agregador de noticias
Last April (2017) I prepared for myself a ToDo list to prepare three conference papers with which I would revisit the experience of our EU-funded Learning Layers project (2012 – 2016) with emphasis on the achievements of the Construction pilot. I had the plan to participate in three conferences and I expected that I could prepare respectively three research papers that would examine from a conceptual point three important aspects of our project work
- the methodological issues on accompanying research (comparing our work with that of predecessors);
- the pedagogic foundations of our work (relating our starting points to current developments at policy level and in parallel pilots);
- the relevance of our work vis-à-vis industrial and organisational innovations (comparing our innovation agenda with its prior and emerging innovation concepts).
In October 2017 I wrote a blog in which I mentioned that intervening factors had slowed down my work. However, I was pleased to inform that I had managed to complete my ToDo list and produce three working papers to cover the themes that I had planned. Yet, after a short while I had to admit it to myself that I had celebrated my achievements too early. Indeed, I had covered the themes but the quality of the papers was uneven. In all papers I could see gaps that I had to cover. I had brought into picture essential elements of each ‘story’ but not all of the stories were woven together with a coherent argumentation. So, I understood that I have to rework all the papers from this perspective. Now I have revisited the Learning Layers experience once again and completed the necessary reworking of these papers.What do the (reworked) papers tell about our research in Learning Layers and on the growth of knowledge via our project?
Below I try to present the main contents of the newly reworked papers and highlight to red thread of the ‘story’ that is to followed through different sections. Here I want to draw attention on the conceptual and methodological foundations of our work in the Learning Layers as well as to the reflection on the predecessor concepts in the light of our work. Moreover, I will discuss some newer developments in innovation policies and innovation research as challenges for our approach.Paper 1: Accompanying research between knowledge development and support for innovations in the field – Revisiting earlier innovation programmes as predecessors of the Learning Layers project
The first paper starts with the explanation, why the research team from our institute ITB declared itself as an accompanying research (Begleitforschung) team in the Learning Layers’ Construction pilot. As a conceptual and methodological background for this approach the paper reconstructs the development of accompanying research in two parallel threads of innovation programmes in Germany:
- Innovation programmes for social shaping of work, technology and organisations (Humanisierung der Arbeit, Arbeit und Technik);
- Pilot projects and innovation programmes in the field of vocational education and training (Modellversuche, BLK-Programm “Neue Lernkonzepte in der dualen Berufsausbildung”).
Throughout these explorations the paper draws attention to different positions, whether the researchers should take a co-shaping role in innovation processes – and on shifts of emphasis in the course of time. Finally, the paper draws attention to specific positions that argue for more intensive and shaping-oriented involvement in terms of ‘action research’, smart innovation analyses and/or dialogical knowledge development. In the concluding reflections the paper compares the position of ITB researchers with the latter approaches.Paper 2: Research as mediator between vocational learning, work process knowledge and conceptual innovation – on the role of research in the modernisation of vocational education and training (VET)
The second paper starts with recapitulating how the ITB researchers entered a participative co-design process with an open agenda and then supported the design idea – digitisation of training and learning processes in VET – with conceptual inputs. In the following sections the paper presents different conceptual reflections and insights into policy debates – to be followed by exemplary pilot projects that respond to the challenges raised in the debates. The relations between these sections can be characterised as follows:
- The contribution of Rauner (shaping-oriented VET) provides an interim synthesis of different concepts and themes that are essential for VET development. The empirical studies of Böhle (experiential knowledge) and Koch (mastery of complete work process) highlight the importance of their key concepts for advanced automation and future-oriented staff development.
- The contribution of Baethge et al. presents a negative scenario on renewability of VET and vocational learning culture during the transition to ‘knowledge society’. The contribution of Pfeiffer presents a critique of Baethge’s interpretation on ‘experiential knowledge’ and gives insights in complementary relations between academic and experiential knowledge in innovative organisations. The contribution of Spöttl deepens the analysis with his examination on to parallel educational genotypes (Bildungstypen) and on the relevance of hybrid types for the emerging innovation agenda ‘Industry 4.0’.
- In the light of the above-mentioned conceptual inputs and the debates on the sustainability of VET the selected pilot projects (and the example of Learning Layers) demonstrate, how shaping-oriented VET can be based on participative processes of practitioners. The exemplary cases demonstrated, how pilot projects have mobilised the participants in creating their own innovation agendas and implementation plans – and shaping the digital tools and web resources they need for themselves. Even, if these may have been modest starts, they have provided a basis for peer learning and peer tutoring – as social dynamics for innovation transfer.
The third paper examines the innovation agenda of the Learning Layers’ Construction pilot vis-à-vis industrial and organisational innovation research that takes into account the role of VET. In this context the following milestones and transitions are discussed:
- The starting point is the re-examination of the legacy of the European Work Process Knowledge network of the late 1990s. The paper gives a brief overview on the studies, the debates and the conclusions on the importance of VET.
- The next milestone is the re-examination of the German project “Smarte Innovation” that was completed in 2012. This project developed a more intensively participative approach to analyses of product life cycles and innovation potentials at different stations. The project also presented critical analyses of communication gaps, lack of understanding on innovation potentials in ‘remote’ stations and on the dysfunctional role of externally imposed process standards. Concerning the role of VET, the project drew attention to an emerging model for continuing vocational training (CVT) that outlined a new career progression model.
- The following milestone is the analysis of successive innovation programmes and the shift of emphasis from ‘remedial interventions’ (that compensate the negative consequences of mainstream innovations) to ‘enabling innovations’ (that seek to facilitate the development of ‘learning organisations’ into innovation leaders). As a contrast to the above-mentioned ones, the emerging innovation agenda ‘Industry 4.0’ shifts the emphasis to advanced automation, complex networking and new digitised production and service chains.
- The final milestone is the examination of the current discussion of social and educational scientists on the role of human actors in the context of ‘Industry 4.0’. Here, a number of researchers have brought together different conceptual and empirical studies that emphasise the potential of skilled workers and on the possibility to shape learning opportunities when developing new production or service concepts. Parallel to this, some researchers explore the possibilities to develop off-the-job learning opportunities as means to enhance workplace learning alongside the new production concepts.
– – –
I think this is enough of the contents papers and of the ‘stories’ that weave them together. As I see it, the Learning Layers’ Construction pilot may not have been at the forefront of industrial and organisational innovations or in the introduction of digital agendas to the field of VET. Yet, it has been clearly part of the big picture on all accounts and it has done its part to stimulate essential innovations in the field of VET. However, this leads us to another question: What can we say about transfer of innovations in the light of the Learning Layers project and its follow-up activities? To me, this is a subject to further studies to be reported later.
More blogs to come …
In the spirit of iterating toward openness, I’ve recently had the opportunity to revisit some of my earlier thinking about how to measure the impact of OER-related work. Some of this seemed interesting enough that I thought I would share.
I have previously written about metrics I call the educational golden ratio and the OER impact factor. These are ways of thinking about the learning-related return on investment students get from their purchases of learning materials. Here’s an example from the 2014 essay linked above:
For example, beginning in 2011 [Lumen Learning] helped a college in the northeast move their College Algebra course away from a $180 MyMathLab bundle to an open textbook, open videos, and a hosted and supported version of MyOpenMath – an open source platform for providing online, interactive homework practice. In Spring Semester 2011, when every section of the course used the $180 bundle, 48.4% of students passed the course. In Fall Semester 2013, after all sections of the course had transitioned to the OER and open source practice system (which Lumen Learning hosts and supports for $5 per student, paid by institutions and not students, for institutions who don’t want to host it themselves), the percentage of students passing the course grew to 68.9%.
So for a scenario like this one, the two ratios would be:
- Old model: rg = (48.4% pass rate) / ($180 required textbook cost) = 0.27 percent passing per required textbook dollar
- New model: rg = (68.9% pass rate) / ($5 required textbook cost) = 13.78 percent passing per required textbook dollar
The golden ratio provides a simple, intuitive way to talk about the overall impact of an educational product. It also provides a similarly straightforward way to compare the overall impact of two products…. We can also calculate an “OER impact factor” which I’ll designate w (omega for open) – the overall effect of switching from publisher materials to OER – by dividing the golden ratio for OER by the golden ratio for the previously used publisher materials:
w = 13.78 / 0.27 = 51.03
I think this would be an extremely interesting metric for open initiatives to explore and report.
I discussed a similar issue – why we should think about the cost of materials in addition to thinking about the degree to which they support student learning – in a brief essay about how the FDA thinks about the difference between efficacy (which is measured in the lab) and effectiveness (which is measured in the real world). In that essay, I suggested that we should think of effectiveness as
effectiveness = efficacy x affordability
because when you can’t afford a textbook or online homework system (or a cancer treatment), it doesn’t matter how well it works in the lab. Its practical effect is to be perfectly ineffective.
Maybe it’s because I’m getting older, but I find my thinking moving beyond the “learning outcomes per dollar” impact of a set of learning materials and increasingly including thoughts about how you would measure the impact of a person or organization. As I reflect back on 20 years of work in open education, sincerely hoping to be blessed with another 20 years to work in the field, I guess it’s natural to ask questions about the kind and scale of impact one is having. Is this the kind of difference I want to be making? Am I making as much of a difference as I hoped to make?
As I’ve tried to think about the simplest possible model for answering this question in my personal context (keep in mind that your context is different and you will want to develop a different model for yourself), I’ve felt the need to add one more variable to the learning outcomes per dollar equation: the number of people affected by the work. A somewhat ridiculous example may serve to make the point: even if you could create learning materials whose use resulted in instant and complete mastery and you were able to pay people for using them rather than charging for them, if only 17 people ever used those materials you probably wouldn’t have had the impact you wanted.
As I thought through these three goals – improving learning, saving money, and benefiting more students – and the ways they interact with one another, something obvious but interesting occurred to me:
- These three individual goals can be grouped into three distinct pairs of goals.
- You generally engage in activities that directly support your goals.
- Consequently, there are probably some identifiable patterns of activity associated with each pair of goals.
To try to describe this picture in less than 1,000 words,
- If you choose to optimize your work for number of students and cost savings (bottom of the triangle) – that is, if you’re trying to save the most students the most money possible, ignoring learning – then a disseminate-OER-as-PDF strategy makes a lot of sense.
- If you’re trying to optimize your work for number of students and learning gains (left side of the triangle) – that is, if you’re trying to help as many students as possible learn as much as they can, ignoring cost – the field’s response (alas, misunderstanding Bloom’s 2 sigma problem) has historically been expensive intelligent tutoring systems, adaptive systems, and personalized learning systems.
- If you’re trying to optimize for cost savings and learning gains (right side of the triangle) – that is, to help your own students save as much money as they can and learn as much as they can, ignoring the broader applicability or scalability of your approach – then using open pedagogy in your class might work well.
I don’t mean to imply or suggest that any of these pairs of goals is more inherently valuable than another. I don’t see it that way at all. Rather than judging between these pairs of goals, my interest is in what lies at the center – what types of activities could simultaneously create all three kinds of impact, specifically in higher education settings? My current efforts in this area happen as part of the Lumen Learning team and are best exemplified in our work on Waymaker. But thinking about how to optimize for all three kinds of impact is a design problem – meaning there are many potential solutions. Our designs will improve over time, as will those proposed by others. If you’re interested in K-12, informal, or other settings beyond higher ed, you will likely end up thinking about the underlying problem differently, too.
My current best thinking is that this is the simplest way of modeling the kind of impact I want to create over the next 20 years:
impact = learning gains x cost savings x number of students
Open approaches are an absolutely indispensable tool for creating this impact. However, another happy result of my recent reflections on impact was the reminder that openness is a means not an end. We should adopt OER and use OER-enabled pedagogies in higher education because they can improve learning, decrease costs, and improve participation. Obviously, the degree to which open approaches help accomplish these goals will be a function of which OER we adopt and how we ask students to interact with them. Should adopting a specific open approach turn out to decrease learning, increase costs, or lower participation, we should abandon or drastically revise it immediately. All of that to say, to myself as much as anyone else, remember – openness is not the end goal – it is a critically important means to achieving our actual goals.
La brecha de género en la Ciencia, la Tecnología, la Ingeniería y las Matemáticas (STEM) se mantiene en todo el mundo desde hace años, a pesar de que la participación de las mujeres en las carreras de grado superior ha crecido enormemente.
Con el fin de lograr el acceso y la participación plena y equitativa en la ciencia de las mujeres y las niñas, la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas decide proclamar el 11 de febrero como el Día Internacional de la Mujer y la Niña en la Ciencia.
La ciencia y la igualdad de género son vitales para alcanzar los Objetivos de Desarrollo Sostenible (ODS), incluidos en la Agenda 2030. El objetivo 5 es “Lograr la igualdad entre los géneros y empoderar a todas las mujeres y las niñas“.
En los últimos 15 años, la comunidad internacional ha hecho un gran esfuerzo inspirando y promoviendo la participación de las mujeres y las niñas en la ciencia. No obstante, ellas siguen enfrentándose a barreras que les impiden participar plenamente en esta disciplina. De acuerdo con un estudio realizado en 14 países, la probabilidad de que las estudiantes terminen una licenciatura, un máster o un doctorado en alguna materia relacionada con la ciencia es del 18%, 8% y 2%, respectivamente, mientras que la probabilidad para los estudiantes masculinos es del 37%, 18% y 6%.
En España existe la iniciativa 11deFebrero con el objetivo de fomentar la organización de actividades y materiales que conmemoren el día Internacional de la Mujer y la niña en Ciencia en nuestro país, y contribuir a cerrar la brecha de género que actualmente existe en el ámbito científico.
Algunas actividades que nos proponen para trabajar en ese objetivo son:
- Las científicas acercamos la ciencia. Talleres, visitas guiadas a laboratorios, charlas y monólogos de divulgación científica impartidas por mujeres.
- Mujeres científicas en la historia: charlas, exposiciones, vídeos, ilustraciones, entradas en blogs, editatones, teatro y actuaciones.
- Yo soy científica: experiencia personal en citas científicas, charlas o vídeos.
- Concursos: ¿Qué sabes de los descubrimientos de las científicas pioneras? ¿Te animas a dibujar a una científica? Presenta a una científica, haz un vídeo, ¿qué tal organizar una gymkana?…
- Mujer y Ciencia. Mesas redondas, talleres y conferencias para conocer la situación de la mujer en el ámbito científico y debatir sobre cómo aumentar su presencia.
- Librerías y bibliotecas. Dedicar un espacio a las mujeres científicas y hacer actividades en la bilblioteca de centro.
- Escaparates. Incluir carteles, libros, fotos o referencias a las mujeres científicas. Difundir en redes sociales.
- Programas especiales de Radio, Televisión y Prensa.
Desde el INTEF queremos contribuir a que la brecha de género en STEM disminuya poco a poco, y por eso tenemos la iniciativa #chicaSTEM, que pretende dar visibilidad y suscitar debate y reflexión en los centros escolares para que las chicas se animen a seguir carreras científicas.
Imagen destacada: Iniciativa 11 Febrero, María del Álamo Ortega
Last week, The New York Times wrote about a new simulation program, funded by the Department of Homeland Security, that aims to teach teachers how to respond to an active shooter on school grounds – a simulation “that includes realistic details like gunfire, shattered glass and the screams of children,” one in which teachers can play the role of school staff, law enforcement, or the shooter her- or himself.
It was not the first article on the program known as EDGE, the Enhanced Dynamic Geo-Social Environment. There were a flurry of stories on the shooting simulation software at the beginning of the year – Gizmodo, Engadget, Rolling Stone, The Verge – several of which seemed to build on an AP story filed in the closing days of 2016.
Sixteen school shootings occurred between the publication of that AP story and the one that appeared in The New York Times – about one every other day.
From what I can tell, the story of the shooting simulation was not covered by any education publications – only by a handful of technology ones. This raises a number of interesting questions about coverage and about definitions. What counts as an education story? School shootings certainly do. But what counts as “ed-tech”?
“Why can’t you be more positive about ed-tech, Audrey” https://t.co/kMMdx1unsU— Audrey Watters (@audreywatters) January 3, 2018
I tweeted something rather flippant about the story back in January when Gizmodo posted a video about the simulation, and I received an admonishment from one ed-tech evangelist that the software “has nothing to do with ed-tech.” I replied that metal detectors are ed-tech, that windows are ed-tech, and that one should consider how these technologies are distributed among various school buildings and communities. The individual sneered that my definition was uselessly broad, that this would mean that locks on school doors are ed-tech.
Well, locks on school doors are ed-tech.
When most ed-tech evangelists, like my interlocutor on Twitter, talk about ed-tech, they don’t mean “technologies used in education.” They don’t even always mean “computers in education” – or not all computers, at least. While they readily refer to the use of computers used for instructional purposes, computers used for administrative purposes are less likely to be touted, particularly with the recent focus on “personalization” or “learning outcomes,” particularly when education-related computations occur outside a school or district (as in the case of private student loan companies, for example).
Perhaps due to education publications’ funding by education reform organizations and by venture capitalists, the coverage of “education technology” in much education media tends to coincide with these investors’ policies and portfolios. The definition of “ed-tech” is therefore incredibly narrow, often focused on products rather than practices. And that skews the ways in which we talk about “ed-tech” – how we might consider its politics and its purposes, how we might think about its origins and its implications.
In her 1989 CBC Massey Lectures, the physicist Ursula Franklin offered a different definition of technology, one that I use in my own thinking and writing:
Technology is not the sum of the artifacts, of the wheels and gears, of the rails and electronic transmitters. Technology is a system. It entails far more than its individual material components. Technology involves organization, procedures, symbols, new words, equations, and, most of all, a mindset.
If we recognize technology as practices, we can more readily see the connections to social relations, Franklin argued. We can then think about technology not just in terms of the introduction of a particular tool, but in terms of how technology might support or shift pre-existing values. Cultural values. Political values. Institutional values.
To claim that a school shooting simulation isn’t “ed-tech” is remarkably unhelpful. It serves to bolster the ideological claims that technology is always bound up in “progress.” And importantly, this refusal to include certain technologies in “ed-tech” circumscribes much of the analysis one might undertake about systems, structures, histories.
What is the history of military teaching machines, for example? What role has the military played in developing education technology (particularly training simulations) that have made their way into classrooms? How might the military’s values – overtly and subtly – permeate ed-tech? How do those coincide and how do they conflict with the values of the public school system?
And what is the history of weapons used at school and of the machines used to detect and deter school violence? “Since the attack on Columbine High School in 1999, mitigating the damage of on-campus shootings has been an increasingly urgent priority,” The New York Times writes in that article about school shooting simulation software. “More than two-thirds of public schools nationwide practiced their response to a shooting in the 2013–14 academic year, according to the Department of Education; 10 years earlier, fewer than half of schools did so.”
But of course, Columbine was hardly the first school shooting. And the practices (and products) adopted to “mitigate the damage” have a very different history in affluent, suburban schools than they have in high poverty, urban schools where metal detectors, for example, were introduced almost twenty years earlier.
New York City. Boston. New Orleans. Washington DC. Detroit. These cities all experimented with metal detectors and mandatory searches of (some) students (in some schools) in the early 1980s. The adoption of these practices was a response, according to school officials, to fears of youth violence and weapons incidents in and around schools (but overwhelmingly the latter). Along with the introduction of drug-sniffing dogs, students increasingly found themselves exposed to surveillance and searches at school, the legality of the latter upheld in a number of Supreme Court decisions that decade.
There were concerns at the outset about the effectiveness of metal detectors – not simply whether or not they reliably caught students bringing weapons to campus but whether their introduction changed school culture. “We’d be concerned about the impact psychologically on the climate of the schools,” Robert Rubel, the director of the National Alliance for Safe Schools told The Detroit Free Press in 1985 when the Detroit Public Schools introduced unannounced weapons sweeps using handheld metal detectors.
Indeed, many other school districts that experimented with metal detectors admitted that they found them to be counterproductive. If nothing else, the screening process posed a logistical challenge, with students complaining they had to wait in line so long that they were often late to class. But some districts stuck with metal detectors nonetheless, often as part of a broader police presence in schools. As Carla Shedd writes in Unequal City, the Chicago Public Schools’ Office of Public Safety boasted in 2013 that it supported a range of these types of technologies: “8,000+ cameras, 500+ alarm systems, 150+ X-ray machines, 300+ metal detectors, 400+ door entry systems, and 35 bus trackers.”
Shedd argues that
Contemporary urban youth are exposed to police contact more frequently and at earlier ages than their predecessors. Schools – and for those who live in public housing, even some homes – have begun to resemble correctional facilities. Metal detectors, surveillance cameras, and other mechanisms designed to monitor and control inhabitants are now standard equipment in American urban schools. Youth who must navigate these spaces are inevitably at high risk of police contact, which may lead to frustration, disengagement, and delinquency.
“Standard equipment in American urban schools.” Education technologies, even.
What happens if we refuse to talk about these as “ed-tech”, if we refuse to address the practices of surveillance and control as well as products of surveillance and control? If nothing else, this refusal stops us from having the necessary conversations about why some schools might get simulations that train teachers how to respond to a potential shooting, and some schools get metal detectors that interpolate all students as potential shooters.
I'm sure someone will find an application of this sort of technology for online learning. "The Disconnect is an offline-only, digital magazine of commentary, fiction, and poetry. Each issue forces you to disconnect from the internet, giving you a break from constant distractions and relentless advertisements." Don't worry - I'll never do that for OLDaily.Web: [Direct Link] [This Post]
By contrast, process based learning does not require an individual to achieve any set standard or level of skill or knowledge, but is a way of creating environments, opportunities and motivations for people to learn more, and to optimise their learning. Formalised learning should not be about control. It should focus on trust. The educational theorist and humanist Carl Rogers once wrote that we should aim to foster 'a climate of trust in the classroom in which curiosity and the natural desire to learn can be nourished and enhanced' (Rogers, 1983).
Industrialised education systems were criticised by Brazilian educator Paulo Freire (1993) who decried the shallow nature of formal schooling. He argued that schooling turned students into '"receptacles" to be "filled" by the teacher. The more completely she fills the receptacles, the better a teacher she is. The more meekly the receptacles permit themselves to be filled, the better students they are.' Freire's banking concept of education is well known. It is premised on the idea of students reaching a destination - being 'filled' with facts. The final exam marks the end of that journey.
Learning is more than mere acquisition of knowledge, or being filled with facts. Learning is a complex process that requires commitment on the part of the learner in pursuance of their interests, exploration of their physical and social environments and discovery of the self. There is also a definitive role for teachers, who should support, scaffold and facilitate these learning efforts. However, in formal education, emphasis is placed firmly on the delivery of subject knowledge, delivered in compartments, and assessed largely in the cognitive domain.
All of formal education points firmly in the direction of products, with scant attention paid to the process of learning. Many commentators have argued that we should return to the true meaning of pedagogy, a subject I have also expanded upon here. Recently, Moravec (2013) argued that pedagogy is not about instruction, 'but the responsibility teachers take for the process by which (the) student becomes a fully developed human being, engaged with the reality of the world.' This makes eminent sense. But many schools remain mired in the product of learning, because this is demanded by the assessment regime. Simply, teaching is driven by assessment.
Therefore, the best way to transform the product into a process is to change assessment.
Friere, P. (1993) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Penguin.
Moravec, J. W. (Ed: 2013) Knowmad Society. Charleston, SC: Education Futures.
Rogers, C. R. (1983) Freedom to Learn. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing.
Learning is a journey by Steve Wheeler was written in Plymouth, England and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.Posted by Steve Wheeler from Learning with e's
Feb 08, 2018
According to this article, " half of all U.S. schools have teachers using Seesaw, up from one-quarter in June 2016." The service offers " iOS, Android, Kindle, Chromebook and web apps where kids can share photos, videos, drawings, notes, links, files and blogs, and record voice-overs explaining their work." The idea is that if they're showing their work to a wider community, they'll work harder and pay more attention to it. As well, parents can look in to see the students' work directly. It's free for parents and students but "schools and school districts pay if they want to sync Seesaw with their student databases and grading systems, and get centralized administration, analytics and more grading features. They pay $5 per student per year." I think that allowing students to share their work is a good idea, but if you turn their portfolios into a grading system it can skew the incentives.Web: [Direct Link] [This Post]
We talk about literacies of various sorts but the enterprise begs the question: what counts as language? Geoffrey Pullum doesn'tt really tell us - though it has something to do with "the communication of simple ideas between people." But he's clear about things that are not languages. Music. Food. Sounds made by Orcas. " The claim that information transmission was demonstrated in the music is patently ridiculous," he writes. I think the definition of language as 'information transmission' is too narrow, and this mostly because I think that cognition is not information processing. But I will agree that journalists go over the side when talking about animals speaking human language. Image: LiveScience.Web: [Direct Link] [This Post]
I met John Perry Barlow at Idea City in 2003; I said nice things to him about his work and he urged me to suppot the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which he co-founded. "Barlow’s lasting legacy is that he devoted his life to making the Internet into 'a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth . . . a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity.'" Hail and farewell.Web: [Direct Link] [This Post]