Question #1
Reading 1 Open Source/Open Course Learning
By: Robert Stevenson
"Free software is a matter of liberty not price. To understand the concept you should think of free as in "free speech not "free beer." What does he mean?
Question #2
Reading 1 Open Source/Open Course Learning
By: Robert Stevenson
Stevenson argued that OS inspired approach can revitalize education. Do you agree that bottom up approach is better than license and packaged software? (Copyrighted)
Question #3
Reading 2 Open Source 2007: How did this happen?
By: Brad Wheeler
Brad Wheeler offers two different scenarios of the future of OSSP. Which is most likely to happen and why?
Question #4
Write a one or two sentence definition to which you think open source software means?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Response to Question #1
ReplyDeleteI believe that Stevenson means "free" in the sense that this software is not something you can necessarily hold in your hand, but is something that can be changed and reconfigured and therefore improved by all who use it. If it is free to all more will use it and more will benefit. The Open courses he discusses in his article seem like a simple enough concept and it seems to be logical. You can learn more and gain more from more people. In a class you benefit so much more from open discussion and sharing ideas.
Jkittle:
ReplyDeleteGreat points! You mentioned, "If it is free to all more will use it and more will benefit".
Is participation the key component for success?
Response to Q1
ReplyDeleteAs Brad Wheeler in "Open Source 2007: How Did This Happen?" [reading #2] writes, "Open source software is not free...it requires investments for hardware, user support staff, training, integration with other systems, and so forth." Stephenson concurs: "...zero price does not mean zero adoption cost..." as you must include the expense of mastery by teachers or other users & support staff. So purchase price is frequently a relatively minor cost item in the scheme of software adoption expenses. Beyond that, Stephenson and (through him) Stallman are talking about a free flow of information. Information that can be used & adapted to fit the particular circumstances of the user, and then sent out again to be be used & adapted by others.
Respoonse to Q1 (though maybe a bit off the point)
ReplyDeleteI was particularly interested in Stephenson's section "Assessment and Evaluation" in which he discusses the necessity (for FOSS) of developing explicit learning objectives, a battery of related mastery questions, and allowing the aggregated results to flow back to the larger evaluating community. Besides the advantage of building a centralized pool of "vetted assessment materials," (and this especially struck a chord for me) it would give us a decentralized, bottom-up system for the development of standardized tests. This would address at least a couple of common complaints about the current NY State testing system.
One is that test items designed for, say, urban students are not always appropriate for rural students, and visa versa. This, of course, also applies to class differences and so forth. A bottom-up system would allow for more direct and effective feedback than is now in place. It might allow for better fine tuning of assessment tools for a variety of student cohorts, while retaining or even improving the ability to compare results across the state or nation.
Another is that, when poorly designed items come through, they will be weeded out quickly, because of a shifting of power from those with a vested interest in retaining items (test designers) to those with a vested interest in ridding the test of questionable items (the end users).
Responding to Dan's response to Jessica:
ReplyDeleteIt is vital that at least a significant core of end users participate in the design and feedback loops. Without that, FOSS loses its greatest advantage over commercially designed software. Just as with Wikipedia, it is the large number of contributors that discovers and repairs large holes and errors in the work. If there are a sufficient number of people looking at a system, someone is bound to pick up on even very subtle problems. Someone will be able to design an elegant, effective solution.
Responding to Dan
ReplyDeleteI do think that participation is vital for success. If more people use it more will see it's benefits and it's pitfalls. With this participation you get more knowledge and like Phil stated "as with Wikipedia, it is the large number of contributors that discovers and repairs large holes and errors in the work. If there are a sufficient number of people looking at a system, someone is bound to pick up on even very subtle problems". I think that this and the fact that it is easy access is a huge reason why wikpedia is so successful.
Question #1 response:
ReplyDeleteStevenson’s quote “you should think of ‘free’ as in ‘free speech’ not as in ‘free beer” means that FOSS (free/open source software) gives you the ability to freely communicate and share ideas with others. The software establishes a community where everyone participates in and is able to contribute their ideas. It is not a copyrighted program that you just read and follow. You are able to run the program how you want and use it in ways that will benefit you and your students. You contribute your ideas and can make improvements in the program. It is not initially completely free. Like Stevenson said, teachers have to spend time learning the program and time for teachers is money. The same thing goes for other users, parents, students, etc. It takes time to learn how to use the software and most people don’t have time. But it is free to use (minus the internet fee) and it is free to share ideas. Once people are comfortable with the program and know how to use it, it will be a great way to create a learning community where people can freely share ideas. The learning in these FOSS communities is able to continually change with the times because the program is able to evolve and be changed by the users.
Jessica, I agree with you. You learn more from more people. With the FOSS you can see many different perspectives and views on different topics. It allows for open ended conversations which engages students and they learn more.
ReplyDeletePhil and Jessica are both right in that there has to be active participation in order for this type of program to work. I believe that this program could be very beneficial and successful if it is able to get a large number of people to participate. It would create a great learning community for teachers, students, and test developers. Heck, maybe like Phil said, this kind of program could cause change in the NY state exams (one could only hope)!
Question #2 response:
ReplyDeleteI think that FOSS could be effective in revitalizing education in that it allows teachers to freely collaborate with each other and find ways to effectively teach students. It allows students to freely share their ideas with others and be actively involved in their learning. Students learn more when they are involved and feel like they have a role in what they learn. The bottom up approach allows for teachers to adapt programs and the curriculum to fit the needs of their students. It allows flexibility and contribution from others. It doesn’t foster the sense that the teacher is a dictator and tells you what to learn and how to learn it. The teacher doesn’t solely rely on programs and written text to teach, instead they allow for students to input their ideas and they help guide their learning so that it benefits them and interests them.
Stevenson argued that OS inspired approach can revitalize education. Do you agree that bottom up approach is better than license and packaged software?
ReplyDeleteIn terms of use in schools, I would have to agree with stevenson.
From what I understood of the article, stevenson believes that free open source media (foos) is configured from the bottom up because it is developed by and for the learning community. This means that students can adapt information/learning to suit their own specific needs. This allows that specific community to cator to thier "cultural context." The article gives the example of "Homer Simpson may connect to community college students in Atlanta, but may be ineffective of inappropriate for medical students in Kualu Lumpur (on a side note...is that in India?).
If it is free for schools and community based... I can see how stevenson believes that it will revitalize education.
I do agree with stevenson when he lists problems teachers will face trying to implement this in their classrooms. It is going to take alot of time for teachers to learn how to use this in thier classrooms. He gives a simple formula to show this problem. Adaptation= mastery time + price per instructor/ hourly wage. Translation...we don't have the time and we arent going to be paid for it even if we did.
ReplyDeleteHe does explain how to get teachers on board. Stevenson explains that the technology would have to be simplified (made easy). He also suggests educators be given clear incentives to participate. He says we should be given a stipend.... ha ha ha ha ha ha. I think if our districts would give us a day to learn how to use this (in a workshop), teachers would learn.
Teachers want to use open source information (like MERLOT). We want to use all the technology available out there...we just need the time to learn how to do it. There arent to many teachers left who refuse to use technology anymore. Am I wrong to say this?
Question #2
ReplyDeleteReading 1 Open Source/Open Course Learning
By: Robert Stevenson
Stevenson argued that OS inspired approach can revitalize education. Do you agree that bottom up approach is better than license and packaged software? (Copyrighted)
It seems that the bottom up approach would be more valuable as it starts with the goal and then you build from there. You look at what it would take to get your "students" or community to reach the goal or standard that is set. the license and package software is much like a textbook. In fact this whole topic seems like the old use the textbook or not arguement. Which works best. Can it revitalize education, if used properly and kept up with yes, I do see where it could be very beneficial.
Question #1
ReplyDelete"Free software is a matter of liberty not price. To understand the concept you should think of free as in "free speech not "free beer." What does he mean?
When Stevenson means "free" I think he means by giving FOSS (free/open source software) gives you the ability to freely communicate and share ideas with others.Once you had learned the software and what you would to see changed to it, you can make the adjustments, run the program as you see fit and you're not breaking copyright laws. You would be contributing to the program. Technology allows us to open up a whole new world of communication and learning styles. Teachers, parents and students can all know what to expect. It allows learning to be taken to another level.
I do think that having this program be "free" will also have problems with too much input can be a bad thing. It may bring the quality of the program down and its authencity.
Responding to Phil
ReplyDeletePhil makes a great point about test items designed for, urban students are not always appropriate for rural students, and visa versa. These students have very different backgrounds and have different experiences.Test should be modify to accommodate rural/urban. It would help students a lot to adjust the bottom-up system that permits more direct and effective feedback than is now in place. This also would help improve assessments.
In response to question number 2 –
ReplyDeleteStevenson argued that OS inspired approach can revitalize education. Do you agree that bottom up approach is better than license and packaged software? (Copyrighted)
I do see the possibility for free open source media (foos) to be effective due to the accessibility of the teachers to each other, as well as the students to each other. It provides a source of open communication about learning and the learning process. It also aids students in having the opportunity to take an active role in their learning; thus making a widow of opportunity for the teacher to get students involved and learning more than ever before. By using the bottom-up approach within classrooms, it gives a more personal learning experience to the students. This idea also caters to the generational differences that Generation Y has --- the idea that authority is not a set role, and contribution from all levels is acceptable.
Yes, I can see how this could revitalize education but I do have some reservations.
I personally think of this to be at all possible, especially in NYS, the restrictions that teachers place on the curriculum need to be more lax. Currently there is such a race to the end of the year to finish and get everything in (mostly when there is a state mandated test at the end of the year). But in order to effectively use bottom up learning there needs to be more availability of time. Although I am not saying that it can’t be fit in now, I am saying in order for it to be more successful, more time is needed.
I also see challenges with this process if you have various levels of achievement within one classroom, it would be a challenge to cater to a classroom with more than a handful of needs.
my March 21, 2:12 PM response, labeled a Q1 response, was really a Question 2 response. Oops!
ReplyDeleteKualu Lumpur = capital of Malaysia (You don't have to count this as an entry)
ReplyDelete~P
WOW- Some really great points made!
ReplyDeleteSounds like people are intrested in the idea. It seems like we all like the bottom up construction (OSS) and the versitility it offers.Some areas that would benifit would be collaberation and information sharing which could lead to improvements in State testing that accounts for various factors based on student need. All teachers, parents, and schools would welcome this. So what is the problem right? Well here are a few that you pointed out.
It still seems as if implimentation and participation are still major obsticles. Training, implementation, and participation are huge investments in time. Time is an element that is perhaps the most valuable commadity to a teacher. Time to participate and evaluate the materials and lesson ideas. I agree that a stepind would help, but a more powerful investment in my view would be the dedication of one staff day, where the entire staff could partipate in a discussion about the OSS and its benefits and costs. Then follow up by having workshop sessions throughout the year that give teachers and others time to actively participate in the process. With all that said, What would motivate you to participate in OSS?
a. Money- I"ll participate when I get paid
b. Time- Give me a staff day and I"ll be all over this
c. Nothing- I will do it on my own thanks
d. No way- it is a waste of time
Stephanie makes a good point when citing time constraints as a problem in implementing a "bottom up" system.
ReplyDeleteMany teachers I know (though not, by any means, all) consider that having to make extensive use of technology in their teaching is a time burden they can ill afford. Almost all feel intense pressure to cover required curriculum even using methods they have mastered. The benefits of adding unproven (to them) technological methods are unclear and access is inconvenient.
Stephenson asserts that, "The most effective incentive, however, is a convincing demonstration that by actively participating, they will teach more effectively and save time in the long run." This demonstration, I believe, would have to be successful use by peers.
Give me the day with follow up workshop sessions. Money wouldn't hurt my feelings. (Hey, maybe there's a government grant out there.)
ReplyDeleteQuestion #3
ReplyDeleteBrad Wheeler offers two different scenarios of the future of OSSP. Which is most likely to happen and why?
The two different scenarios that Wheeler poses in his 2004 article are that Open Source could become mainstream or that is would not really take off and few open source applications would become popular. He discusses that the important factors to determining which scenario will happen have to do with the complexity and fiscal aspects that go into designing the software and also coordination by developers.
Wheeler creates a good argument for why and how both scenarios and now, 5 years after he has written the article, we know that OSSP has become mainstream. Open source software is used in a wide array of fields including finance, design, library systems, science, statistics, file systems and language. (Just to name a brief few) The contribution by colleges and universities to using OSSP may have aided in the “broad and enduring” effect it has had on industry. However it was also important for software to be designed in a diverse way so that it could be used for different reasons while institutions also found ways to link their visions so the software could be used by a defined community.
Question #4
ReplyDeleteWrite a one or two sentence definition to which you think open source software means?
Well… since no one has responded to this question yet I’ll take a stab at it.
Open Source Software is a computer software which, through collaborative effort by its users, can have its source code changed, adapted or modified and then be redistributed.
Responding to Dan’s multiple choice quiz on what would motivate you to participate in OSS.
ReplyDeleteObviously I think we’d all like some money thrown at us as incentive to use OSS. But at the same time I think that if teachers didn’t really understand it or see the importance in participating then they would not put full effort into it, in turn not making it as effective as it could be. Therefore, I agree with Dan and feel a staff development day where teachers could work out the benefits and cost and be shown how to participate would be most beneficial. (At least initially and then money when we know what were doing!!)
One other point that I would like to make would be that this bottom up learning would be easier to implement in a classroom where a teacher has been teaching for longer. It is hard enough for teachers who have only been teaching for 2/3 years to apply this within their classroom; there still are tweaks that they need to make in order to cover the whole curriculum.
ReplyDeleteAside from this, in response to Dan B. --- I believe a good motivator for me would be time – give me a day, and some training in this and it turns out to be a “why not” situation. I am sure that getting more money would be amazing, but realistically those funds (like Philip said) would most likely have to come out of a grant.
Bridget- Thanks for the definition. It is not an easy concept to define.
ReplyDeleteAlso you mentioned it has become mainstream in many fields. Why not education? Are there simply too many obsticles?(Like collaberation)
response to Philip.
ReplyDeleteI too know many teachers that feel that they just do not have any time at all to learn new technology and implement it into their daily instruction. The pressure of meeting curriculum needs is a main issues that you pointed out. This is a major one and there just seems to be no time. I really like the idea of a staff day to introduce these programs. As phil mentioned before some follow up workshops would be great. Hands on workshops would be the best way to get this software out there and to be fully understood by teachers.
Thank You everyone for responding. See You Tuesday
ReplyDeleteLadies and gentlemen, due to vacation, all my responses were submitted the night before class. Therefore, I apologize for any inconvenience.
ReplyDeleteJkittle
ReplyDeleteI agree with sharing ideas with one another. Some of the most important assets in life are learned from your colleagues and conversing with one another can only enhance your train of thinking or teach to think from another’s perspective.
Philip Linde
ReplyDeleteThe free flow of information is a great way of identifying the whole idea from Brad Wheeler. There can be information that can be used and adapted. I think the adaptation part is crucial to allow additional information or a change of ideas or circumstances.
I agree with the idea you approached on the standardized tests in New York State. It seems standardized tests have had problems forever. You mention the design of the exams for urban students may not fit the rural areas. Crucial point simply because of living arrangements, environments, social life, and parenting can be or is completely different. Exams should be universal so the urban knows the rural and vice versa. You made a great point there.
Tam52382
ReplyDeleteIt is not a copyrighted program that has no interaction. Everyone is capable of contributing that can create a community. What a great line. I agree and believe that it can create a community which allows many to interact and learn from one another. Also, to allow to make improvements in the program is crucial because we constantly improving ourselves and want to improve our education sources. And definitely you have to learn the program which could take some time. You mention that the learning in the FOSS is changing because of the users which will allow users to adapt information and gain stronger points and learn more from the changes.
I also agree with FOSS can be a crucial way teachers can communicate, share, and learn from one another. It is a huge open ended experiment that we as teachers can build from one another in order to reach needs and become better mentors. We have always talked about being active and it can allow students to actively involve each other one another. A student learning from another student is a great way on building a relationship and flexibility is crucial because some may not learn within bordered walls. Giving options will allow a mind to create and work down different roads.
Guy
ReplyDeleteStudents can learn to their needs. Very important you said that because students should know their strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, can strengthen what needs to be strengthen or perhaps keep strong in certain areas. The “cultural context” you mention with Homer Simpson is a great way to explain things. This example demonstrates that one may interact or understand someone or something in one part of the world where there may be a place that does not fit with that character.
I agree with the time. It will take some time therefore will teachers have the energy to learn material that may take longer than expected? The formula you brought up was great because I also agree to what you say. “He gives a simple formula to show this problem. Adaptation= mastery time + price per instructor/ hourly wage. Translation...we don't have the time and we arent going to be paid for it even if we did.” A lot of teachers will blow this off quickly if they are definitely not going to get paid for it, nor benefit from it. Is the problem simply laziness or are teachers smart enough to see things down the long road? Meaning, already knowing if it is even worth the hassle?
DStarr
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed how you described the license and packaged software is like a textbook as compared to where a goal is set and students can eventually reach that goal. And if not kept up, it does seem like it can fall apart. I believe that the license and packaged software is like a textbook, you get what you see to where open source and open course learning can change just like every learner out there. The textbook is not the number one utensil to educate anymore. Not the way learners are changing these days.
Tleotta
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned in your definition that you would be contributing to the program which does allow free learning from others to open ended styles of questions, answers, and learning capabilities. A crucial thing you mentioned about the program is having too much freedom of input. This could cause chaos. How much can you actually add or adjust all the information? Because if you have many contributors that can constantly change and adapt information, wouldn’t that eventually create a headache or problem? This was a very good point you brought up.
Stephanie Petfield
ReplyDeleteYou quote “the bottom up approach allows for a more personal learning experience.” It is always great to learn from others that have a personal experience that can be shared. I personally have learned from another in a lot of occasions much ore than a traditional textbook for example. Listening to others has been a strong point for me in order to strengthen my ideas, facts, views, and opinions. I too believe that restrictions on the curriculum need to be flexibility and remain chill. Teachers rush to finish the criteria and do not realize by rushing which may not be their decision but takes place may hurt the learner or themselves. If already a major problem now is not having enough time, than what is it going to be like if more time is needed to initiate bottom up learning?
Bridget O’Connor
ReplyDeleteYou define the following, “Open Source Software is a computer software which, through collaborative effort by its users, can have its source code changed, adapted or modified and then be redistributed.” I like this definition because it is very simple, basic, and straight to the point. Throughout all the blog entries, your definition has key words that each of us in the classroom have used repeatedly in their responses. To which your definition of open source software is on point. I also agree with what you and Dan where saying about the staff development simply because like you said if not interested in it, it would more than likely fail. The financials, usage, and participation can be focused on by the staff development.
Mark Maglione
ReplyDeleteWorkshops are great. We have to learn two of them for certification which can make or break a crucial part in our ongoing learning lives. A workshop may be very useful in order to gather more believers in the software and follow it to the end.