podcast | Open World

podcast | Open World
Open World
Lorna M Campbell
I’ve been dipping my toes back into the debate about open education and AI over the last few weeks.  I stepped back from this space earlier in the year both for personal reasons and because I was getting a bit dispirited by the signal to noise ratio. It’s still a very noisy space, more so if anything, but there are some weel-kent voices emerging that are hard to ignore.
David Wiley laid out his stall last month in the webinar
Why Open Education Will Become Generative AI Education
, and his views have been predictably polarising. There have already been several thoughtful response to David, which I can highly recommend reading:
Openness isn’t just about product
~ Martin Weller
Is Open Education becoming Gen-AI Education?
~ Robert Schuwer
The Soul of Open is In Danger
~ Heather M. Ross
I don’t want to repeat the very pertinent points that have already been made, but I do want to add my concerns about the staring point of David’s argument which is
“the primary goal of the open education movement has been to increase access to educational opportunities. The primary strategy for accomplishing this goal has been to increase access to educational materials. And the primary tactic for implementing this strategy has been to create and share OER.”
Why Generative AI Is More Effective at Increasing Access to Educational Opportunity than OER
This is certainly one view of the open education movement, (which is by no means a homogenous entity), but open education isn’t just about goals, strategies and tactics, there are other perspectives that need to be taken into consideration.  I find this content centric view of open education a bit simplistic and reductive and I had hoped that we’d moved on from this by now.  I would suggest that the primary purpose of open education is to improve knowledge equity, support social justice, and increase diversity and inclusion. While content and OER have an important role to play, the way to do this is by sharing open practice.
This slide in particular made me pause…
Leaving aside the use of the
Two Concepts of Liberty
, which is not unproblematic, I’m presuming “users” equates here to teachers and learners, which is a whole other topic of debate. It’s certainly true that open licences alone don’t grant the skills and expertise needed to engage in “high-demand revise and remix activities”, but I’m not sure anyone ever claimed they did? And yes GenAI
could
be a way to provide users with these skills, but at what cost? There’s little discussion here about the ethical issues of copyright theft, algorithmic bias, exploitation of labour, and the catastrophic environmental impact of AI. Surely a more responsible and sustainable way to gain these skills and expertise is to connect with other teachers and learners, other human beings, and by sharing our pedagogy and practice? While there’s a certain logic to David’s hypothesis, it doesn’t take into account the diversity of practice that can make open education so empowering.
Aside from the prediction that Generative AI Education will save / replace / supersede OER, I couldn’t help feeling that there is still an underlying assumption that OER = open textbooks. (This was also an issue I had with one of the keynotes at this year’s
OER24 Conference
) It shouldn’t need saying, but there are myriad kinds of open resources above and beyond open textbooks.  What about student co-created OER for example? It’s through the process of creation, of gathering information, of developing digital and copyright literacy skills, of formulating knowledge and understanding, that learning takes place.  The OER, the content created, is a valuable  tangible output of that process, but it’s not the most important thing. If we ask GenAI to produce our OER, what happens to the process of learning by doing, creating and connecting with other human beings?
This issue was touched on by Maren Deepwell and Audrey Watters in the most recent episode of Maren’s brilliant
Leading Virtual Teams
podcast.  It’s been really inspiring  to see Audrey
re-enter the fray
of
education technology criticism
.  We need her clear incisive voice and fearless critique now more than ever.
Touching on the language we use to talk about AI, Audrey reminded us that “Human memory and computer memory are not the same thing.” And in her
The Extra Mile
newsletter she says:
“I do not believe that the machine is or can be “intelligent” in the way that a human can. I don’t think that generative AI and LLMs work the same way my mind does.”
This very much called to mind Helen Beetham’s thoughtful perspective on ethics and AI at the
ALT Winter Summit
last year where she said that “generative”, “intelligence”, and “artificial” are all deeply problematic concepts.
“Every definition is an abstraction made from an engineering perspective, while neglecting other aspects of human intelligence.”
Towards the end of the podcast, Maren and Audrey talked about the importance of the embodied nature of being and learning, how we tap into such a deep well of embodied knowledge when we learn. It’s unthinkable to outsource this to AI, for the simple reason that AI is stupid.
The embodied human nature of learning was also the theme of Marjorie Lotfi’s beautiful six-part poem,
Interrogating Learning
, commissioned by Edinburgh Futures Institute for the inaugural event of their Learning Curves
Future of Education
series. Marjorie weaves together the voices of displaced women and, I believe, speaks more deeply about what it means to learn than any disembodied “artificial intelligence” ever could.
What have you learned?
When asked this question how will a woman answer?
For a moment she’s back in her mother’s belly
a heart beating out a rush of cortisol
or a warm dream of sleep listening through a barrier of skin and blood
before even her own first breath.
And then the day she’s born
blinking at the bright of daylight, candle, bulb,
hearing the low buzz of electric
and the sudden clarity of a voice she knows already.
Learning it again.
There have been a thousand things to learn in every day I’ve been alive,
the woman thinks,
and I am 53 this year.
This post originally appeared on the
Open.Ed blog
Back at the beginning of the summer, my colleague Charlie and I had the very great pleasure of joining Alan Levine for an
OEG Voices
podcast to talk about the University of Edinburgh’s award winning open policies and GeoScience Outreach OERs.
Charlie talked about the GeoScience Outreach course where students co-create teaching and learning materials that are then adapted by Open Content Creation interns and shared on
TES Resources
as a curated collection of OERs aligned to the Scottish Curriculum for Excellence.  These award winning open resource have already been downloaded over 100,000 times by teachers all over the world.  You can read more about the success of the GeoScience Outreach course in this blog post on
Teaching Matters
by Kay Douglas, Andy Cross, Colin Graham, Erica Zaja, Bonnie Auyeung, and Frederik Madsen –
Geoscience Outreach: What we do, how we assess, and client/student reflections
I discused the university’s commitment to developing and sharing
open policies for learning and teaching
, and role of Learning Technology Policy officer Neil McCormick, who leads the development of many of these policies.
Open.Ed
has shared a suite of five open policies and guidelines, including our Lecture and Virtual Classroom Recording policies, our OER Policy, and our Digital Citizenship Guide, developed by Dr Vicki Madden.
You can listen to the podcast here –
OEG Voices 040: Charlie Farley and Lorna Campbell on Two Award Winning Projects from University of Edinburgh
Earlier in the summer, way back at the end of June, I had the very great pleasure of joining Puiyin Wong on her fabulous
My Liminal Podcast
. We had a really engaging and wide ranging discussion covering open education, OER, digital labour, knowledge equity, Wikimedia in the classroom, and perhaps most importantly, cats!  You can listen to Puiyin’s My Liminal Podcast on
anchor.fm
and
Spotify
, and follow on twitter at
@MyLiminalPod.
Earlier this week I had the very great pleasure of joining my colleagues Myles Blaney and Michael Gallagher for their fabulous
M&M Podcast
to talk about knowledge equity.  I’m a big fan of the M&M Podcast and knowledge equity is a topic that is very close to my heart so I really enjoyed the experience.
In a packed, half-hour conversation we covered everything from what knowledge equity means, improving knowledge equity through open education and co-creation, gatekeeping in open spaces, the impact of algorithmic bias, power, privilege and unconscious bias, learning from other cultures and knowledge structures, and what practical steps institutions can take to improve knowledge equity and inclusion.
We also went off at a few tangents to talk about COVID vaccines, the historical repression of knowledge equity, how history is constructed and taught, acknowledging the legacy of Scotland’s colonial past, and confusing the twitter algorithm.
You can listen to the podcast here –
M&M Podcast 24: The one where we talk with Lorna Campbell
, and like all good things, it’s open licensed of course!
When Clint Lalonde came up with the crazy and wonderful idea of recording a
serialised audio version
of Martin Weller’s
25 years of Ed Tech
book and asked if I was interested in getting involved, I knew right away which chapter I wanted to read. And I also knew it was one of the chapters no one else was likely to volunteer for – E-Learning Standards.  That’s not to disrespect to Martin’s writing, it’s more a reflection of the fact that the standards that he highlights in this chapter were never particularly successful.  The reason I was so keen to read this chapter though is that I spent 15 years of my life working on various learning technology standards projects, mostly focused on resource description, metadata, and controlled vocabularies, including some that Martin critiques in the chapter. On pretty much all of these projects I worked with Phil Barker, so it seemed only natural to invite Phil to join me for the recording, which he kindly agreed to do, despite claiming not to enjoy audio recording :}
Another reason I thought it would be fun to record this chapter is that people used to find the way I pronounce “metadata” absolutely hilarious.  To this day, I have no idea why, however I used to get frequent requests from American colleagues at ed tech standards meetings to “say the word metadata.”  Admittedly standards meetings could be pretty dull, so we had to make our own entertainment.
We used Zencastr to record the chapter, which worked pretty well, however for reasons of acoustics I ended up having to record my audio in my bedroom rather than the open plan office downstairs were I usually work.  Sitting on the bedroom floor reciting the elements of the Dublin Core was definitely one of the more surreal moments of lockdown.
Recording this chapter also put Phil and I in the interesting position of reading Martin dissing several standards that we had been responsible for developing, particularly the UKLOM Core.  Although we both felt that some of Martin’s criticism of Dublin Core really applied to the IEEE LOM, the cause of this confusion highlighted exactly what was wrong with many e-learning standards; too many of them were overly complex and educators should never have been expected to get to grips with them in the first place.  Phil and I had an opportunity to discuss these and other issues in an entertaining
Between the Chapters
discussion with Laura Pasquini.  Phil has already written a blog post about this discussion here,
Reading one of 25 years of EdTech
, which I can highly recommend reading, particularly if you want to revisit the
dawn of EduProg
From my perspective, I think one of the most important points Martin raises in this chapter, and which we discussed in the podcast, is that although many e-learning standards didn’t really work, we learned from our mistakes, and went on to lay the foundations for the emerging OER movement.  The UKOER programme is a perfect case in point. When the programme was launched in 2009, Phil and I had already contributed to the technical strategies for a number of
JISC development programmes
and we knew from painful experience that expecting educators to understand baroque metadata standards and provide meaningful descriptions for fields such as semantic density (memorably described as “the poster child for useless metadata elements”) just didn’t work.  Application profiles such as the UK LOM Core were an attempt to simplify these complex standards, and make them more human friendly and interoperable, but even these profiles were woefully complex.  So when the UKOER Programme came along, we decided on a completely different approach.  (You can read the original technical requirements on my old Cetis blog here:
OER Programme Technical Requirements
.) Rather than mandating the use of a specific metadata standard and application profile, we simply told people what information to record (title, author, date, url, basic technical info), we didn’t tell them how to record the information, we left that up to them.  The only metadata item that we actually mandated was the programme hashtag, #UKOER.  There was a lot of discussion about the wisdom of this approach, web 2.0 was still in its infancy, and people were only just beginning to get to grips with new-fangled approaches to resource description such as community generated metadata and folksonomies.  Some people also complained that using the hashtag for resources as well as information about the projects would muddy the water and make it hard to find content.  Another radical approach we recommended for the UKOER programme was that projects could share their resources using “any system or application as long as it is capable of delivering content freely on the open web”, on the proviso that they also uploaded their OERs to Jisc’s national learning resource repository Jorum for safe keeping.  I’m not going to go into the reasons why central learning resource repositories are a bad idea, that’s a whole other blog post. Suffice to say that Jorum has long since been consigned to the annals of ed tech history.
The technical strategy we developed for the UKOER programme, was really our first attempt at using the open web as technical infrastructure and by and large, it actually worked. Almost ten years after the end of the programme, if you search for UKOER, you can still find some of the project outputs on the open web and on sites like Flickr and YouTube.  And what is even more remarkable is that, despite there being some
heated discussion
at the end of the programme about whether the UKOER hashtag should be retired, people are still using it on twitter to this day.  All of which backs up Martin’s closing point that:
“not only did some of the ideas from learning objects and standards later evolve into the work on open educational resources (OER) but many of the same personnel were involved; for example, Stephen Downes, David Wiley, Lorna Campbell, Brian Lamb, and Sheila MacNeill all contributed to this early field and then became significant voices in open education. This demonstrates that while some approaches do not achieve the success envisaged for them, the ideas and people involved develop the key ideas into more successful versions.”
Huge thanks to Martin for chronicling the history of ed tech with his brilliant book, to Clint for making this amazing project happen, Laura for being such an engaging podcast host, and last but not least, Phil for putting up with me for 15 years of metadata projects!
I’ve been rather neglecting this blog recently, ironically because I’ve been busy blogging about blogging on other blogs :}  The University of Edinburgh launched a new
Academic Blogging Service
, including a centrally supported WordPress platform,
blogs.ed.ac.uk
, last year and the service has really taken off.
In addition to our workshop
Blogging to Build your Professional Profile
, as part of the roll out of the service, Karen Howie (Digital Learning Applications & Media) and I have been curating a
Mini-Series on Academic Blogging
over on the
Teaching Matters
blog. The series features reflections on different uses of academic blogs from staff and students across the university.  Together with Susan Greig (Digital Skills) and Daphne Loads (Institute of Academic Development), I wrote a post on blogging for professional accreditation
Blogging: What is it good for?
The post reflects on my experience of using my blog to create and evidence my CMALT portfolio, while Susan and Daphne discuss how blogging can be used to support CMALT and HEA accreditation.
We’ve also recorded two podcasts as part of the series; one on
How Blogging can be used as an effective form of assessment
, and another on
Blogging to enhance professional practice
, which is a conversation between Karen Howie, Eli Appleby-Donald (Edinburgh College of Art), James Lamb (Centre for Research in Digital Education) and I.  Though I’ve recorded lots of webinars, this is the first time I’ve recorded a conversational podcast and it was a really fun experience!  Karen made a great “interviewer” and, perhaps surprisingly, Eli, James and I managed not to talk over each other all the time.  Although all of us have quite a difference experience of and approach to blogging we were all very much in agreement that blogging can be a great way to enhance professional and academic practice.
The week before last I had double blogging; on Wednesday afternoon I gave a talk as part of a panel on “Using Social Media to Engage Research End Users” for colleagues in the College of Arts Humanities and Social Sciences.
Thank you
@EdinburghUni
for today's Learning Lunch. All about using social media to engage research end users. Brought to us by an all female panel currently rocking social media. Thank you Clare de Mowbry, Jen Ross
@LucyHunterB
@LornaMCampbell
#womeninacademia
pic.twitter.com/kdxAGW07DC
— Marissa Millar (@Marissa_Millar)
May 8, 2019
Then later in the evening I joined
Girl Geek Scotland
to give a talk on professional blogging (
slides
) as part of and event on “Your Online Self:  How do you make yourself stand out from the crowd?” Girl Geek Scotland are a network and community for those working and studying in creativity, computing, enterprise, and related sectors in Scotland. As most of the participants are working and building careers in the commercial sector it was quite a different audience to the kind I usually experience and it was really interesting for me to reflect on the affordances and tensions between using blogging and social media to develop your personal profile and to market a personal brand.  Unfortunately I couldn’t stay for the whole event so I missed the discussion sessions later in the evening but Anne-Marie said that there was considerable interest in using blogs for personal development, so I’ll take that as a win.  Now all I need to do, is get my own blog back in order!
Thank you to
@girlgeekscot
@iZettle
and speakers
@LornaMCampbell
@ShannonMcEnroy
@SoozYoung
for an extremely interesting and informative event tonight about how to present yourself online. Im inspired to knock the dust off this twitter account and tweet again!
#womenintech
pic.twitter.com/qWqzkdJpw7
— Katharina Bitzan (@katharinabitzan)
May 8, 2019
Recent Posts
On the threat of mass redundancy
OER25 – Stepping back and speaking truth to power
Copyright and Cartoon Mice – Gen AI Images and the Public Domain
For those about to blog
2024 End of Year Reflection
Categories
April 2026
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Tags
23things
23ThingsEdUni
altc
cetis
cost of freedom
creative commons
EDE
femedtech
femedtechquilt
freebassel
further education
higher education
history
innovation
jisc
jorum
lrmi
lrmi implementation
metadata
moocs
oeps
oer
oer16
oer17
oer18
oer19
OEweek
okfn
open
openbadges
opendata
OpenEdFeed
open education
open education practice
open knowledge
open practice
openscot
poetry
policy
standards
ucustrike
ukoer
uoe
wiki loves monuments
wikimedia
CC BY
, Lorna M. Campbell unless otherwise indicated.
Meta
Entries feed
Comments feed
WordPress.org