ICTlogy Lifestream http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/feed en-us http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Sweetcron ictlogist@ictlogy.net Are assembly-based parties network parties? http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18725 It is difficult to put out a definition of the network party. Maybe — or mainly — because it is much a theoretical construct that does not exist purely in the real world. Any kind of human organization can be characterized, but it will rarely fit the theoretical model: the world is a world of grays. New politics, technopolitics and political parties The Spanish 15M Indignados Movement — and everything that came before it — brought new ways of organization which, later on, some of them, entered the political institutions. 2015 saw witnessed three important elections in Spain — municipalities, the Catalan Parliament, and the Spanish Parliament — to which some new and not-so-new parties concurred. A recurrent debate between new and traditional parties was whether these parties, respectively, were doing “new politics” or “old politics”. One way to define “new politics” was that “new parties” were putting in the political agenda the quality of democracy, sometimes labelled as the “regeneration axe” (in addition to the social or right-left ideological axe). Little to be mentioned here. I personally believe that defending this new axe is a necessary but not sufficient condition or characteristic of new politics. Another way to define “new politics” was that some political parties were assembly-based. That is, decisions are made at the grasroots level, in the party’s general assembly, and the representatives of the part translate them in the institutions. In my opinion, this is not only not new politics, but totally misleading to what technopolitics is bringing to the political arena. First of all, while unheard in most Western democracies, assemblies are anything but new. To say the least, they date from the late XIXth century. This is neither bad nor good: it is just not new. Second, aseemblies might by a part of new politics — or, better put, network parties — but the tool does not make the thing. Following, we will try to describe how three different organizations work: hierarchical parties, assembly-based parties and (despite the difficulty to come up with a proper definition) what a theoretical approach to network parties would look like. Please bear in mind what was said above: theoretical models of organizations do not aim at describing how specific organizations should be or work like, but to understand why the are or work the wey they do. In a world full of grays. Hierarchies Let us propose a very simplified model where only three things occur: electing representatives, making decions and executing them. In a hierarchical party, most things happen in the upper layer of the organization: the lower layer elects their representatives (a secretary general, a secretariat, an executive committee, etc.) and, most of the times, remains outside of the general dynamics of the party. The elected representatives, though, make all decisions and directly or indirectly execute them. Most of the times too — sad as it may sound — these elected representatives do not even inform the members and sympathisers of the party of the decisions made, and of course very rarely consult them on any issues at all. At the end of the political cycle, the representatives are accountable for their successes and failures and can be replaced depending on their performance — usually measured in votes or seats, and not in the programme they put out and the actions they took (tough, of course, both of them had an impact that translated in votes, seats, laws passed, etc.). Click to enlarge Assembly-based parties Aseembly-based parties work almost opposite than hierarchical parties: the assembly meets, deliberates and makes a decision. Then, once the decision is made, the assembly elects some people that will carry on with the decisoin and put it into practice. Oftentimes, these parties have to engage in conversations with other parties, translate the decision into an institution, or simply speak to the media. It is then usual that the same elected representatives emerging from the assembly also play the role of representing the assembly before third parties. Note how the pair electing-deciding is inverted: if hierarchies elected people to decide what to do it and do it, assemblies decide what to do and elect the ones that will do it. As we have already said, things in the real world are much more messy and much less clean. But, in simple lines, this is more or less how it theoretically works. Click to enlarge Network parties Network parties also invert a pair of steps, but it is not electing of deciding, but executing: in network parties, executing comes first. How is that possible? Levy, Himanen, Raymond or Benkler, among others, have explained with details the logics of free software and how they can be translated into other knowledge intensive projects. Like, for instance, politics. In a gift economy, powered by meritocracy and led by do-ocracy people just can set the snowball rolling. If it catches, people will join and the idea, the project, will grow and become imporant. Otherwise, the idea will be tacitly abandoned and people will move onto other ideas and projects to join and contribute to. In (pure) technopolitics, network parties emerge from people making decisions first and then executing them. If the projects grow and communities form, then comes the need for some coordination, for some “benevolent dictator” that may coordinate the efforts, make some punctual decisions. These coordinating person or body is elected by the participants on the projet, either tactitly — based on her own merit — or explicitly, if there is a need to. Sometimes the coordinating body will, as it happened with the assembly-based organizations, play the role of representing the collective. But sometimes it will not, as the collective will also have a collective identity and thus will represent itself without the need of intermediation from a specific body. Click to enlarge Following we can see the three (simplified) models for better comparison. It is worth noting how both assembly-based parties and network (or technopolitics-based) parties invert the relationships of power, bringing the decision-making to the bottom — and unlike traditional or hierarchical parties, which have decision-making at the top. But a crucial difference between assembly-based parties and network parties is where execution happens: in network parties, not only decision-making but also execution is distributed and takes place at the bottom. And this is what makes politics new: not only where decision-making takes place, but also where execution does. Click to enlarge As it has been said, these are “elements rarely found as pure substances”, that is, theoretical (and very much simplified) models whose aim is neither saying how things should work, or how all parties can be distinctively and exhaustively categorized. On the contrary, we may find parties whose inner structure follows a different model depending on the stage, the level at which is is analysed, or even the time or specific task being developed. Thus, it is unlikely to find a party or an organization that perfectly fits the theoretical model, as it is likely to find many parties and organizations that embed in their organizational and operational design several bits of these models. Depending on which one prevails, or leads the culture of the organization, we will be able to generically label them one way or the other. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Are assembly-based parties network parties?

]]>
Fri, 15 Jan 2016 05:24:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/20160115-are-assembly-based-parties-network-parties/
Comentarios al acuerdo de investidura en Catalunya http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18724 Tras tres meses y medio de negociaciones después de las elecciones legislativas catalanas del 27 de septiembre de 2015, las candidaturas de la CUP y Junts pel Sí llegaron por fin a un acuerdo y por fin se ha investido el 130º presidente de Catalunya. El sentimiento generalizado que transmiten análisis, prensa y tertulias es que se ha andado mucho para nada, y que las cosas prácticamente no han cambiado. Gobernará Mas y la CUP se han inmolado sin éxito alguno. Estoy de acuerdo que la CUP ha tenido que ceder. Es lógico: no solamente tenía una séptima parte de los escaños independentistas en el Parlament — y por tanto era improbable, por no decir injusto, que pudiese imponer todas las condiciones — sino que además se trataba de una negociación, donde, por definición, ambas partes suelen ceder algo para no renunciar a aquello que les resulta esencial. Lejos de intentar presentar aquí un balance de ganadores y perdedores, sí querría ponderar el resultado final del acuerdo. Y querría hacerlo porque creo que se entenderá mejor el proceso de negociación, y se entenderá mejor lo que está por venir. Por supuesto, esta es mi opinión personal, no libre de sesgos, per tan objetiva como me ha sido posible. Puntos de partida Empecemos por hacer algunos supuestos. Creo que es aquí donde empiezan a diverger la mayoría de análisis. Creo entender que la CUP ponía sobre la mesa dos cuestiones fundamentales:

Que el Proceso de independencia era prioritatio. Es decir, que el gobierno debía trabajar para hacer avanzar el proceso de independencia. Y que el presidente saliente Artur Mas no podía liderar dicho proceso.

Añado aquí dos cuestiones más:

Que el proceso de independencia, en la etapa actual iniciada alrededor del 10 de julio de 2010, es un proceso con fuerte liderazgo de la sociedad civil, a la que se le han ido añadiendo, después, los partidos políticos. Que la XI Legislatura del Parlament de Catalunya es considerada, al menos por parte de los diputados independentistas, como una legislatura eminentemente constitutyente.

Lo importante de estos supuestos no es tanto si cada uno los comparte o no, sino si sus protagonistas los comparten y, en consecuencia, guían sus actos. Sobre el candidato La primera discusión contra la CUP es que Carles Puigdemont no difiere mucho de Artur Mas: al fin y al cabo, es de Convegència Democràtica de Catalunya. Esta afirmación, creo, no tiene en cuenta algunos de los supuestos anteriores, especialmente el cuarto. Si nos creemos que la cuestión de Mas no iba tanto de quién iba a gobernar, como de quién iba a diseñar un proceso constitutyente, los nombre propios son relevantes aunque pertenezcan al mismo partido.

Frente a las acusaciones de que Artur Mas no era independentista de verdad, sino de pose, Carles Puigdemont ha demostrado serlo desde un buen comienzo, entre otras cosas presidiendo la Asociación de Municipios por la Independencia (AMI). Aunque Artur Mas no tiene cuentas pendientes con la justicia, sí muchos le achacan responsabilidades políticas respecto a los varios casos de corrupción (especialmente de financiación ilegal) de CDC. Ante la duda, és lógico que se quiera apartar a quien haya podido tener responsabilidades en casos de corrupción, poniendo a alguien que difícilmente las ha tenido, por haber estado apartado tanto del Govern como de la gestión del partido. La experiencia de Mas es la típica de un escaldor de partido. No así la de Puigdemont, que viene del municipalismo. Salvando las distancias, es fácil que la CUP se vea más cercana del perfil del segundo que no del primero. Por último, el compromiso y experiencia de Puigdemont en la sociedad civil es extensa, además de reforzar su perfil independentista. Y aunque parecerá una frivolidad, muchos conocieron a Carles Puigdemont en su activismo digital, especialmente a raíz de la iniciativa del ex-presidente del Parlament Ernest Benach de abrir el Parlament a las reces y que acabó llamándose Parlament 2.0. Fue la actividad aperturista de diputados como Puigdemont — entre otros — lo que constituyó un cambio radical en la forma en que la institución informó y comunicó su actividad con los ciudadanos.

En todoes esots puntos es importante no quedarse en lo que Mas y Puigdemont coinciden, sino en lo que no coinciden. Por supuesto, cada uno valorará si las diferencias son mayores que las similitues. A lo que me remitiría al segundo supuesto: la CUP no quería a Mas. Y no lo quería, probablemente, por las diferencias con Puigdemont. Dentro de los parecidos, Mas y Puigdemont son dos animales políticos muy distintos. Anticapitalismo o Procés ¿Cuánta influencia sobre el proceso de independencia ha sacrificado la CUP pidiendo el reemplazo de Mas, y cuánto consigue con el mismo? Esta es una pregunta cuya respuesta jamás sabremos. Los pareceres parecen decantarse hacia que la CUP podría haber desplegado mejor su programa manteniendo su fuerza en el hemiciclo. Sin defender lo contrario, creo que me inclino a, al menos, matizar la fuerza con lo que se afirma la cuestión. De nuevo la clave del asunto es el cuarto supuesto: si la XI Legislatura es una normal — y por lo tanto se necesita un presidente que gobierne — o bien si es una legislatura consituyente — y por tanto el papel del presidente es el de diseñar y construir las instituciones del futurible estado catalán. Ello, unido al primer gran compromiso de la CUP de trabajar por el proceso de independencia, hacen que no esté tan claro dónde había que hacer más incidencia. Y esto es, precisamente, lo que llevó a la CUP a consultar a su asamblea: ante dos objetivos aparentemente contradictorios — o Mas o Proceso —, ¿qué escoger? Y la asamblea no supo decidir. Y los órganos de representación de la lista optaron por el reemplazo de Mas o intentarlo en las urnas. Con el reemplazo de Mas y el acuerdo, se consiguen los dos primeros objetivos. ¿Y el anticapitalismo? ¿No queda en segundo plano? Es claro que queda en segundo plano en términos parlamentarios, pero no así en el diseño de las instituciones, dado que se veía a Mas como un mayor escollo a la hora de diseñar instituciones más igualitarias y justas — no mis palabras, sino lo que se infiere del ideario de la CUP. ¿Y el “secuestro de diputados rehenes” de la CUP que ahora participarán en Junts pel Sí? Se hace difícil ver hasta qué punto es secuestro o no. Para empezar, lo normal habría sido incorporar a la CUP en el gobierno, para así desactivar totalmente su oposición. Entiendo que las experiencias del Tripartit, así como la propia estructura orgánica de la CUP lo desaconsejaban: hubiese supuesto, de facto, meter en el gobierno a la asamblea de la CUP. Para bien, y para mal. Por otra parte, participando la CUP de Junts pel Sí especialmente en temas del proceso de independencia se ata a sí misma al dictado de la mayoría, pero también interviene en el diseño y decisiones desde su misma gestación, mucho antes de que lleguen (totalmente desvirtuadas) a los pasillos del Parlament. En la medida en que se consiga que el diseño constituyente se lleve a la sociedad civil — a través de una comisión mixta, por ejemplo — el Parlamento perderá peso. Todo esto no significa que no haya podido haber una total rendición de la CUP. Sino que, simplemente, está por ver el resultado final, dado que hay argumentos para todos los gustos. Y, recordemos, las dos condiciones no negociables eran Mas y el Proceso. El proceso democrático Un último apunte sobre todo el proceso como la CUP ha gestionado el acuerdo. Muchos ahora dudan de la calidad democrática del mismo. ¿Si había que consultarlo todo, por qué no consultar lo de Puigdemont? En principio, porque no hacía falta. La CUP apareció en escena, como el resto de listas, con un programa. Un programa donde había las famosas líneas rojas de cada partido, así como las que no eran tan rojas. ¿Cuáles eran? Recordemos los dos primeros supuestos: Mas no, Procés sí. A la asamblea se llegó, como se ha dicho, por una aparente incompatibilidad de objetivos programáticos que los diputados no estaban en condición de solucionar. De ahí que se trasladase la decisión a las bases. Puigdemont, no siendo Mas, no era objeto de debate, ya que la CUP ya había acordado investir a todo aquél que no fuese Mas. Vale la pena hacer un último apunte para comprender el proceso de independencia en Catalunya. A pesar de las luchas fraticidas en pasillos y redes sociales, la sociedad civil ha conseguido una cosa importante: centrarse en lo que une a los independentistas, y dejar para más adelante lo que los separa. En los momentos críticos aparecen las diferencias, claro, pero cuando se cierran las aguas, se aprietan las filas. Es lo que sería previsible ver ahora, tanto en la calle como en el Parlament como incluso dentro de las listas, la CUP la primera. Esta entrada publicada originalmente en SociedadRed como Comentarios al acuerdo de investidura en Catalunya

]]>
Mon, 11 Jan 2016 06:21:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/sociedadred/20160111-comentarios-al-acuerdo-de-investidura-en-catalunya/
Histography - Timeline of History http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18722 Tue, 05 Jan 2016 21:52:00 -0800 http://histography.io/ PROMPTWAVE | Collaboration towards a better world http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18723 Via Albert Cañigueral

]]>
Tue, 05 Jan 2016 02:19:00 -0800 http://promptwave.com/es/
Escuela y tecnología: ¿sí o no? http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18721 En su informe Students, Computers and Learning. Making the Connection, la OCDE nos volvía a recordar que los ordenadores, tabletas o teléfonos inteligentes en el aula, por sí mismos, no aportan nada. E, incluso, pueden resultar perjudiciales. Los medios se apresuraron hacer titulares afirmando la inutilidad de los ordenadores, obviando la parte del “por sí mismos”. Pero vale la pena detenerse un momento a pensar, aquí, sobre qué hacen y qué no hacen los ordenadores en el aula, en los claustros, en las familias. Apuntamos cuatro factores. El primer factor a tener en cuenta con las Tecnologías de la Información y la Comunicación es que incrementan la eficiencia y la eficacia de todo lo que tiene que ver con (redoble de tambor) la información y la comunicación. Es decir, con todas aquellas tareas intensivas en conocimiento. Es decir, en el aprendizaje. Si bien las competencias digitales pueden acabar no siendo una ventaja competitiva (como hoy lo es leer o escribir), sí serán (o son ya) una desventaja competitiva en quien no las domina. Menor eficiencia y eficacia a la hora de, por ejemplo, trabajar, significa, a corto plazo, perder el trabajo, o no encontrar uno nuevo. El segundo factor es estar conectado. Pero no a Internet. No: conectado a la sociedad. En una sociedad cada vez más en red, estar en contacto (a menudo permanente) con empresas, compañeros de trabajo, amigos y familia, proveedores de servicios de ocio, políticos y partidos y sindicatos, etc. significa no ser un excluido social. Y sí, la socialización, cada vez más, pasa por Internet. Y la exclusión social es, también, un importante factor de fracaso escolar. Eficiencia y eficacia en el desarrollo personal y socialización estarán cada vez más relacionadas con un tercer factor: aprender a lo largo de la vida, saber adaptarse al cambio. Este aprendizaje, por construcción, pasa cada vez más fuera de los espacios formales educativos (escuela, universidad). Si las TIC no tienen un impacto en el sistema educativo, sin lugar a dudas sí lo tienen ya en el no-sistema de aprendizaje informal que supone el lugar de trabajo, el ocio o la familia. Aprendemos constantemente. O deberíamos hacerlo. Pero es que también podemos aprender diferente a los centros. Las TIC permiten recuperar una cierta soberanía sobre el propio proceso de aprendizaje. Y eso es lo que nos dicen la OCDE y muchos otros investigadores en el ámbito de la tecnología educativa: tenemos que hacer los estudiantes más autónomos, más dueños de su propio aprendizaje. El término técnico es heutagogía. Así, tengamos cuidado con los ordenadores en el aula: por sí mismos, no aportan nada. Pero sí son catalizadores de una gran revolución en el aprendizaje. Una revolución que, si nos perdemos, nos hará ineficientes, ineficaces, excluidos sociales, obsoletos y serviles. Ahí es nada para haber tildado la tecnología de inútil. Entrada originalmente publicada el 26 de diciembre de 2015, bajo el título Escola i tecnologia: sí o no? en Saps que…. Todos los artículos publicados en esa revista pueden consultarse aquí bajo la etiqueta saps_que. Esta entrada publicada originalmente en SociedadRed como Escuela y tecnología: ¿sí o no?

]]>
Tue, 29 Dec 2015 21:10:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/sociedadred/20151230-escuela-y-tecnologia-si-o-no/
La CUP ante 1978 http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18720 Condicionar el per sempre a una legislatura, cortesía de Gargotaire Esta mañana la CUP se reúne en asamblea para decidir si acepta la propuesta de pacto de Junts pel Sí, lo que incluye la investidura como president de la Generalitat de Artur Mas. A pesar de las tremendas diferencias entre los dos momentos en el tiempo, así como las diferencias entre sus protagonistas, existen ciertas similitudes en el proceso que puede iniciarse esta mañana en Catalunya con el que tuvo lugar en 1978 en España. En muchos sentidos, hoy puede iniciarse la andadura hacia un proceso constituyente. Y es en este sentido desde el que creo que es más fácil explicar las renuncias que tiene que afrontar la CUP. (Abro paréntesis para insistir, otra vez, en las diferencias: es evidente que ni lo que deja atrás Catalunya es una dictadura, ni mucho menos Convergència Democràtica de Catalunya — CDC — tiene nada que ver con el franquismo. Hecha esta aclaración, prosigamos.) A grandes rasgos, las opciones que hay sobre la mesa son dos:

Primero el Estado, y después ya veremos. Esta es la opción de quienes defienden el acuerdo y la presidencia de Mas. El principal argumento es que la consecución de un estado propio es de caudal importancia, pudiendo quedar en segundo término otras cuestiones. Añade, además, el argumento, que el “color” de la política que se dará en dicho nuevo estado dependerá en cada caso del resultado de las futuribles elecciones legislativas en dicho estado. La segunda opción es el veto a Mas — y, en cierta medida, a CDC — como condición sine qua non para un pacto. Y, en caso contrario, arriesgarse a ir a unas nuevas elecciones, con el riesgo de que arrojen resultados peores para el independentismo, que ahora tiene mayoría absoluta en el Parlament.

Este último punto, escrito como mera oposición a una persona, tiene sin duda algo de caricaturesco. Incluso de antojo. Y así ha sido presentado en prensa y debates diversos a menudo. Tiene, no obstante, mucho fundamento — que puede compartirse o no, claro está — si se pone en contexto. Y ahí viene el paralelismo con el proceso constituyente que entre 1977 y 1978 condujo a la aprobación de la Constitución Española de 1978. Hay dos grandes críticas que se hacen a dicho proceso constituyente, críticas que se arrastran hoy en día y que, en muchos aspectos, son lo que genera un creciente malestar sobre sus efectos y la dificultad de paliarlos:

Que se hizo sin pasar cuentas con el pasado, porque lo que entonces convenía era salir hacia adelante como fuese. Que tuvo un diseño muy determinado precisamente por esas cuentas del pasado sin saldar.

Estos dos puntos son, precisamente, los que muchos simpatizantes de la CUP traen ahora a colación ante el nombramiento de Artur Mas, actualizados a la Catalunya de 2015 y, por supuesto (y como se ha dicho antes) con actores distintos (y mucho mejores) que los que protagonizaron la dictadura fascista.

El primer punto no es baladí: la CUP está (casi) en las antípodas de CDC en materia de economía y sociedad. La lista de reproches a la gestión de CDC desde la CUP es extensa y, en muchos casos, profunda — la gestión de Interior, los suministros energéticos o de agua o la gestión de la Sanidad no son para nada matices menores a la hora de ver las cosas entre ambos partidos. Parece lógico que se quieran pasar cuentas con el pasado, con la legislatura pasada, especialmente cuando se da el caso que, por ir en coalición con ERC, la rendición de cuentas fue esquiva durante la campaña electoral. Se añade a la evaluación de la gestión en el gobierno la cuestión de la corrupción de CDC y CiU. Si bien no hay casos abiertos contra el mismo Artur Mas, no son pocos los que le achacan, como mínimo, la responsabilidad política de algunos casos, especialmente los vinculados a la financiación del propio partido.

Dicho lo anterior, el segundo punto cobra especial relevancia. Visto en perspectiva independentista, de lo que aquí se trata no es de darle un color u otro a una legislatura, sino de determinar quién va a diseñar las instituciones del hipotético estado catalán. Es decir, de cómo va a ser el proceso constituyente. Si el independentismo catalán (y vasco) lleva 40 años quejándose del diseño salido de 1978, es lógico que no quiera cometer el mismo error en 2015. De ahí la insistencia contra Mas — y contra CDC — y de ahí que lo que ilustra la viñeta que encabeza este apunte probablemente no refleje todos los complejos matices del momento. Un proceso constituyente es de todo menos neutral, y va a marcar el futuro de todas las legislaturas, no solamente la primera.

Pals a les rodes, cortesía de Adrià Fontcuberta Este segundo punto es, a mi parecer, el más importante. Y el que marca la diferencia con aproximaciones estrictamente coyunturales — una legislatura no puede marcar un estado — de otras mucho más estructurales — hay que hacer el proceso constitucional con el máximo de garantías posibles: ni corrupción ni sesgos ideológicos sin contrapeso. Así es, el dilema que ante sí tiene la CUP es prácticamente insalvable: puede que para no encallar el proceso de independencia tenga que renunciar a contrapesar el proceso mismo; y puede que para tener un proceso constituyente sin rémoras del pasado, tenga que renunciar al proceso. Este es el dilema, y no el tratar de imponer o no determinadas condiciones de coyuntura económica y social. Dicho esto, no deja de sorprender que la CUP no haya propuesto — al menos no de forma clara y directa, aunque ha habido alguna aproximación tangencial — lo que podría ser el golpe de sable sobre el nudo gordiano: desposeer al gobierno y al parlamento del poder constituyente, y hacer recaer todo el poder constituyente en la sociedad civil. Al fin y al cabo, muchas de las cuestiones más delicadas del proceso de preparación del estado propio van a transitar por una delgada línea entre la legalidad y la alegalidad — cuando no en la total ilegalidad. Dado el estrecho margen de actuación legal, así como el compromiso en el que se van a poner las instituciones catalanas, sería doblemente beneficioso descargar — como ya ha sucedido en otras fases del proceso independentista — buena parte del peso sobre la sociedad civil. Habría que renunciar, sí, a liderar el proceso, así como a poder conducirlo políticamente hacia los varaderos del interés de cada partido; pero por otra parte sería un proceso mucho más legitimado por ser más participado, y haría de la desobediencia civil un instrumento también más legítimo, por realizarse por individuos (que es la esencia de la desobediencia civil) y no por instituciones, lo que siempre conlleva un problema de representatividad. A menudo se compara la CUP con el movimiento del 15M y a menudo el veredicto es que tienen parecidos pero también diferencias. Esta es una: a la CUP todavía le cuesta demasiado el (admitámoslo: muy difícil) equilibrio entre la calle y las instituciones. La CUP es asemblearia, sí, pero está lejos de actuar con lógica de red, donde las instituciones son un nodo de la misma: no más, pero tampoco menos. Esta entrada publicada originalmente en SociedadRed como La CUP ante 1978

]]>
Sun, 27 Dec 2015 00:08:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/sociedadred/20151227-la-cup-ante-1978/
El voto electrónico es una utopía http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18719 Sun, 20 Dec 2015 04:15:00 -0800 http://www.uoc.edu/portal/es/uoc-news/actualitat/2015/206-e-vot.html Las propuestas de #transparencia de Civio, en los principales programas electorales | civio.es http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18717 Sat, 19 Dec 2015 23:23:00 -0800 http://www.civio.es/2015/12/las-propuestas-de-transparencia-de-civio-en-los-principales-programas-electorales/ From #ePortfolios to  #OpenLedgers — via #OpenBadges and #BlockChains | Learning Futures http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18718 Sat, 19 Dec 2015 23:19:00 -0800 http://www.learningfutures.eu/2015/12/from-eportfolios-to-openledgers-via-openbadges-and-blockchains/ diaridetarragona.com - Tarragona, con 190.000 votantes indecisos, es la provincia más incierta http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18715 Thu, 10 Dec 2015 01:52:00 -0800 http://www.diaridetarragona.com/tema-del-dia/53331/tarragona-con-190000-votantes-indecisos-es-la-provincia-mas-incierta The networked educator — an approach from distributed leadership http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18714 Most of the definitions about the networked educator — or the networked teacher — are clearly biased towards tools: if you one uses a specific set of tools for education, then one is a networked teacher. This is, in my opinion, a very narrow approach to what has been called the “teacher 2.0” or, in more general terms, “education 2.0”. In El Profesor 2.0: docencia e investigación desde la Red (Teachers 2.0: teaching and researching from the Net, 2006), my colleagues César Córcoles, Carlos Casado and I stated that a teacher is, above all, a researcher, and that some digital tools constituted a new framework for collaboration among researchers and that this new frameworks allowed to increase their communication and motivation capacity in the classroom, and to optimise the efforts devoted to searching for information, collaborative work and the communication of their results. That is: it is not tools, but usage, what constitutes the basic foundations of a an academic panorama with greater collaboration between peers and a natural evolution of the current meritocracy system. It is not using blogs, or microblogs, or social bookmarks, or online video, or whatever the tool, but how and what for one will use them. And, most especially how will that affect one’s own tasks, organization and decision-making. Distributed leadership Eric S. Raymond and Yohai Benkler, among others, remind us that one of the deepest impacts of the digital revolution is the increase in the granularity of tasks, that is, how big tasks can be split in smaller tasks in ways that were not either possible, effective or efficient in prior times. This increase of granularity usually leads to more actors doing things and in separate ways, almost immediately leading to people making decisions on their own, in a decentralized or even distributed way. A first approach to this distributed leadership can be illustrated with an example. In a world without Internet, a teacher will usually prepare their own material and teach with it. With Internet, is much more possible that someone will prepare a given material (create), make it available to others (share) and a third party will bring it to their lecture (use). Of course, this already happened with the internet (publishers made textbooks, librarians piled them up, lecturers used them), but the scale at which this can happen with the Internet is potentially different by several orders of magnitude. And not only the scale — in quantitative terms — but the qualitative terms can be dramatically changed too: while a publisher can prepare some educational resource and distribute it top-down to a group of lecturers, a real community of practice can prepare that very same resource, each one of the members contributing with their fraction of knowledge, and use the result while retaining the freedom to chose, adapt, edit, improve, etc. before, during or after the use. A hierarchic, individualistic, world of educators Let us simplify how educators work in a traditional world. The simplification has no implicit judgement, but aims at trying to make things more understandable. Usually, a teacher lectures. To do so, she can either use a textbook from an instructional designer — that sells her work to a publisher that sells the book to the teacher or the school —, or use other resources from a library or any other archive (which is usually fed by the very first instructional designer. Of course, there are many variations and shades of grey to this scheme but, in general terms, it looks very much like this: Click to enlarge The networked educator — an approach from distributed leadership Let us now go up the ladder of complexity:

The solipsistic model: an individual teacher does it all. Mostly, lectures live, like in the oral tradition. A hierarchy does it all, distributes directly or indirectly (through archivists such as libraries) supporting resources to the teacher, which applies them to her lectures. All tasks of the creation, sharing and using processes are split among different actors, most of them shifting roles every now and then.

The last step can be drawn like this: Click to enlarge Instead of a linear, directed way of doing things, of making decisions, here tasks overlap and actors change roles constantly, thus generating different hybrid roles. Besides the three traditional/simple ones — instructional designer, archivist, lecturer — others add to the set:

The creative educator is the one that can create educational resources, and then put them into use in her own lectures; but it can also be a teacher that is able to store what she is doing in the classroom: notes that become a textbook, a taped lecture that becomes courseware. The open lecturer makes publicly available the results of her lectures… or of the classrooms work (e.g. open wikis where collaborative work happens); but also is able to find existing resources that can be applied in to her classroom. The open editor creates content that is made publicly available. If made on purpose, so that a certain model can be replicated, I call it franchiser.

But the most important actor is the one that lies on the middle of the scheme, the one that is able to do — and actually does — it all.

The networked educator (I prefer it to networked teacher, because one can educate without teaching) easily shifts from creation to sharing, and from sharing to implementation, and so on. And, indeed, she usually even transforms the individual tasks that were formerly well established. Thus, sharing can no more be something about making available through archiving, but also being a curator of content, or a hub through which one can find more and better content.

This is, of course, a very very simplistic approach to this issue. But it is helping myself to identify the tasks that make up education (and learning) and how can technology subvert the dynamics of the educational process, which is, to me, the most interesting impact of the digital revolution in learning and most especially in the educational system. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as The networked educator — an approach from distributed leadership

]]>
Mon, 07 Dec 2015 11:59:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/20151207-the-networked-educator-an-approach-from-distributed-leadership/
Ismael Peña-López: “És molt injust demanar resultats al 15-M en només quatre anys” http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18713 Fri, 04 Dec 2015 07:44:00 -0800 http://www.ara.cat/especials/arafem5anys/entrevista-ismael-pena-lopez-indignats-15m_0_1475852426.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=ara Thesis Defence. Arnau Monterde: Emergence, evolution and effects of the 15M network movement (2011-2015): A technopolitical approximation http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18712 Thesis defence by Arnau Monterde entlitled The integration of the uses of digital technology in adult persons in their training activities at the university, in Barcelona at the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya. December 22, 2014. Arnau Monterde: Emergence, evolution and effects of the 15M network movement (2011-2015): A technopolitical approximation Methodology

To investigate the 15M Spanish Indignados movement in the network society. Systemic and multiscale approximation. Situated and networked research: technopolitical practices, collaborative knowledge building, online/offline interaction. Methodological combination: quantitative analysis (15M2014 survey); network analysis (Twitter, Facebook, hyperlinks); qualitative analysis (in depth interviews); participatory observation.

Emergence of the 15M Emergence: the whole cannot be explained after the parts, but has to be approached differently. The 15M begins its formation before the 15 May 2011: with the Sinde Law, the NoLesVotes movement, Democracia Real Ya, etc. The 15M is organized on the Internet between February and May 2011, after the prior technopolitical movements. It conquers the street after consolidating online. But why does the 15M bursts? The Arab Spring and the events at Tahrir Square are very important, being these factors multipied by what happens on social networking sites. The main factor, though, is lack of democracy (or lack of quality democracy), and not the economic crisis — which is a factor, but not as important as democracy or corruption. Besides determinants, the form is also very important: the decentralization and distribution of the movement play a very important role, as emotions also do: both hope and indignation are very important parts of the movement. Last, but not least, language will play also a role in the movement, mostly in first person, transversal, inclusive, affirmative, easy to own. Communication Indeed, technology will be crucial both for organization and communication, with many different tools and uses, including a meta-debate of what technologies and what for, about technological empowerment, autonomy, technological sovereignty. There is a synchronous multichannel communicative ecosystem. Networks will be new space of socialization and collective action. On the other hand, media seem to be quite out of the debate, not even being able to capture and explain what is actually happening. In the meanwhile, the movement evolves on a multilayer basis, where none of the participants will only participate in just a single platform/layer. There is, thus, no distinction between online and offline: layers overlap constantly and are chosen depending on the task to be done, on the level of engagement that it requires, the goals to be achieved at any given time, etc. And when layers synchronize, the movement begins to walk. Evolution of the 15M Most people think that the 15M has changed and evolved from its origins, but there is a consensus that the movement is still relevant in the public agenda. 84.5% of the participants (in the survey) still have an interest in the 15M and form a collective identity. Even more important, whatever the initiative linked to the 15M analyzed, the same communities and collective identities arise. There is an open, transversal, systemic and dynamic identity of the 15M, which cannot be reduced neither to the aggregation of the individuals nor to the personaization of the connective action. Technologies Evolution of multiple technologies, especially pads, videostreaming and Twitter. Centrality of technologies for a political use. Usages are multiple, but allowing the accumulation of learning to better use technology, especially to find out the most appropriate users. Different networks: structural (for inner organization) vs. functional (for a specific purpose). Within the networks, there is a high functional specialization, always collaborating and not competing. With dynamics of continuity (where they are active) and discontinuity (when they remain in stand-by, but not dismantled). Sinchronization of netwokrs and a strong dialogue between structural and functional networks. Temporal distributed leadership: networks take the lead depending on the initiative. Multitudinous and networked self-organization, self-consciousness of the 15M, temporarily (synchronicity and latency). Impact on politics Institutions will not let the movement in, added to an institutional counterpart will help to give the impression that the movement is not reaching out or making an impact. But as time goes by, there are events that are difficult to explain without the 15M, such as the crisis of bipartidism, some political practices, the appearance of new political parties, etc. For instance, network analysis shows how Podemos during the European Elections seems to be “adscribed” to the movement. In the case of the local elections, the integration of some parties is even higher, with dynamics of some parties very much like the 15M. Other impacts: open voting lists, collaborative crowdfunding, transparency, open elaboration political programmes, local parties that partly come from the “plazas” and act alike, autonomy of the local parties without a central hierarchy, etc. On the cons part, the frontier between parties and movements blur, there is a tension between the institutional and the movement tempos, etc. The 15M will not create new parties, but will set the conditions upon which new parties will emerge. Conclusions

Centrality of the interaction of the 15M with the technologies of network communication. The evolution of the 15M after the uses of the networks, action and organization. The 15M transforms the conditions of the electoral arena. Technopolitial contribution to the study of th 15M and its evolution.

Discussion Joan Subirats: how to identify the phenomenon of technopolitics? Besides the techno- part, what happens with the -politics part? Is it “new politics”? Monterde: it is difficult to delimit what technopolitics is, because there neither is a beginning not an end to it: it just evolves. Notwithstanding, the analysis that the research of content, emotions, organizations, programmes and proposals, etc. clearly have a political weight. This includes the reasons for the different actors and platforms to participate in the movement and the events around it. But it is important to note that in technopolitics the most important aspect is the how, not the what. The movement is built after the practices. So, its the form that constitutes the 15M, not the content: the political programme is not put in the middle, although it of course exists. Paolo Gerbaudo: differences and similarities between traditional (and new) parties and the movement? What are the organizational challenges and dilemmas? Marina Subirats: what happens with leadership? It was about distributed leadership, but Podemos is as traditional as any in terms of leadership. Monterde: the logics of the many new and old parties are very different, and in the field of political parties there are many factors that converge upon them to force a change. And it is very difficult — if not impossible — to make a simple statement about their relationships with the movement. There is not a single relationship of causality between the 15M and how it evolves into the parties: there are a lot of correlations, but not an identified causality. The issue of leadership is that our political culture strongly pressures towards identifying a unique leader, and this does not come from the movement, where leadership is very much different. Joan Subirats: who is part of the movement? What is a collective identity? Can we define this? Monterde: What the research aims at answering is that there are many factors why people join, act, participate, leaves the movement, comes back to it, etc. Joan Subirats: what it’s at stake in the debate of the 15M is representation. How is that solved by the evolution of the 15M? Monterde: quite often, it is active participation what decides membership and, in some terms, representation. You do something, you somewhat represent the movement. But it is true that this is a very difficult aspect of the movement and its relationship with representation, especially a shift towards institutional representation. Indeed, the most crucial aspect is not representation, but de-representation: how can we articulate measures and policies that work towards a de-representation (a de-institutionalization, a de-intermediation, etc.) of politics and civic action: direct democracy, participatory and deliberative democracy, etc. Marina Subirats: what is the relationship with the Catalan Independentist movement? Monterde: part of the research heavily relies on the 15M2014 Survey, which is Spain-wide. The factor does appear in answers coming from Catalonia, but it is not relevant elsewhere. And even if the topic is dealt with during the camps, after the camps and during interviews, the issue disappears from the agenda of the 15M. Marina Subirats: where is the ideology in the 15M movement? Did they read the “main authors”? Or did they pretend to begin from scratch? Monterde: 50% of the participants meet their very first political experience during the 15M, and many more describe the 15M more than an agora where to debate, a school where to learn politics. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as Thesis Defence. Arnau Monterde: Emergence, evolution and effects of the 15M network movement (2011-2015): A technopolitical approximation

]]>
Fri, 04 Dec 2015 04:47:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/20151204-thesis-defence-arnau-monterde-emergence-evolution-and-effects-of-the-15m-network-movement-2011-2015-a-technopolitical-approximation/
APROPIATIC (VII). Peter C. Mantell: the future of online education http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18716 Notes from the VI Encuentro académico: Apropiatic. Uso y apropiación de la tecnología para el aprendizaje, organized by UNIMINUTO, and held in Bogotá, Colombia, on November 30 and December 1, 2015. Peter C. Mantell Learning affords us to figure out what works all by ourselves. Gamification is changing the market of education. Offers a potential strategy for improving engagement. Gamification is about:

Freedom to fail. Rapid feedback. Story telling.

m-Learning, or mobile learning provides more immediacy than regular e-learning, it provides an open gate to real time. Smartly is an m-learning, gamification-inspired, learning service that provides educational video, with bite-sized chunks to be consumed on the go. Short lessons that take 5-10 minutes to complete, low bandwidth to consume, hand-crafted for mobile consumption. We need a way to test the students without them noticing that they are being tested, with constant interactions with the content, with continuous feedback. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as APROPIATIC (VII). Peter C. Mantell: the future of online education

]]>
Tue, 01 Dec 2015 11:32:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/20151201-apropiatic-vii-peter-c-mantell-the-future-of-online-education/
APROPIATIC (VI). Ismael Peña-López: Unfolding educational institutions. Strategies and tools for networked learning http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18710 Notes from the VI Encuentro académico: Apropiatic. Uso y apropiación de la tecnología para el aprendizaje, organized by UNIMINUTO, and held in Bogotá, Colombia, on November 30 and December 1, 2015. Ismael Peña-LópezUnfolding educational institutions. Strategies and tools for networked learning Slides: If your browser does not support iframes, please visit https://prezi.com/gra8oqbf6hfn/desplegando-las-instituciones-educativas-estrategias-y-herramientas-para-aprender-en-red/ [click here to enlarge]

Downloads:

Slides in PDF: Peña-López, I. (2015). Desplegando las instituciones educativas: Estrategias y herramientas para aprender en red. VI Encuentro académico: Apropiatic. Uso y apropiación de la tecnología para el aprendizaje en UNIMINUTO, 30 de noviembre y 01 de diciembre de 2015, Bogotá. Bogotá: Uniminuto.

Slides in Prezi: Peña-López, I. (2015). Desplegando las instituciones educativas: Estrategias y herramientas para aprender en red. VI Encuentro académico: Apropiatic. Uso y apropiación de la tecnología para el aprendizaje en UNIMINUTO, 30 de noviembre y 01 de diciembre de 2015, Bogotá. Bogotá: Uniminuto.

This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as APROPIATIC (VI). Ismael Peña-López: Unfolding educational institutions. Strategies and tools for networked learning

]]>
Tue, 01 Dec 2015 09:49:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/20151201-apropiatic-vi-ismael-pena-lopez-unfolding-educational-institutions-strategies-and-tools-for-networked-learning/
APROPIATIC (V). Larry Cooperman: Higher Education, Virtual Education, Open Education http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18709 Notes from the VI Encuentro académico: Apropiatic. Uso y apropiación de la tecnología para el aprendizaje, organized by UNIMINUTO, and held in Bogotá, Colombia, on November 30 and December 1, 2015. Larry CoopermanHigher Education, Virtual Education, Open Education Martin Trow (Reflections on the transition fro elite to mass to universal access: forms and phases of higher education in modern societies since WWII, 2007) reflects on how attitudes before access and functions of higher education have changed as we move from bringing higher education to an elite (0-15% of the population), to the masses (15-50%) to providing it universally (>50%).

Attitudes before access move from being a privilege, to a right to some qualified ones to an obligation. Functions of higher education move from being a preparation for the roles of the elites, to the transmission of skills and a preparation for some technical and economic functions, to adapting the whole population to a quick social and technological change.

Though, some problems arise: the university system cannot accommodate everyone aiming at accessing higher education. What the university can offer — content, experience, certification — usually comes with a trade-off with quality. And, thus, quality has decreased in the higher education system. More people gets in the system, the level of education remains stable (or decreases) and less (in relative terms) people graduates. There is a new iron triangle: access, cost and success. But now we have the Internet. Now what? What should be done in higher education, given those problems and the fact that we now have the Internet? A first answer was open courseware: digitize all the existing “knowledge” and make it available for free. Now, MOOCs have brought yet another debate on the table, again related to access. But access to what? Is there an instructional path? Does even having an instructional path equal learning? Four aspects for the debate about MOOCs:

Do they scale? How do we manage the huge amount of data that they generate? Do they represent a different pedagogic approach? Where are the learning outcomes?

Weaknesses of the MOOC model:

Traditional/handmade model of instructional design. Why are we still working individually in teaching and instructional design? MOOCs reproduce the lecture hall and reproduces it online: videos, quizzes… they are not much different — from a pedagogic point of view — from the traditional way. Not that it is wrong, but can we go a step further? For instance, we know that active learning is much better for the building of new knowledge. Inability to produce relevant research. For instance, we do know that socialization plays an important role in learning, but most MOOCs do not take that into account. Many of them ignore the possibilities of study groups. P2P virtual environments are based on social networks. Peers help each other to learn how to learn. How are MOOCs approaching this fact?

What about scale? Communities of experts, co-creation models, are very much related with communities of learning. Thus, learning environments should not be intimate. About research, one has to begin to put the right questions, and then gather data to try to answer them. Like what is the best predictor of academic performance in the last year of undergrad education. Is it family income? Social class? How well they did in their admission test? Other factors? In the future, one would like to see communities of experts that make up the curricula and then inform communities of learners. A community of learners should be supported at any time by a community of experts that can, in an informal environment, help them through their learning process: peer-based learning environments. We need open information, we need problems that need being solved in groups. There are digital platforms — or mixes of digital tools — that come very handy to create these P2P learning environments. Combine technology, virtuality and openness, to be used by individuals, by classrooms, by institutions or by groups of peers. This is what is being done at UCI OpenChem. Discussion Q: what elements should MOOCs have to (a) guarantee learning and to (b) reduce drop out rates? Cooperman: there has to be interaction among the peers. The key of learning is about facilitating communities of learning, P2P learning environments. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as APROPIATIC (V). Larry Cooperman: Higher Education, Virtual Education, Open Education

]]>
Tue, 01 Dec 2015 07:48:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/20151201-apropiatic-v-larry-cooperman-higher-education-virtual-education-open-education/
APROPIATIC (IV). Larry Cooperman: Open education: what is it, why is it, for whom is it and how to begin http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18708 Notes from the VI Encuentro académico: Apropiatic. Uso y apropiación de la tecnología para el aprendizaje, organized by UNIMINUTO, and held in Bogotá, Colombia, on November 30 and December 1, 2015. Larry CoopermanOpen education: what is it, why is it, for whom is it and how to begin Activity: What is the topic more difficult to understand for my students at the introductory level of my teaching? Look for a resource that can help them understand the topic in an easy way and with no additional cost. Answers:

[my answer] In e-Government, ironically it is difficult to define the context and all the different approaches to the topic. So I invite them to follow some given hashtags (one of them the one belonging to the subject I am teaching) so that they get on with the community of practice that works in this field. A video about the physics of power by Foucault. Use of mindmapping tools to create conceptual networks. See films and then comment them on a hangout. Grammar assignments for free available on a website.

Most of the materials that we find online are copyrighted and cannot actually be used for education. The idea behind open education is to eliminate the frictions between copyright holders and users of educational materials. How to use materials without permission? With a license. But open content is only a small fraction of what constitutes open education. Open education is about resources, tools and practices within a participatory open framework to improve access to education. Without sharing there is no education. Why should open content be free (as in free beer)? Is it enough for open content to be free?

Free, but quality content. Context matters. Knowledge is a social construction, comes from dialogue, thus cannot be captured or enclosed. It’s not about being free, but accessible. Again, social context matters: content is neither teaching nor learning. Comprehensiveness or completion: content has to be enough to achieve a certain learning goal, not require extensions, enhancements or upgrades.

Whom is open education for?

For everyone. As a support for any kind of learning. [my own answer] For the educators, to enable communities of practice by sharing open education resources and practices. To enable communities of learning, besides (or complementing) what happens in the educational system.

How do we proceed? Step 1, the simplest one, is to tell the world what anyone can do with your stuff: choose a license.

OER: 0, BY, BY-SA, BY-NC, BY-NC-SA. Not OER: BY-ND, BY-NC-ND.

The 5Rs of Openness, by David Wiley:

Retain – the right to make, own, and control copies of the content. Reuse – the right to use the content in a wide range of ways (e.g., in a class, in a study group, on a website, in a video). Revise – the right to adapt, adjust, modify, or alter the content itself (e.g., translate the content into another language). Remix – the right to combine the original or revised content with other open content to create something new (e.g., incorporate the content into a mashup) Redistribute – the right to share copies of the original content, your revisions, or your remixes with others (e.g., give a copy of the content to a friend)

In an open education project, we should think about who benefits the project. Especificaly:

The students. The community. The society at large. The promoting institution.

Strategies for open education:

Audience. Institutional change. Help people access formal education. Etc.

This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as APROPIATIC (IV). Larry Cooperman: Open education: what is it, why is it, for whom is it and how to begin

]]>
Mon, 30 Nov 2015 13:32:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/20151130-apropiatic-iv-larry-cooperman-open-education-what-is-it-why-is-it-for-whom-is-it-and-how-to-begin/
APROPIATIC (III). Emilio Alvarado Badillo: Education of the future: Projections into the future http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18706 Notes from the VI Encuentro académico: Apropiatic. Uso y apropiación de la tecnología para el aprendizaje, organized by UNIMINUTO, and held in Bogotá, Colombia, on November 30 and December 1, 2015. Emilio Alvarado BadilloEducation of the future: Projections into the future Since 1975 information is growing at an exponential rate. Should education adapt to this increase in available information? Will there be a role for traditional institutions? How will learning be assessed? There will be a change in what we learn and in the ways we do it. Corporate universities will seriously compete with traditional educational centres, as will other informal learning environments — including autonomous learning, and social learning. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as APROPIATIC (III). Emilio Alvarado Badillo: Education of the future: Projections into the future

]]>
Mon, 30 Nov 2015 09:28:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/20151130-apropiatic-iii-emilio-alvarado-badillo-education-of-the-future-projections-into-the-future/
APROPIATIC (II). Stefania Druga: Envangelizing technology for learning. Hackidemia http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18705 Notes from the VI Encuentro académico: Apropiatic. Uso y apropiación de la tecnología para el aprendizaje, organized by UNIMINUTO, and held in Bogotá, Colombia, on November 30 and December 1, 2015. Stefania DrugaEnvangelizing technology for learning. Hackidemia HacKIDemia designs hands-on workshops and projects for maker education and DIY learning. Our mission is to empower children to become makers of technology, art and science. So far, over 400 workshops, throughout 15 countries, 25 cities and 8,000 kids participating. Workshops are carried on anywhere, not only at schools, because learning happens everywhere. Hacking, as learning, is not about how to use a given technology, but how to design it. With educators, it is about the same: it is not about training them to use a given technology in their classrooms, but how to design leaning experiences with that given technology. A lot of hacking is closely related to playing, to games, to having fun. The desire to play is a powerful motivator. A key to success in hacking for education projects is peer-to-peer collaboration, that the student can shift roles and become an educator, to help their peers at a given time. Kids are more engaged if they are involved in their community, if they can solve real problems, rather than learning by learning, or trivial approximations to real problems. Discussion Q: how do you plan a workshop? Druga: our approach is to have a “library of workshops”, with different goals, designs, tools used, etc. and then present them to the community (usually the parents) and see what are the needs of that given community, what do they already know, etc. Then comes a training of the local mentors — workshops are usually conducted by locals &mdash and then comes the actual implementation of the workshop. Q: do we need to be kids to learn again? Druga: a dire truth of kids is that they do not care about certification or careers. And this is crucial to be able to correctly set your learning goals, not to kill your motivation, etc. Q: how can we transpose these workshops in 100% virtual learning environments? Druga: social media is sort of doing this, enabling sharing activities and projects and interests, making easier for people to collaborate and participate in others’ projects, etc. Hacking for education is about breaking complex things into simpler things, and then putting them together again. This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as APROPIATIC (II). Stefania Druga: Envangelizing technology for learning. Hackidemia

]]>
Mon, 30 Nov 2015 08:54:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/20151130-apropiatic-ii-stefania-druga-envangelizing-technology-for-learning-hackidemia/
APROPIATIC (I). Kenneth C. Green: Use and appropriation of technology in higher education. The Campus Computing Project http://ictlogy.net/lifestream/items/view/18704 Notes from the VI Encuentro académico: Apropiatic. Uso y apropiación de la tecnología para el aprendizaje, organized by UNIMINUTO, and held in Bogotá, Colombia, on November 30 and December 1, 2015. Kenneth C. GreenUse and appropriation of technology in higher education. The Campus Computing Project There is an increasing acknowledgement that students in distance education are doing better than in traditional education. But, is this true? Or, even more important, is this relevant? Should the how or the where people learn be important at all? And, if it is true, why is it so? We are living the fourth decade of the ICT Revolution, a revolution that began back in the 1980s:

1980s Personal computers. 1990s Internet. 2000s Wireless and mobility. 2010s Social media.

Technology has shifted from being nice and convenient to being compelling and obligatory. And we have shifted from big aspirations of ICTs in education and learning, to assessment and accountability. We have to balance high tech with high touch. Teaching is a “high touch” profession, and the more tech we put into it, the more touch has to be delivered to balance de output. High tech + high touch = tech-enabled high touch. Technology is a conversation about change. Technology is also a metaphor of risk. Innovation is about gathering information to reduce the uncertainty about the advantages and disadvantages of innovation itself. Innovation must be safe: we build an infrastructure, a safety net so that innovation is safe for everyone, to let people innovate without people risking too much. Key issues in technology in higher education:

The consumer experience now defines (rising) expectations about IT resources and services. Rising pressure for education to provide the much promised productivity for all the ICT spending. Why don’t teachers and professors make more effective use of technology in instruction? Why don’t schools and colleges make more effective use of IT in operations and management?

Some problems or dilemmas of innovation in education:

We have “legacy systems” that are clear barriers to innovation, to change: professors, classrooms, buildings and campuses. We have tried several times in distance education — handbooks, radio, television — and it not always did work.

Innovation requires infrastructure and an ecosystem to support it. How do we assess our infrastructure?

Minimizing risk. Fostering visualizing the horizon we are aiming at.

And we have to provide recognition and promotion to those eager to innovate. And to assess these infrastructures, we need data. But data not as a weapon, but as a means to know what failed and how to avoid it, and what worked, and how to promote it. Rules for a Machiavellian change agent (J. Victor Baldridge, 1983):

Concentrate your efforts. Pick issues carefully; know when to fight. Know the history. Build coalitions, make friends. Who can help you? Build trust. Set modest, realistic goals Leverage the value of data. Anticipate personnel turnover. Set deadlines for decisions. Nothing is static, anticipate change.

This post originally published at ICT4D Blog as APROPIATIC (I). Kenneth C. Green: Use and appropriation of technology in higher education. The Campus Computing Project

]]>
Mon, 30 Nov 2015 07:27:00 -0800 http://ictlogy.net/20151130-apropiatic-i-kenneth-c-green-use-and-appropriation-of-technology-in-higher-education-the-campus-computing-project/