Just listened to both the webinar on #Change11 and the keynote that someone else posted that he gave at Penn State. He summarizes many interesting points, most of which aren’t new, but I like the way that he puts them together. I didn’t know about him before, so I am glad to hear from him. The webinar left me feeling like this was a conversation for insiders, so I was happier with the keynote, where he spoke to the general public.
As an aside to the comment about the webinar being for insiders, perhaps it makes sense that he would speak to an audience of insiders, but it is really annoying to be part of a conversation where people speak about “Jeff” and “Bill” as if you knew everyone in the world that they knew. Like, I am so important, of course you track who my friends are. And, when I thought about that, I thought about how most of the insiders in this world are white males of privilege. It is just so tiresome! I wish that Lisa and Doris and I could get a conversation going in a node and sort some of this out.
Otherwise, I liked how Wiley divided the open access issues into:
- content (as MIT provides here)
- someone to provide support and guidance(google scholar, ChaCha)
- assessment (he says, this is a desert area, and not much is being done here)
- certification (Open University and Western Governors University)
Then, when speaking in the keynote, he itemized the six changes that needed to happen as
- analog to digital
- tethered to mobile
- isolated to connected
- generic to personal
- consuming to creating
- closed to open
and specified that e-learning had only addressed the first two of these. I think our learning (Fielding and GSCC) also addresses most of the rest. Maybe not closed to open. In both, learners communicate in online forums and both are personalized to the immediate context. The content is not specified ahead of time, which makes both learning experiences creative rather than consuming. This echoes Engestrom’s expansive learning.
So, I guess Wiley is speaking to more traditional e-learning situations and in that sense does not address issues of immediate concern to my situations – things I am thinking about such as to what extent can the first two of the four itemized issues be addressed through peer situations. Is this a lonely trip through learning? Does learning like company? I think I need to go back and read/ listen to last week’s conversation which seemed to be on collective learning.