Digital Signposts

Domesday Reloaded (Part 2)

Domesday System by ljw Licence CC  BY-NC-SA

Riding on the wave of excitement generated through BBC Domesday Reloaded project makes this a good time to take an objective look at some of the wider issues arising out of Domesday for learning technology, and if possible learn some lessons for the future.

“In 1986 the BBC launched an ambitious project to record a snapshot of everyday life across the UK for future generations. A million volunteers took part…”

This an interesting statement, because it was never realised through the original project format; but now may be with the release of the Reloaded project, and even more so if the data on the National Disc is finally released. Unless folk were associated with a school or had access at a library it is unlikely they would have had  hands-on experience of the Domesday system.

Many blogs and tweets suggest that Domesday Reloaded is a complete reconstruction of the original 1984-86 project, but that is quite far from the truth. It does not contain any of the rich data from the National Disc. The National Disc contains a great deal of, (authoritative), media and statistics. Just how much can be gauged in the first  section of this promotional video,  specifically from 03:15 > 9:32, on the timeline. It is clear that the Community disc data is culturally significant and  the National data disc completes that anecdotal snapshot of the UK picture with an even and focused coverage.

Neither is it true to suggest that the only reason for the loss of the Domesday data is obsolescent technology. Human shortcomings are just as much, if not more to blame. Although obsolescent technology may have contributed to the the loss of the Domesday system, it was not the only cause. This is evidenced by the fact that researchers based at Leeds University and the University of Michigan working on the Camileon Project were successful in accessing and emulating the BBC's Domesday project on a PC.

Although the systems were superseded by digital optical media, many of the surviving systems, (c.1000 sold), were just left in cupboards or as I heard through trusted anecdotal evidence - in one LEA (Local Education Authority), 2 were simply thrown in the skip when moving offices. Again the human factor... one wonders how many times this was replicated?

Evidence, from Charlesworth. University of Hull, (2002); suggests that the greatest obstacle was clearing Copyright. Nearly all the content, including both data and software has IP rights attached. It appears to be an extremely complex web of rights. Charlesworth’s report also indicates, even at the time of writing (2002),  some rights holders were untraceable and it could be 2090 before all data would be in the public domain.

Should ever such a venture be undertaken in the future (using public funds and contributions) it would make sense to ensure that content providers and contributors were asked to make their work available under a Creative Commons licence, or at least the BBC Creative Archive Licence.  Unfortunately this is not a requirement of the Reloaded initiative and there is no real licencing guidance for contributors other than the BBC’s normal T&Cs. (Even so, everyone should contribute because of the cultural significance of the project).  Similarly it would be hoped any future venture would be developed using Open Source software.

In addition to the  Domesday Reloaded will achieve is to generate awareness and of Domesday, (including the original Domesday Book, which is also online), judging by blog post and tweets this is already happening.  In order to fully appreciate the nature of the BBC Domesday Project it is worth reading this detailed description of Domesday and also the work of  Darlington, Finney and Pearce describing the recovery of the data on the discs. Sadly; Adrian Pearce died in 2008 and his original site is no longer available but the http://www.domesday1986.com/ URL now links to the Domesday Special Interest Group.

Update
There are indications from the Centre for Computing History that they are working with the National Disc and hoping to make it live in the near future. Great news if it happens.

 

If there are any factual errors in this post please let me know and I will amend as appropriate.

 

Flickr & Getty - Predatory Moves or an Uneasy Alliance?

 
Image Credit: The Advocacy Project  CC Licence BY-NC-SA

I often need images to use in presentations or workshops, so one of my first ports of call is Flickr's advanced search  tool, to help find images with a suitable Creative Commons licence.  Earlier today, I was searching for images of schools and learning around the world, and found the stunning photograph which was exactly the image I was looking for. Checking the metadata I noticed the request by Getty Images to licence the image.

I had read about the Getty Images partnership with Flickr, but this is the first time I have seen it realised on a Flickr Page. What immediately concerned me was that the apparent request, from Getty was not just to licence one or two images, but to acquire the rights to the whole of the Advocacy Project photostream collection; currently standing at 8,989 images, all with a Creative Commons licences.

If the licensing, for this superb collection of high quality images, was transferred to Getty it would be a sad loss to Flickr and its community. However, it would be an even greater loss to all who share an interest in education, culture and humanitarian issues around the world.  It would deprive access to the collection and our ability to use and share the images and add to their substantial metadata and narratives. If you have not already come across these pictures, I would recommend taking some time to browse.

Subsequently, the images would no longer no longer show up on Flickr but re-appear on the Getty/Flickr [sic], page  as thumbnails c/w small watermarked preview and shopping basket. Getty's terms clearly state that owners of the image must re-licence them as All Rights Reserved.

I think it is fine that Photographers are able to submit their images to Getty for possible licensing, (although I don’t think the terms are too favourable: 20%-30% of Getty's sale price - depending on model); or Getty trying to licence images with an All Rights Reserved status. That is one thing, but to trawl Flickr in order to harvest collections that have been made accessible to the public under a CC licence, is a predatory move which should be strongly resisted. It is also worth noting that a CC licence cannot be revoked, so if you have downloaded a CC licensed image, from Flickr, that has subsequently been acquired by Getty, you are still perfectly entitled to use that image under the terms of the original licence.

I have sent a Flickrmail to the Advocacy Project outlining my concerns, and look forward to reading their thoughts. Obviously, Getty does offer payment therefore I am happy to make a contribution to the Advocacy Project fund for any images I use, (Indeed I already have done so). If we want to preserve our access to these and similar quality images then perhaps others might consider doing likewise.

Digital Trompe-l'œil

Ironically, because the Guardian 'Special' on Building Schools of The Future  was not available online, Ian Usher used Issuu to create this superb online document from pdfs. In doing so Ian has done what the Guardian failed to do; offer the information online in a form that is aesthetically pleasing,

Using a digital camera and taking no more than a few minutes to photograph the newspaper, and upload the images; Ian has created a very tactile experience.  I think  there is something very reassuring and satisfying about turning these creased pages.

So here we have it, a simple creative process that is crying out for children and teachers to use, and achieve some wonderful, (and as yet unforeseen), results.

Not forgetting of course that Ian's article firmly hits the nail on the head with regard to the issues of BSF (Building Schools for The Future) and LPs (Learning Platforms).

The first casualties of social media?

This analysis suggests that social media has claimed a big casualty, namely Hillary Clinton. It will be very interesting to see who/what will be next. Do our 'traditional' education systems and institutions need to take heed?
via socialmedia

Catering; for whom?

image credit Larimdame

I read with interest, the other day, that some high profile companies, namely: McDonalds; FlyBe and Network Rail have been accredited to offer  'qualifications' that support A Levels or diplomas.  Whilst I think we can rest assured these companies have good training schemes for their employees, or new recruits; a training scheme is not the same as an opportunity to study. I would also like to know:

• Who are the main beneficiaries of the 'qualification'; the company, or the student's life chances.
• Will the skills on offer really be transferable? Either to a competing business or to other jobs. How many would want McDonalds 'written' on their certificates?
• Some of McDonalds other dubious educational ventures.
  
• Network Rail's poor track record.
• What was the process that approved these companies to become qualification awarding bodies?  Was there a tender or bidding process?  Was this debated/announced publicly, or a deal done behind closed doors?
  
• What about small enterprises and innovators, could they become part of this initiative?

No matter how you dress it up; when commercial companies are allowed to award qualifications; by default they will serve their own interests first, which is likely to be (and arguably rightly), making a profit. And lets not forget, even big companies are at the mercy of market forces.

Now if companies and organisations such as Google, Lucasfilms or the BBC, were involved would that change how we view such schemes? Or is it time to seriously consider removing the running of education from both government and business,  sure they can fund and advise, but lets have a body whose commitment is firmly based on learning and providing real educational opportunities for all, not serving political masters or specific  business interests.

Should we be worried?

Recently there has been a spate of developments related to fair use, copyright and the Internet. Whilst we know what to expect from the RIAA or  the British Music Industry closing down Pandora,  new and  dubious examples are appearing all the timel, for example; publishing pictures of  the Eiffel Tower at night (14,3222 photos currently on Flickr -a lot of lawsuits), whilst Ford are now trying to ban Mustang owners publishing photos of their own cars.

Similarly Prince, and,more recently; ,J K Rowling  seem determined to shut down some fan and discussions sites, apparently refusing to acknowledge that being the creator and owner of work does not give the right to stop others discussing, praising or criticising their work. If they are not careful they will either appear as selfish, greedy or both; which will be to the detriment of their undoubted talent and achievement, whilst alienating many of their followers.

Hot on the heels of all this nonsense Mattel (UK)  and Hasbro (Us & Canada) are joining in the fray, (they probably have a case).  The companies have sent  cease and desist letters to the developers of the Scrabulous application on Facebook; but surely they are just plain stupid for; a) not negotiating a deal or; b) building on the many opportunities for positive marketing.  Perhaps they don't understand the Internet is different and things will never be quite the same again. As I blog, the Save Scrabulous group on Facebook has increased within the last few hours to over 5,600, 7,340, 14,443. 15,678.

Well, just like waiting on a bus, we can only wonder what the next idiotic action will be, and how many of them will come along at the same time.

image credit Iona Sameli   

Join in the debate

Thanks to Scott McLeod, at Dangerously Irrelevant, for drawing attention to this online debate about  new technologies and education. Starting today, the event is hosted by the Economist and should provide some wholesome food for thought. I look forward to following the debate as it develops and (possibly) reading great contributions from some of the folk on my blogroll.

The Cult of the Amateur and the Cult of the Arrogant

Image credit: Factory Joe

The premise, that the accessibility of digital media is leading to a cultural decline with a resulting loss of authoritative information, media and study, is Andrew Keen's message in his polemic,  Cult of the Amateur.  Recently, together with John Gorman he has been posting on the Brittanica blog (really a forum), claiming to have a prima facie case that Web 2.0 is a key factor in this decline. John Connell refutes this with an excellent analysis of Keen and Gormans's vision of an elitist culture,  in which 'the uneducated' have no place; a paradox in itself, when they claim to be promoting real 'learning and study'.

What is also disturbing is their cult of arrogance evidenced by their continuous disparaging  of the 'amateur,'  which worryingly  seems to be catching on, and is well illustrated here.  Amateur is not synonymous with low standards, as any amateur sportsman or women will testify, along with  thousands of amateur musicians from all over these isles and beyond. Historically amateurs have always played a vital part in our knowledge.   Gilbert White,  Charles Darwin, Rousseau and Leonardo could all be considered amateurs, whilst in more recent times Arthur C Clarke's vision has led to the communication satellite.  Some areas of science such  as astronomy rely heavily on amateurs, to discover new stars and comets. Perhaps Keen and Gorman would do better to acknowledge that amateurs do, and will have a vital role to play in our culture and that amateurs can be experts.  Of course professionals are professionals and will be experts in their field, but  expertise is not devoid of serious consequences.

Meanwhile teachers and students are benefiting from hundreds of amateur  initiatives including the videos posted on TeacherTube. Perhaps not always as polished, but often a damn sight more useful than the paid for "content' offered by commercial suppliers to education. And those that  (are allowed) to use Web 2.0 tools are motivated and inspired by other 'amateurs' working, sharing, discussing and collaborating to explore new models for learning.

There are some great teachers out there...

image credit:stroinski

Every now and again the old chestnut about good teachers and bad teachers surfaces, usually prompted by government, unions or perhaps Ofsted, recently Steve Jobs joined the debate.  We already have technologies to ensure every student has access to a great teacher, whether that teacher is physically present in a classroom or even a physical teacher, well, that is another question. The teachers could be teachers, they might be experts in their field, perhaps people who have stories to tell, and just as importantly other students. Technology will let them collaborate, inspire, share, communicate and support each other. Technology gives us, as teachers, the chance  to re-evaluate our work.  It is almost certain there are new roles for teachers working individually and in teams, moving between classes or even schools, and countries. It calls for vision. It is likely that sooner or later technology will require us to change our definition of good and bad teachers, with hopefully far fewer of the latter. I suspect Steve Jobs is fully aware of this.

Jam runs out on Tuesday

I learn that the BBC Trust has bowed to pressure from the UK's "educational software industry, and 'suspended' the Jam digital learning service. Lewis Bronze; CEO, Espresso Education, is quoted in the Register;

"The opportunity provided by broadband technology should allow a torrent of educational content to flow - instead, the BBC's current proposals will give us a desert. The BBC's current proposals for their free to air digital curriculum will massively curtail the choice available for schools. Using £170 million of the public's licence fees destroys a competitive market, deprives children and teachers of choice
and diversity, and kills off the UK educational software industry."

My view has always been that Jam is/was a good attempt to make personalised, learning centered resources, freely available for independent use at home and school. Ian Usher E-Learning Co-ordinator, Buckinghamshire County Council gets straight to the point;

"I'd say that BESA has inadvertently kicked the learner in the teeth here. It would have been great to put things in the hands of learners (as part of our ePortfolio developments) which let them control their learning,"

Perhaps we should ask Mr Bronze, if he is at all concerned about the implications for pupils and teachers, of the statement posted on the the Jam site, (below). I wonder how he feels about people who 'delete/lose my work'?

The argument put forward by Lewis Bronze and BESA (British Educational Suppliers Association) is of course, choice.  Choice, as we all know from the school places debacle, can mean many things to many people.

Perhaps, as a result of this, schools will begin to realise they have other (and possibly better) choices available. These include; the choice to use  free online, creative, social and collaborative tools, the choice to use open source software including learning platforms. Schools also have the choice to access the wealth of digital assets available under a Creative Commons license. I suspect you won't find  much CC licensed 'content'  in the offerings from BESA members.

In contrast the UK " education software industry" is happy to accept revenue from the public purse in the guise of eLCs (eLearning Credits), for software apparently not always wanted or needed by schools. Thanks to Ian Delaney for this link.

It is probably far to early to predict how all this will turn out, but with a bit of luck those who brought about the suspension of Jam may have shot themselves in the foot.