Escaping the clutches of big tech - initiative from Norway

Photo by Nicolai Berntsen on Unsplash

At last there seems to be some serious resistance to the monopolistic dominance of big tech, the empires of the tech billionaires. The term enshittification, coined by Cory Doctorow a few years ago has now gained mainstream acceptance: read more about this in a post I wrote a couple of years ago, The "enshittification" of the internet - we know it's bad for us but we're hooked. Digital platforms and services that initially offered genuinely useful and attractive services for users have been slowly and deliberately degraded (for the users) by increasingly promoting adverts and paid content at the expense of the useful functions the user originally signed up for. Once users and advertisers are locked in then the companies add subscriptions for previously free functions, increase fees for advertisers and sell user data to the highest bidders. They hold users and advertisers hostage since the platforms are so big and powerful that you simply can't afford not to be there. If competition comes along big tech just buys them creating de facto monopolies. The unprecedented global power wielded by the Big Five (Google, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft and Apple) mean that users, companies and governments are all helplessly trapped in their walled gardens. You and all your content can be instantly removed from the platform without explanation or right to appeal. Indeed it's hard to appeal when you don't know what you have done wrong as I found out a few weeks ago. We are no longer customers and the concept of customer service beyond an exasperating chatbot is becoming extremely rare.

But maybe a backlash is coming. The Norwegian Consumer Council, together with other similar bodies in Europe, has released a report on the dangers of enshittification with concrete policy recommendations for the EU and European govenments, BREAKING FREE – Pathways to a fair technological future. They define the issue thus:

Enshittification is the result of a dysfunctional market, where companies have been able to get away with mistreating and exploiting consumers. Consumers are trapped in digital services, potential competitors are shut out, and policymakers and regulators are unable or reluctant to clamp down on anticompetitive, illegal and otherwise abusive behavior. In practice, a handful of tech companies have become so powerful that they do not have reason to fear any consequences. 

To make people realise how far this phenomenon has gone they have produced a satirical video showing how companies make their products increasingly "shitty".

We are becoming trapped in the walled gardens of big tech and it's very hard to escape. In recent years I have tried to at least reduce my dependence by using a European browser (Vivaldi), a non-tracking search engine (Duckduckgo), an alternative music streaming service (Tidal), a European storage, calender and mail service (Proton) and an open source office suite (LibreOffice). But here I am blogging on Google's Blogger platform, I still use Google Maps, YouTube, Instagram, Whatsapp etc. My banishment from Facebook should have been a relief but I really miss my communities and network there. As in the old Eagles song: You can check out any time you want but you can never leave. 

An alternative suite of social media services, the Fediverse, has existed for several years with built-in portability and interoperability. These include Mastodon as an alternative to X, PeerTube for YouTube, Pixelfed for sharing images and many more. They work but the problem is how to move all your own contacts into those services.

AI is of course a key element in this process. Big tech owns the tools and are integrating AI into almost everything, in many cases as a feature that you cannot remove and certainly can't ignore.

Generative AI is to a large degree driven either by the incumbent big tech companies or by companies with strong financial connections to these companies. It is also evident that big tech companies want to lock users into their generative AI services, to capture an emergent market and further entrench their dominance. 

Our search requests are now reliant on AI, often leading to misleading or biased results. Our "smart" devices from TVs and fridges to cars and homes are AI-enabled allowing big tech to harvest vast amounts of personal data on users' lives. All devices require frequent updates and standard functions can suddenly become premium features at an extra expense as shown amusingly in the final part of the video. Whether you like it or not you are forced to become reliant on AI and even more helpless to work things out for yourself. The days of fixing your car in the garage at weekends or mending electrical appliances in the home are well and truly dead. Everyday life without an app-ridden smartphone is virtually impossible.

The report is well researched and provides many examples and references. The final chapter proposes a number of recommendations that offer the hope of an alternative internet with interoperability between platforms and services and freedom for users to change platforms without losing their contacts or content. 

1. Rebalance power between service providers and consumers.
2. End dependence on big tech. To lay the groundwork for innovative products and services and pave the way for alternatives to big tech, competition in digital markets must be restored.
3. Double down on the enforcement of existing laws.

Innovation and competition have been effectively stifled as it is impossible to challenge big tech's dominance. The report recommends that governments invest in new solutions that are based on openness, interoperability and portability. There are indeed regulations and guidelines in place to combat monopolistic practice but they are poorly implemented and the tech giants can easily avoid taking any responsibility - they are too big to care basically. The report urges European authorities to seriously challenge big tech and implement regulations vigorously.

This is very admirable and I hope the report has some effect but in today's toxic political climate I am not confident that much will change. The EU is far from united on any issue and many governments are either governed by neoliberal right-wing parties and their allies or are too afraid to challenge those parties and their followers. Big tech funds and embraces the march of Trump-inspired authoritarianism and will fight to prevent anyone from threatening their dominance. The report urges the public sector to lead the change by moving away from dependence on big tech. Indeed, there are already examples of municipalities that have switched from Microsoft to open source software.  

For example, Denmark, Germany and Austria are trying to swap out their proprietary (Microsoft) software for the open-source alternative LibreOffice. The German state administration of Schleswig-Holstein estimate they will save 15 million euros by not purchasing Microsoft licenses annually, whereas the open-source alternative is a one-time investment of nine million euros.

Vast savings could indeed be made but logic is sadly lacking in modern politics. We seem unable to imagine an alternative to the existing order, even if we see how harmful it is for us. This applies not only to technology but also on a global scale to our lifestyles that are accelerating us towards catastrophic climate change. But all signs of resistance must be applauded and encouraged and I would love to see this report stimulating serious discussions in the media and in politics. I am not confident but try to hope for better times.

 

 

The truth is in the eye of the beholder

CC0 Public domain on Pixabay

This week's US presidential election has shaken me to the core. The most powerful man in the world represents the complete opposite of everything I believe in. Living proof that bullying, disrespect, willful ignorance and arrogance get you all the way to the top and to the applause of millions. Many questions are buzzing in my head and no answers. How do we work against bullying in schools when bullying is clearly a winning formula? How will education be affected by world leaders openly showing disdain for scientific research and expert knowledge? Why study hard when a completely inexperienced person can become president? So I started wondering how we got to this stage. Maybe one factor is our love of a good story.

We read a lot about storytelling today, especially in marketing. It's not enough to have a good product, you need to have a good story that people can relate to. Sell the company's history, in glowing terms with high nostalgia factor, and tell stories that create a warm fuzzy feeling for the company/product. Stories have always been central to human culture and they have seldom had a close relationship with the truth. Every country has a host of national stories about heroes and struggles in the past, often highly elaborated and embroidered, with each generation adding new details to the potent cocktail of myth, half-truths and a modicum of reality. Even if historians reveal factual inaccuracies these stories are almost impossible to kill because the desire to believe them is greater than the need for truth. Their function is to hold a nation together. The truth is simply too complex and messy.

The stories behind Trump, Brexit and so on strike a chord with many, providing simple answers to complex and messy issues. The opposition campaigns simply failed to find a more compelling story and assumed that their own cause was so clear that it hardly needed explaining. We take democracy for granted at our peril.

How does all this affect education (turning to the focus of this blog)? I'm extremely concerned that we have an American president who openly dismisses scientific research and expert knowledge as part of an establishment conspiracy (eg climate change). Top priority in education must be to focus on media literacy and source criticism, teaching students to check their sources and become better at assessing the credibility of the information they find. But what if you don't trust the "establishment" sources and prefer to believe alternative or extremist sources? If you want to argue an extremist view it's easy today to find a wealth of sources that support your argument. You can use the principles of source criticism but arrive at very different conclusions. What do we do if large sections of society see the education sector as part of the "establishment" conspiracy? The danger is that the truth is now in the eye of the beholder.

What now? We have comfortably assumed that everyone shares our vision of a democratic, tolerant, inclusive society that respects the rights of all citizens. It's now painfully clear that this vision is not default and that many see benefits in an authoritarian society. We need to work much harder at justifying our vision and challenging less democratic forces. We need to get our story right.

Swedish MOOC report is published

"Network" (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) by Anacin Extero

Slightly revised version 2 Feb 2016.
Sweden has been rather late in reacting to the MOOC boom and only in the last two years have a handful of universities started offering courses both on the major MOOC platforms Coursera and EdX but also more home grown channels. Last spring the government commissioned the Swedish Higher Education Authority the task of writing a report with recommendations on how MOOCs could be promoted within the framework of Swedish higher education, outlining opportunities as well as barriers. I was invited to join the reference group for this report and on 27 January it was time to publish the report with an accompanying seminar for invited guests in Stockholm. The report is at present only available in Swedish so I will provide here a summary of the main findings as well as adding my own comments and conclusions.
Download the report here (in Swedish).

Background

The report was based on a survey that was sent to every state-funded higher education institution in the country during autumn 2015 asking about experience with MOOCs so far, plans to launch MOOCs, motives for investing in MOOCs (or not) as well as potential benefits and drawbacks. Six institutions have so far officially offered MOOCs but there are several others who have offered massive open courses without actually labeling them as MOOCs. There is still considerable uncertainty as to what exactly a MOOC is. Swedish universities have for the last 20 years offered a wide range of short online for-credit courses (usually 7-15 credits) as part of the higher education system. There are no fees but you have to apply for admission and fulfil the prerequisites for admission. Many understandably see MOOCs as simply massive versions of what we have been doing for years and wonder what the fuss is all about.

The question to be answered in the report is really about whether MOOC development should be financed by tax-payers' money, how they can be incorporated into the educational system and if so how much funding should go to this new area. The report offers the following recommendations to the government (my own abridged translated summary).

The report is positive to the development of MOOCs within the state-funded education system and Swedish institutions should be encouraged to develop open courses in line with international development. The main reasons for this are to showcase and raise the international profile of Swedish universities and higher education, reach out to new student categories and contribute to lifelong learning. Furthermore, it is hoped that MOOC development can lead to improvements in universities' regular online courses, both technically and pedagogically. The report also recommends a greater focus on pedagogical development in e-learning.

Proposals to the government

• Institutions should be free to develop MOOCs and other open courses and therefore new regulations concerning this form of higher education should be drawn up. However MOOC participants cannot be considered as students in the legal sense of the term and there is no question of participants gaining credits from Swedish MOOCs.
• Institutions are allowed to use a certain amount of their state financing to develop and run MOOCs. It is up to each institution how much of this should go towards MOOC development. 
• All institutions should be able to develop open online courses and to achieve this funding should also be available to cover professional development in digital pedagogy.
• Although MOOCs are free it should be possible for institutions to charge fees for certificates, as often required in many international MOOC consortia.

Proposals to higher education institutions

Existing experience of developing and running MOOCs should be shared between institutions. The report identifies three possible lines of development for open online education:

• Institutions who wish to develop and offer MOOCs should be free to do so.
• Institutions may also develop hybrid courses which are available both as part of regular for-credit courses and as open non-credit courses (MOOCs).
• Institutions should be encouraged to collaborate to produce open, national versions of introductory courses and skills courses that today are duplicated by many institutions. The common online course material can then be complemented at each institution by on-site seminars and support.

The authority believes that these recommendations will lead to higher quality and increased efficiency however it will be up to each institution to decide the extent to which they will follow the guidelines.

Discussion points

This report offers universities the opportunity to develop MOOCs and join international consortia but does not dictate exactly what they should do or how they should do it. The authority simply wants to remove potential barriers to MOOC development in Sweden but leave the strategic decisions up to the institutions. Many are wary of entering the MOOC arena due to uncertainty about legal aspects such as where course material and student information are stored and how that information can be used by third parties. These issues are still unresolved but maybe the coming debate around the report will result in some new initiatives.

The report finally gives MOOCs official recognition in Swedish higher education and that the further development of such courses can benefit regular degree programmes, reach out to new groups of learners and showcase Swedish education on a global level. I suspect however that the report will loosen the lock on Pandora's box and that there will then be a number of important issues to resolve such as openness, sharing, recognition of prior learning, competence-based degrees etc. The report does not offer any new guidance in terms of copyright issues (that was not within the scope of the commission) but points out some of the areas that need further investigation and urges universities to work together to find a common praxis. This, I think, is a pity because I don't think that type of collaboration will happen without a catalyst from above. I believe we need a national policy on openness recommending that educational resources financed by the state should be available to all under a Creative Commons license. Without that we will continue to produce hundreds of variations on the same theme and reinvent the wheel at the taxpayers' expense. However, the report opens the door to universities collaborating to produce national MOOCs in subject areas that are common to all students, eg study skills, academic writing, scientific methodology.

One of the trickier points in the report is allowing universities to charge fees for MOOC certificates. This breaks a central principle of Swedish higher education, that it should be free from tuition and examination fees. Many will feel that this move could set a dangerous precedent but the reason for the change is to allow universities who are part of the major consortia like Coursera, EdX and FutureLearn to follow consortium policy. Most MOOC consortia today charge for certification and allowing learners with Swedish universities to get free certificates would create conflict within those consortia. This issue is likely to become even more complicated with Coursera's recent moves to make many of its courses fee-paying by default with free participants only entitled to view a restricted amount of the course content (see article in Inside Higher Ed, Limits of open).

In addition many institutions are worried about the implications of awarding certificates in their name to MOOC participants where it is almost impossible to verify that the participant has actually done the coursework themselves. Secure forms of online examination are still an issue and as a consequence the recognition of MOOC certificates for students applying for regular university courses presents challenges that require national and international coordination.

Finally many of the unresolved issues here boil down to a crucial issue; quality. If we can agree to implement existing quality assurance guidelines on all open online courses we can establish criteria by which to assess the validity of courses and set requirements for recognising certificates.

An English summary of the report will be available in the near future but otherwise you'll need to run the present version through Google Translate to get the gist of it. I hope my summary here has at least given you the main points.

Norwegian MOOC commission

 by christophercjensen

Norway became the first country in the world to appoint a government commission to examine the potential of MOOCs from a national perspective. In June 2013 the Ministry of Education appointed a committee of academics and educational experts to investigate the opportunities and challenges that the rapid growth of MOOCs pose to Norwegian higher education. The commission has now (16 June) presented its first full report and since it is at present only available in Norwegian it might be of interest to the rest of the world to get an overview of the conclusions (read the Norwegian version).

The commission defines MOOCs in very loose terms; online, scalable and open. As often mentioned every letter in the acronym MOOC is negotiable and the report does not restrict itself to any particular variation on the MOOC concept. This can cause confusion since the divisions between MOOCs, other forms of open education and regular e-learning often get blurred but the commission decided to cover all forms of the concept. The focus is however mostly on the high profile xMOOC interpretations of Coursera, edX etc rather than on the more undercover collaborative MOOCs offered by networks of teachers.

The report comes quickly to the point providing its main recommendations in chapter 3 with all the hard data and background coming afterwards. The recommendations are divided into two areas.

Main recommendations at government level:

• A major national investment of up to €16-47 million annually in the coordinated development of online education in the country. This includes the formation of at least one national MOOC platform, research-based competence and knowledge development, cooperation between higher education and industry in using MOOCs for work-related training and research into learning analytics.
• Create a clear Norwegian MOOC profile and cooperate in the Nordic region.
• Active promotion of open educational resources (OER).
• MOOCs that lead to credits should be included in the national educational system.
• Focus on raising the quality of online higher education and competence development for teachers.
• Questions about online examination security must be resolved.
• A national review of validation of informal learning and workplace experience.
• An inquiry on whether MOOC students should qualify for study loans and grants.
• The establishment of financial incentives for collaboration between universities in the development of online education.

Main recommendations at institutional level:

• The wide experience of quality online learning that is already present in the country’s institutions should be the base for any MOOC initiatives.
• Institutions need to invest in digital competence development for all staff.
• Institutions actively promote the use and creation of open educational resources.
• Improved routines and opportunities for recognition of prior learning and competences.
• Institutions should use MOOCs to leverage national and international collaboration.

To support these conclusions the commission then makes a chapter by chapter analysis of the following topics:

• MOOCs in society (background, relevance, international and Norwegian contexts)
• From flexible education to MOOCs (online learning history)
• Evolution of MOOCs
• MOOC participants and their motivation
• Documentation of achieved competence
• MOOCs in Norwegian higher education
• Quality and learning outcomes
• MOOC delivery forms
• Copyright issues and openness
• Workplace learning
• Continuing education
• Discussion on the interpretation of “free”
• Government study grants and funding
• Financial consequences of the commission’s proposals

The report gives a thorough and balanced analysis of the international development of MOOCs and acknowledges that MOOCs are only part of a wider development of open education and online learning. The background is well documented and happily also includes the origins of the term in the connectivist courses (cMOOCs) developed and still run by pioneers like George Siemens, Stephen Downes, Dave Cormier, David Wiley, Bryan Alexander and many more. They also take into consideration the fact that there is no clear standard MOOC model and that even within the major consortia like Coursera there is considerable variation in pedagogy, student interaction, assessment and structure. They have not fallen into the trap of simply looking at the mainstream hype but point to how MOOCs have opened people's eyes to the future role of online learning in all educational sectors. The positive effect of the MOOC hype has been that it has pushed a discussion of online learning on to the agendas of top management. Norway (and several other European countries) differs from leading MOOC nations like the USA in that higher education is free and not subject to high fees. Due to this the report feels that MOOCs will affect Norwegian higher education in different ways than in the USA and England. The accessibility of global MOOCs will stimulate Norwegian institutions to improve their own online courses and this quality focus will naturally also improve campus programmes. National and international collaboration will be another positive result of the opening up of education that MOOCs have been the catalyst for. However none of this will happen without strategic funding, incentives and strategies.

One aspect that is not covered here is that there are many examples of open online learning that don't (often deliberately) call themselves MOOC but share many common characteristics. The OER university partnership is mentioned but maybe deserves more attention since it attempts to provide a framework for offering credible credentials for non-formal and informal learning. A Norwegian member of the partnership would be a significant move to legitimize open learning in Norway for example. I have not found any mention of other open learning platforms like P2PU (Peer 2 Peer university) who have been facilitating MOOC-like collaborative learning for several years as well as platforms like Udemy that allow teachers and specialists to create and market their own courses. However a report cannot cover everything and the important point about this one is that it has been produced at governmental level, showing clearly that open learning has at last reached the corridors of power.

An English version of the report is promised in the near future.

COL/UNESCO report on national OER policies

CC BY-SA Commonwealth of Learning

Open educational resources (OER) are becoming a feature of education all over the world though the uptake is often very patchy. Mostly it's a grassroots movement with groups of teachers and individual schools or colleges taking admirable initiatives. However top-down support for OER is still unusual and without this I don't believe that OER can become mainstream.

UNESCO and Commonwealth of Learning are two global organisations that are championing the open learning cause and have just published the results of a major survey: Survey on Governments’ Open Educational Resources (OER) Policies. They sent out a questionnaire to all 195 UNESCO member states asking them whether they had any policies concerning the use of OER in the country's schools and universities. Less than half (82) of these countries replied in time but the results show that there are countries who are taking open education seriously and beginning to form national strategies around the open sharing of educational material. Those who actually have a national policy for OER include South Africa, China, Indonesia and the Bahamas with others, such as Colombia, Uruguay, New Zealand and Lesotho, are in the process of developing a policy and already have guidelines and national initiatives.

The report deals with the following issues:

• Nature and extent of OER activity per region
• Nature and extent of existing policies 
• References to OER in other public policies 
• Funding Studies and research on OER
• Perceived benefits of OER
• Obstacles to OER adoption

What strikes me most is that OER is a global issue and that there is as much if not more activity taking place in Africa and South America than in western Europe. Sweden in particular is conspicuous by its absence in the survey though our neighbours Finland and Lithuania feature positively. I can imagine that in many countries OER is still a relatively unknown concept and although there may be excellent local and limited projects and initiatives they have remained under the radar of governing bodies.

Although the results of the survey are not startling, the fact that the survey was carried out at all by such internationally respected bodies is the most important achievement. By sending out the questionnaire to all these governments the question of OER was officially placed on the table. Many respondents were unsure of what OER really meant but simply by trying to answer the questions they were obliged to find out what OER activities were in progress in the country. Those who reponded are now more aware of OER than before but it will be even more interesting if the report has any effect on the nations who did not respond. Many will have realised that they knew too little about the concept to give a decent answer or that there sinply was nothing to report. But by at least thinking about how to answer they had to find out what OER entails. Maybe processes have already been started to ensure that next time more countries will be able to answer.

Interestingly a parallel study was carried out by OECD among 34 member nations and in this case 28 countries replied showing that OER is taken seriously by most OECD nations. Read this survey:
Hylén, J. et al. (2012), “Open Educational Resources:Analysis of Responses to the OECD CountryQuestionnaire”, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 76, OECD Publishing.

The dark side of the net

When we only had one or two TV or radio channels we sometimes watched/listened to programmes that we didn't really interest us at first. There simply wasn't anything else on. So now and again you might stumble upon something unexpectedly interesting and expand your horizons a bit. No chance of that now. We zap from channel to channel usually only giving a new programme a few seconds' chance before zapping on. Every opinion and subject is out there but most of us only check our favourite channels/sites; those that confirm our view of the world.

We generally assume that access to the net ensures free debate and strengthens democracy. Goverenments try to combat free discussion and political dissent by blocking social networks like Facebook and Twitter as well as stopping bloggers from publishing inappropriate information. However, there are cases where undemocratic governments actually embrace social networking as a means of combatting dissent.

There's a fascinating TED lecture by Evgeny Morozov (How the net aids dictatorships, don't forget to read the discussion under the film) where he claims that social tools can be used to spread disinformation and also enable authorities to gain access to vast amounts of information that would have been impossible in the past. They may even positively encourage bloggers to write on seemingly important issues in order to give the impression that there is indeed free debate in the country. This seems a much smarter policy than simply cutting access or blocking certain sites. Morozov is not denying the power of the net to strengthen democracy and education. He's just pointing out the reverse side of the coin that seldom appears in public debate.

Just as the net enables global networking and increased access to knowledge it can also lead to passivity. Only a small minority of net users are active in any significant way. One problem on the net is that you can choose what information you want to see. You read the news you want to read, visit sites whose views you agree with and seldom get confronted by opinions that challenge your own. Of course this has always been true to some extent but today you are able to filter out unwanted facts and uncomfortable opinions more effectively than ever before.

I remember before commercial radio started and those in favour of it claimed that with commercial radio we'd get a wider choice of music. Now we've got dozens of commercial channels all of which play "non-stop hits" mixed with phone-in competitions. The only channels that play new music and a wide variety of styles are the state-run channels (at least that is true here in Sweden). Without them we'd just hear the same hits round the clock.

Sharing and caring

What happens when everyone shares everything? The music and film industries are struggling to come to terms with a world where copying is so easy and virtually impossible to control. The publishing industry is also under threat and the educational sector can't quite decide if the power of new web services are a threat or an opportunity. More and more information is being shared thanks to various wiki projects and educational material is more freely distributed than ever before. At the same time as we can share our own material we are also able to "share" other people's material with or without their permission.

I love the idea of open learning resources allowing access to educational material without a price tag. I'm not so sure about file sharing when the product of several months of an artist's/author's/actor's life can be distributed without that person getting any financial reward or credit. However the technology to do so is available and we have to adapt to a new reality where many established businesses will disappear in the next few years.

The power of sharing is a disruptive process and threatens many established structures. Mark Pesce has posted a lecture on this theme (see below) and is well worth a look. He examines amongst, many other areas, the possibility of creating a truly open university with lectures available from anywhere at any time and rated by students and peers. Many areas of university administration are being slowly opened up and put into the hands of the consumers (students). What will happen to the bricks-and-mortar campus ideal when you can choose when to study, where to study, what pace to study and are free to choose which lecturers to follow? Can this change be managed and structured or will the customer decide? Have a loook ..

See even Mark Pesce's blog The Human Network.


Share This Lecture! from Mark Pesce on Vimeo.

Time for change?

Obama's promises of change has spawned lots of ideas in every line of business and education is no exception. For example, Marc Prensky has written an open letter to Barack Obama where he argues that it is time for radical changes in the way we approach education in order to equip students with the skills necessary for the 21st century. Much the same letter could be sent to just about every world leader actually.

In a similar vein, the Hoover Institution's journal Education Next contains a discussion article by John E. Chubb, Terry M. Moe and Larry Cuban entitled Forum - Virtual schools Will education technology change the role of the teacher and the nature of learning? In general they seem optimistic that we can see major changes in education in the near future but not without a struggle.

New technology is basically disruptive to existing structures, and generally provokes strong resistance. As a result we should expect evolution rather than revolution. Often technical innovation comes from external sources (industry pressure, government initiatives etc) and teachers are not involved in the process apart from the implementation. That often leads to resistance and the innovation process fizzles out.

"Their (public educators') approach to information technology is rooted in the status quo: it is about making the existing system work better without really changing it. In the new social reality, however, this isn’t going to cut it. There will be competition. There will be pressure. There will be change."

Although almost everyone in higher education has access to the net it has still had little effect on teaching methods. It is not just a matter of implementing new technology into the existing system, the whole system needs an overhaul. Fundamental principles such as the age-graded school need to be re-examined, according to the article.

More and more students will study to some extent outside the traditional classroom model and it will eventually become the norm despite hard resistance. The core learning processes will be on the net and although there will always be a need for face-to-face interaction the traditional school model will be much more fluid.

President 2.0?

I read an article in the latest Newsweek about Barack Obama as the first online president. His campaign was very web-oriented and he has, seemingly, an impressive list of friends on Facebook. His promises to get more people involved in government has struck a chord with the web-savvy generation that voted so clearly for his promise of change. There is talk of streaming discussions on the net, offering wikis on various political initiatives to get more people involved in the decision-making process and so on. The article debates whether Obama can deliver on these promises or whether the realities of White House convention will prevail.

What is really interesting here is the signals this could send to the rest of the world about the use of the social web. If Obama really does open up some of the processes of government to the public domain then the rest of the world will be forced to take notice. There are wonderful initiatives going on everywhere in the use of social software but it is nearly always a bottom-up process without commitment from management. Now if a major world leader starts using new media then all other leaders in politics and in industry will be forced to examine their own operations.

It reminds me of a similar case in Sweden in the mid-nineties when Prime Minister Carl Bildt started using e-mail to distribute his ideas to a mass audience (an early example of blogging basically) and also to famously e-mail Bill Clinton at a time when world leaders didn’t do e-mail. This not only enhanced Bildt’s image as a modern politician it also inspired other leaders to get on-line and e-mail moved into the mainstream of business communication.

President-elect Obama has an unprecedented level of expectations to live up to and if he can meet half of them he will go down in history. His administration could really be a major catalyst for change in the way government is carried out and how it taps into the power of social networking at grassroots level.