-schooling-and-learning-common-arguments-re-examined/#comments Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:56:23 +0000 Ismael Peña-López http://ictlogy.net/?p=3904 Notes from the III European Conference on Information Technology in Education and Society: A Critical Insight, in Barcelona, Spain, in January 1-3, 2012. More notes on this event under the tag ties2012.

David Istance (Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, OECD)
Technology Use and Broader Models of Schooling and Learning — common arguments re-examined.

ICTs in education have been a matter of analysis and research since 1980s, including lot of work on adults and lifelong learning and technology, role of technology in higher education (especially e-learning), schools, digital literacy, curriculum change, students assessment, equipment, teacher training, leadership, open educational resources, millennium learners, etc.

More recent reports show the importance of digital literacy and competence in two ways: as a tool in itself, and as a means to achieve better performance on traditional disciplines, especially writing and reading.

Innovative learning environments

ILE aims to inform practice, leadership and reform through analysis of innovative configurations of learning for children and young people, on three strands: learning research, innovative cases, and implementation and change.

Learning conclusions. Environments should:

• Make learning central, encourage engagement, and be where learners come to understand themselves as learners.
• Ensure that learning is social and often collaborative.
• Be highly attuned to learners’ motivations and the importance of emotions.
• Be acutely sensitive to individual differences including in prior knowledge.
• Be demanding for each learner but without excessive overload.
• Use assessments consistent with its aims, with strong emphasis on formative feedback.
• Promote horizontal connectedness across activities and subjects, in-and out-of-school.
• All these characteristics should be present, and not just one or two of them.

So, is technology on of the learning principles? Maybe not. Technology is more implicit rather than explicit in the learning ‘principles’. There is the important distinction between technology-centred and learner-centred approaches to learning with technology:

• Fostering engagement.
• Learning with others.
• Supporting targeted respondses to difference and facilitating personalization.
• Underpinning assessment for learning.
• Providing connectedness (to others, to knowledge, etc.).

Motors and locus of innovation in education

OECD (2004). Innovation in the Knowledge Economy: Implications for Education and Learning analysed four sources of innovation or pumps:

• The science pump: knowledge and research.
• Networking pump: creating scale and synergies.
• The reorganisation pump: modular restructuring.
• The technology pump: more efficiency, new ways and means.

Education is not strong on any of these. On the other hand, technology is integral to all of them, not just in the technology pump.

There is a common framework implicit in much research and discussion of schooling an learning: system -> school -> class -> teacher -> learner. But, when we think about innovative learning environments, can we go beyond that framework? Can we go beyond institutional structures? Do we have to assume that institutions are given and are the existing ones? Does non-formal learning has a place in this framework? Can we have a look at the environment, and not at the single school, the single class, the single teacher, etc.?

New dynamics and organisation of learning environments:

• Who: learners.
• With whom: teachers.
• With what: resources.
• What: content.
• How: reorganized learning activities and pedagogies.
• Learning leadership.

This scheme has a result, which is learning, information about learning activities, learners and outcomes, upon which evaluation and assessment can be applied. Learning feedback comes at the end and can be used by the learning leader to restart the whole process.

This learning environment has to be embedded in a wider systemic framework. On the one hand, and at the micro level, it is closely related to the institutional environment. On the other hand, a+dn at the meso level, there are networks of environments and networks of practice. Last, and at the macro level, policy-setting and framing conditions determine the whole system.

The report Connected Minds, from the New Millennium Learners project, compares the competing ‘evangelist’ vs. ‘sceptic’ theses, states that technology and social media are importantly changing social and cultural environment, but there still is no evidence that young people want radically different learning environments. In fact, they want engagement, convenience (any time, anywhere) and enhanced productivity. There is, also, a need for working out the implications of the changing digital world for what schools should do.

How does the future of schooling look like? The OECD schooling scenarios:

• The bureaucratic system continues, and even gets stronger.
• Re-schooling I: Schools as focused learning organisations.
• Re-schooling II: Schools as core social centres.
• De-schooling I: Radical extension of the market model.
• De-schooling II: Learning networks and the Network Society.
• De-schooling III: Teacher exodus and system meltdown.

We need to reflect on what we want education for youth to look like, and see whether we can go beyond a single model (and single stereotype) of school for all aged 3 to 19 y.o. It should be possible to have an intense shared schooling experience, high quality and resourced for 3-13yo (bureaucracy and re-schooling), and diverse experiences, programmes and hybrids for all 14-19 y.o, including basic university (re-schooling and de-schooling).

]]> http://ictlogy.net/20120203-ties2012-xi-david-istance-technology-use-and-broader-models-of-schooling-and-learning-common-arguments-re-examined/feed/ 0 http://ictlogy.net/20120203-ties2012-x-jose-antonio-millan-digital-prostheses-in-education-opportunity-or-consumerism/ http://ictlogy.net/20120203-ties2012-x-jose-antonio-millan-digital-prostheses-in-education-opportunity-or-consumerism/#comments Fri, 03 Feb 2012 07:58:07 +0000 Ismael Peña-López http://ictlogy.net/?p=3903 Notes from the III European Conference on Information Technology in Education and Society: A Critical Insight, in Barcelona, Spain, in January 1-3, 2012. More notes on this event under the tag ties2012.

José Antonio Millán
Digital prostheses in education: opportunity or consumerism?

There are, literally, hundreds of conferences around the world in the field of education, and hundreds of ways to use Web 2.0 tools in the classroom, as a quick search can tell. Almost everything can be used in a classroom. But, why should we?

Thoreau says, in Walden, our inventions are wont to be pretty toys, which distract our attention from serious things. They are but improved means to an unimproved end. So, can we really do now more things we previously could with our new pretty toys? Or are they just distractions?

Teachers tend to suffer from the “shiny penny syndrome”, that is, their attention (and efforts) gets caught by the latest technology or device. It is only natural, but it sometimes falls into technocentrism or technoeuphoria.

Educators should definitely have a critical approach to technologies and just say no to the fast and mindless adoption of the newest technology. That is not being a Luddite, but just do a rational use of technology.

Of course there are pros on the use of ICTs in education:

• Immediate access to huge amounts of information.
• Enhancement of creativity.
• Share and build knowledge collectively.

We have to try not to think on shiny devices and go back to the source instead. Understanding the code, made by people, by real humans, is getting back in touch with what humans intended with the technology they created.

]]> http://ictlogy.net/20120203-ties2012-x-jose-antonio-millan-digital-prostheses-in-education-opportunity-or-consumerism/feed/ 2