102 Matching Annotations
  1. Last 7 days
    1. A common complaint we heard from publishers at all levels is that it’s difficult to build partnerships with social media platforms. They seem to be holding all the cards. Even large publishers often feel in the dark during meetings with large platform companies.

      I'm more curious why all the large media companies/publishers don't pool their resources to build a competing social platform that they own and control so the end value comes to them instead of VC-backed social silos?

  2. May 2019
    1. Twenty Stories Bookmobile, which left L.A. traffic for Providence, Rhode Island, in 2018

      This makes me think that a mobile bookstore a la the traditional LA roach coach with a well painted/decorated exterior could be a cool thing.

      I'm reminded of a used bookstore pop-up I saw recently at the Santa Anita Mall prior to the holidays. Booksellers were traditionally itinerant mongers anyway. Perhaps this could be a more solid model, especially for the lunchtime business crowds.

  3. Feb 2019
    1. What happened is that Spotify dragged the record labels into a completely new business model that relied on Internet assumptions, instead of fighting them: if duplicating and distributing digital media is free (on a marginal basis), don’t try to make it scarce, but instead make it abundant and charge for the convenience of accessing just about all of it.
  4. Jan 2019
  5. Mar 2018
  6. Nov 2017
    1. the experimentation and possibility of the MOOC movement had become co-opted and rebranded by venture capitalists as a fully formed, disruptive solution to the broken model of higher education.11
    2. Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs), which have become the poster child of innovation in higher education over the last two to three years
    3. social engagement, public knowledge, and the mission of promoting enlightenment and critical inquiry in society
    4. recent promise of Web 2.0

      A bit surprised by this “recent”. By that time, much of what has been lumped under the “Web 2.0” umbrella had already shifted a few times. In fact, the “Web 3.0” hype cycle was probably in the “Trough of Disillusionment” if not the Gartner-called “Slope of Enlightenment”.

    5. institutional demands for enterprise services such as e-mail, student information systems, and the branded website become mission-critical

      In context, these other dimensions of “online presence” in Higher Education take a special meaning. Reminds me of WPcampus. One might have thought that it was about using WordPress to enhance learning. While there are some presentations on leveraging WP as a kind of “Learning Management System”, much of it is about Higher Education as a sector for webwork (-development, -design, etc.).

    1. Often our solutions must co-exist with existing systems. That’s why we also invest time and money in emerging standards, like xAPI or Open Badges, to help connect our platforms together into a single ecosystem for personal, social and data-driven learning.
    1. Barnes & Noble Education, Inc. is now an independent public company and the parent of Barnes & Noble College, trading on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol, "BNED".
    1. Enhanced learning experience Graduate students now receive upgraded iPads, and all students access course materials with Canvas, a new learning management software. The School of Aeronautics is now the College of Aeronautics; and the College of Business and Management is hosting a business symposium Nov. 15.

      This from a university which had dropped Blackboard for iTunes U.

    1. Publishers can compete with free textbooks by making their more-restrictive-than-all-right-reserved offerings 70% more affordable.

      Sounds a bit like what Clay Shirky was trying to say about the Napster moment coming to Higher Education, five years ago. Skimmed the critique of Shirky’s piece and was mostly nodding in agreement with it. But there might be a discussion about industries having learnt from the Napster moment. After all, the recording industry has been able to withstand this pressure for close to twenty years. Also sounds like this could be a corollary to Chris Anderson’s (in)famous promotion of the “free” (as in profit) model for businesses, almost ten years ago. In other words, we might live another reshaping of “free” in the next 9-10 years.

  7. Apr 2017
  8. Oct 2016
  9. Sep 2016
    1. As many universities are being queried by the federal government on how they spend their endowment money, and enrollment decreases among all institutions nationally, traditional campuses will need to look at these partnerships as a sign of where education is likely going in the future, and what the federal government may be willing to finance with its student loan programs going ahead.

      To me, the most interesting about this program is that it sounds like it’s targeting post-secondary institutions. There are multiple programs to “teach kids to code”. Compulsory education (primary and secondary) can provide a great context for these, in part because the type of learning involved is so broad and pedagogical skills are so recognized. In post-secondary contexts, however, there’s a strong tendency to limit coding to very specific contexts, including Computer Science or individual programs. We probably take for granted that people who need broad coding skills can develop them outside of their college and university programs. In a way, this isn’t that surprising if we’re to compare coding to very basic skills, like typing. Though there are probably many universities and colleges where students can get trained in typing, it’s very separate from the curriculum. It might be “college prep”, but it’s not really a college prerequisite. And there isn’t that much support in post-secondary education. Of course, there are many programs, in any discipline, giving a lot of weight to coding skills. For instance, learners in Digital Humanities probably hone in their ability to code, at some point in their career. And it’s probably hard for most digital arts programs to avoid at least some training in programming languages. It’s just that these “general” programs in coding tend to focus almost exclusively on so-called “K–12 Education”. That this program focuses on diversity is also interesting. Not surprising, as many such initiatives have to do with inequalities, real or perceived. But it might be where something so general can have an impact in Higher Education. It’s also interesting to notice that there isn’t much in terms of branding or otherwise which explicitly connects this initiative with colleges and universities. Pictures on the site show (diverse) adults, presumably registered students at universities and colleges where “education partners” are to be found. But it sounds like the idea of a “school” is purposefully left quite broad or even ambiguous. Of course, these programs might also benefit adult learners who aren’t registered at a formal institution of higher learning. Which would make it closer to “para-educational” programs. In fact, there might something of a lesson for the future of universities and colleges.

    2. As many universities are being queried by the federal government on how they spend their endowment money, and enrollment decreases among all institutions nationally, traditional campuses will need to look at these partnerships as a sign of where education is likely going in the future, and what the federal government may be willing to finance with its student loan programs going ahead.

      To me, the most interesting about this program is that it sounds like it’s targeting post-secondary institutions. There are multiple programs to “teach kids to code”. Compulsory education (primary and secondary) can provide a great context for these, in part because the type of learning involved is so broad and pedagogical skills are so recognized. In post-secondary contexts, however, there’s a strong tendency to limit coding to very specific contexts, including Computer Science or individual programs. We probably take for granted that people who need broad coding skills can develop them outside of their college and university programs. In a way, this isn’t that surprising if we’re to compare coding to very basic skills, like typing. Though there are probably many universities and colleges where students can get trained in typing, it’s very separate from the curriculum. It might be “college prep”, but it’s not really a college prerequisite. And there isn’t that much support in post-secondary education. Of course, there are many programs, in any discipline, giving a lot of weight to coding skills. For instance, learners in Digital Humanities probably hone in their ability to code, at some point in their career. And it’s probably hard for most digital arts programs to avoid at least some training in programming languages. It’s just that these “general” programs in coding tend to focus almost exclusively on so-called “K–12 Education”. That this program focuses on diversity is also interesting. Not surprising, as many such initiatives have to do with inequalities, real or perceived. But it might be where something so general can have an impact in Higher Education. It’s also interesting to notice that there isn’t much in terms of branding or otherwise which explicitly connects this initiative with colleges and universities. Pictures on the site show (diverse) adults, presumably registered students at universities and colleges where “education partners” are to be found. But it sounds like the idea of a “school” is purposefully left quite broad or even ambiguous. Of course, these programs might also benefit adult learners who aren’t registered at a formal institution of higher learning. Which would make it closer to “para-educational” programs. In fact, there might something of a lesson for the future of universities and colleges.

    1. We commonly look at Ivy League institutions as the standard of higher education in America, but the truth is that the majority of the nation's workforce, innovation identity and manufacturing futures are tied to those institutions which graduate outside of the realm of high achievers from wealthy families. 
    1. frame the purposes and value of education in purely economic terms

      Sign of the times? One part is about economics as the discipline of decision-making. Economists often claim that their work is about any risk/benefit analysis and isn’t purely about money. But the whole thing is still about “resources” or “exchange value”, in one way or another. So, it could be undue influence from this way of thinking. A second part is that, as this piece made clear at the onset, “education is big business”. In some ways, “education” is mostly a term for a sector or market. Schooling, Higher Education, Teaching, and Learning are all related. Corporate training may not belong to the same sector even though many of the aforementioned EdTech players bet big on this. So there’s a logic to focus on the money involved in “education”. Has little to do with learning experiences, but it’s an entrenched system.

      Finally, there’s something about efficiency, regardless of effectiveness. It’s somewhat related to economics, but it’s often at a much shallower level. The kind of “your tax dollars at work” thinking which is so common in the United States. “It’s the economy, silly!”

    1. mis-read or failed to read the labor market for different degree types.

      Sounds fairly damning for a business based on helping diverse students with the labour market…

    2. The aggressive recruiting did not extend to aggressive retainment and debt management.
    3. If an organization works — and extracting billions of dollars in federal student aid money suggests ITT worked for a long time — then who it most frequently and efficiently works best for is one way to understand the organization.
  10. Jul 2016
    1. I could have easily chosen a different prepositional phrase. "Convivial Tools in an Age of Big Data.” Or “Convivial Tools in an Age of DRM.” Or “Convivial Tools in an Age of Venture-Funded Education Technology Startups.” Or “Convivial Tools in an Age of Doxxing and Trolls."

      The Others.

    2. education technology has become about control, surveillance, and data extraction
    1. efforts to expand worldwide

      At the risk of sounding cynical (which is a very real thing with annotations), reaching a global market can be very imperialistic a move, regardless of who makes it.

    2. ironically while continuing to employ adjunct faculty

      Much hiding in this passing comment. As adjuncts, our contributions to the system are perceived through the exploitation lens.

    3. afford a university education
    1. The military’s contributions to education technology are often overlooked

      Though that may not really be the core argument of the piece, it’s more than a passing point. Watters’s raising awareness of this other type of “military-industrial complex” could have a deep impact on many a discussion, including the whole hype about VR (and AR). It’s not just Carnegie-Mellon and Paris’s Polytechnique («l’X») which have strong ties to the military. Or (D)ARPANET. Reminds me of IU’s Dorson getting money for the Folklore Institute during the Cold War by arguing that the Soviets were funding folklore. Even the head of the NEH in 2000 talked about Sputnik and used the language of “beating Europe at culture” when discussing plans for the agency. Not that it means the funding or “innovation” would come directly from the military but it’s all part of the Cold War-era “ideology”. In education, it’s about competing with India or Finland. In other words, the military is part of a much larger plan for “world domination”.

    1. For-profits typically take those funds and spend way more on advertising and profit distribution than on teaching.

      Don’t know what the stats are for “non-profit universities and colleges” but it does feel like an increasing portion of their budgets go to marketing, advertising, PR, and strategic positioning (at least in the United States and Canada).

    2. The phrase “diploma mills” came into popular usage during the era.
    3. A similar conclusion was reached by the medical (pdf) and legal professions of the late-19th and early-20th centuries.

      Somewhat surprising, in the current context.

    4. This model might make sense if our goal was to produce cars, clothing, and some other commodity more efficiently. But a university education doesn’t fit into this paradigm. It isn’t just a commodity.

      In education as in health, things get really complex when people have an incentive for people not to improve.

    5. The idea is that higher education is like any other industry.
    1. improving teaching, not amplifying learning.

      Though it’s not exactly the same thing, you could call this “instrumental” or “pragmatic”. Of course, you could have something very practical to amplify learning, and #EdTech is predicated on that idea. But when you do, you make learning so goal-oriented that it shifts its meaning. Very hard to have a “solution” for open-ended learning, though it’s very easy to have tools which can enhance open approaches to learning. Teachers have a tough time and it doesn’t feel so strange to make teachers’ lives easier. Teachers typically don’t make big purchasing decisions but there’s a level of influence from teachers when a “solution” imposes itself. At least, based on the insistence of #BigEdTech on trying to influence teachers (who then pressure administrators to make purchases), one might think that teachers have a say in the matter. If something makes a teaching-related task easier, administrators are likely to perceive the value. Comes down to figures, dollars, expense, expenditures, supplies, HR, budgets… Pedagogy may not even come into play.

  11. Jun 2016
    1. However, you may be required to pay fees to use certain features or content made available through the Site and Services.

      Wish they said more. No-cost solutions are neat for one-offs, but pedagogues should be wary of building their practice on services which may start requiring payment.

    1. many more people understand cost than understand pedagogy

      While this may be true, it sure is sad. Especially as the emphasis on cost is likely to have negative impacts in the long run.

  12. May 2016
  13. Jan 2016
  14. Dec 2015
    1. purchasable à la carte

      How many units of learning per dollar?

    2. no research

      In direct opposition with the model for most universities, these days. So that may be the fork in the road. But there are more than two paths.

    3. Universities bundle services like mad

      Who came up with such a scheme? A mad scientist? We’re far from Bologna.

    4. perfect storm of bundling
    5. only unbundling health clubs suffer

      There might be something about the connection between learning and “health & wellness”.

    6. Unbundling has played out in almost every media industry.

      And the shift away from “access to content” is still going on, a decade and a half after Napster. If education is a “content industry” and “content industries” are being disrupted, then education will be disrupted… by becoming even more “industrial”.

    7. consumer choice will inevitably force them to unbundle.

      The battle is raging on, but the issue is predetermined.

    1. Yes, my intention was to show the most easily replaced in dark and move it to the least easily replaced.

      One linear model, represented in something of a spiral… Agreed that the transformative experience is tough to “disrupt”, but the whole “content delivery” emphasis shows that the disruption isn’t so quick.

    1. customers become less willing to pay

      There are a few key cases, here. a) Public Education (much of the planet) b) Parent-Funded Higher Education (US-centric model) c) Corporate Training (emphasis for most learning platforms, these days) d) For-Profit Universities (Apollo Group and such) e) xMOOCs (learning as a startup idea, with freemium models) f) Ad-Supported Apps & Games (Hey! Some of them are “educational”!)

    2. In every industry, the early successful products and services often have an interdependent architecture—meaning that they tend to be proprietary and bundled.

      The idea that there’s a “Great Unbundling of (Higher) Education” needs not be restricted to the business side of things, but it’s partly driven by those who perceive education as an “industry”. Producing… graduates?

    1. course design is more important than the LMS

      In all the platform news, we can talk about “learning management” in view of instructional and course design. But maybe it even goes further than design into a variety of practices which aren´t through-designed.

    1. It is possible to achieve a more humane and personal education at scale

      Important claim, probably coming from the need for reports which answer the “But does it scale?” question.

    1. The goal of education is for the educator to become less and less needed for learners to learn.

      The reverse of the typical “goal displacement”. Instead of focusing on ensuring our continued employment as “instructors”, we want to make sure learning happens. Deep down, we know we’ll find ways to work, no matter what happens. The comparison with health can be interesting. If doctors had an incentive to keep people sick, society wouldn’t benefit much. Allegedly, Chinese healthcare provides incentives for doctors to help people stay healthy. Sounds like it’d make sense, somehow. Yet education and health are both treated like industries. We produce graduates, future employees, etc. Doctors produce people who fit a pattern of what it means to be healthy in a given social context. There’s even a factory-chain metaphor used when some people apply “lean management” to hospitals or colleges. Not that the problem is with the management philosophy itself. But focusing so much on resource allocation blinds us from a deep reality: as we are getting healthier and more “learned”, roles are shifting.

  15. Nov 2015
    1. Only four years old, Twitch already has 100 million viewers who consume 20 billion minutes of gaming every month. According to one 2014 study, Twitch is the fourth-­most-­visited site on the Internet during peak traffic periods, after Netflix, Google and Apple and above Facebook and Amazon. (Amazon bought Twitch in 2014 for about $1 billion, all of it cash.) And there is money in it for the gamers themselves, called ‘‘streamers’’: Fans can subscribe to channels for extra access, or they can send donations of any amount. Streamers with modest followings can make respectable incomes — hundreds or thousands of dollars a month — and the very top streamers are getting rich.

      (This is entirely peripheral to the subject of the article. I am making note of it because I have barely heard of Twitch until recently.)

    1. PC gaming has enthusiastically embraced crowdfunding. On Kickstarter, video games (most of of which PC games) is the highest-funded category
    2. Another form of video game remixing happens on broadcasting sites like Twitch, where you can watch live videos of people playing games (while they chat with the audience — the end result is an interesting mix between video games and talk radio).
    3. Remixing books is popular on services like Wattpad where users write fanfiction inspired by books, celebrities, movies, etc. From a legal perspective, some fanfiction could be seen as copyright or trademark infringement. From a business perspective, the book industry would be smart to learn from the PC gaming business. Instead of fighting over pieces of a shrinking pie, try to grow the pie by getting more people to read and write books.
    4. In the gaming world, “mods” are user created versions of games or elements of games. Steam has about 4500 games but about 400 million pieces of user-generated content. Dota itself was originally a user-created mod of another game, Warcraft 3.Contrast this to the music industry, which relies on litigation to aggressively stifle remixing and experimentation.
    5. PC games are so popular they can also make money from live events. Live gaming competitions have become huge: over 32M people watched the League of Legends championship this year, almost double the number of people who watched the NBA finals.
    6. The types of games on Steam vary widely, as do the business models. The most popular game, Dota 2, is free. It makes money selling in-app items, mostly “cosmetic items” that alter the appearance of characters.
  16. Apr 2015
    1. 2. Is it reasonable to compare the costs of xMOOCs to the costs of online credit courses? Are they competing for the same funds, or are they categorically different in their funding source and goals? If so, how?

      MOOCs is a community service for which, I expect, every university has a budget. It is the universities' moral obligation to serve the interested groups\communities\society with MOOCs. It is mutually beneficial - the universities get their brand, research and teaching practices distributed, while the public shares with them personal data and comments, and opinions (which are extremely costly, compare this with the cost of those massive public opinion surveys conducted prior to the election campaigns, or market research) ... Hopefully the universities and academia can add ethical rigor to the way the big massives of private data is used.

    2. it is difficult to see how publicly funded higher education institutions can develop sustainable business models for MOOCs;