Figure 7.1. 

Kim will be writing on a number of related topics that integrate Free Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) and free knowledge and equality in education, while also posing questions about what we mean by equality in education and the implications for digital inclusion. The term “libre” distinguishes freeware (gratis software) from free software, which encompasses use, modification, and distribution.

Kim is currently working as a researcher at the Meraka Institute, managed by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) in South Africa. The main focus of his research is the introduction of technology and collaborative learning opportunities, and FLOSS for knowledge sharing and education. Kim also provides general advocacy of FLOSS and libre knowledge. His background includes some cognitive psychology, computer science lecturing, environmental decision support-systems development and other aspects of software development (Java, architecture, patterns, agile methodologies, etc.), and conservation biology (M.Sc.). Given this background, he has an interest in knowledge patterns, collaboration, and knowledge transfer across disciplines. In the context of Open Educational Resources (OER) he likes to promote the concept of “libre learning,” emphasizing the freedoms that users of OERs (or, rather, “libre” resources) should enjoy to permit unrestrained social constructivist (student-driven) learning in the emerging “rip, mix, and share” culture.

This posting is intended to direct the discussion towards the rationale for software libre in education and the broader impact on sustainable development.

I start by revisiting the topic for the series, and share some experiences to re-emphasise a few of the points made in previous postings. I move on to recontextualise the discussion with respect to the big picture, pose some questions for discussion and invite participants to suggest additional questions which may arise

Regarding the topic, “Impact of OSS on Education,” I suspect that both education and software development are subject to similar influences as technology enables connections among people with common interests and learning needs.

For example, it is difficult to determine the impact of FLOSS (Free Libre Open Source Software) on education - the context is enabling educators and learners to benefit from the connectedness FLOSS communities have enjoyed and made good use of for more than a decade. Knowledge sharing across FLOSS and OER communities seems to have streamlined (stimulated, facilitated and catalysed) FLOSS adoption and technology-assisted collaborative learning in the education space. Several FLOSS projects have been pedagogically inspired (e.g. Moodle, Fle3, Kewl.NextGen, etc.), while others have been orientated (initially or primarily) towards administration (e.g. Sakai, SchoolTool, etc.).

FLOSS communities, and more recently Wikipedia communities, have been inspirational in demonstrating what can be achieved through commons-based peer production. We are rising to the challenge of realising this level of success in education through libre and open resources for education. Efforts in this direction include Connexions, Wikieducator and eXe, Le Mill, EduCommons, Wikiversity, and many more.

All of these run on FLOSS platforms, all have followed open (transparent) development processes, and all carefully consider open standards and reusability of learning components (variously called learning objects, iDevices, etc, …).

However, for reusability in education, “localisation/ recontextualisation is always required.” The educational and learning needs vary across contexts. Interestingly, agile software development teams seldom code for re-use unless development of re-usable components is core to their business (Alistair Cockburn, late 1990s, Cape Town; see for example DoTheSimplestThingThatCouldPossiblyWork).

Note that this type of peer production activity has been most evident in the “developed” world. Yochai Benkler emphasizes that most of his research on peer production has focused on the more powerful economies.

Most of the population does not have access to the facilities that enable peer-production (personal computers, the Internet and high bandwidth). However, the cultures seem well disposed towards collaborative knowledge production.

“Developing” countries typically include “developed” areas functioning as part of the global knowledge economy.

Conversely, some “developed” countries face challenges normally associated with “developing” countries (such as poverty, health issues, unemployment, unequal access to education and public services, etc.) - though the scales may be vastly different.

Developing countries are generally not entrenched in set ways of using ICT in education. This is an opportunity to develop, adopt and adapt new and contextually appropriate approaches, and to build innovative supporting software infrastructures to address local/regional needs. FLOSS, free/open content, open standards, and free file formats permit this freedom to innovate.

By addressing the issues where they can be addressed, we will be better prepared to service new areas and people when they become connected (for example, if software and learning resources are already localised)

In many schools, the priorities are for buildings, water supply, electricity, nutrition for the learners, health, etc.. These needs mirror those of the communities. If ICT (Information Communications Technology) is indeed an enabler for meeting development needs, then the priority software and knowledge resources are those which facilitate access to knowledge on sustainable agriculture, primary health care, technical/vocational and entrepreneurial skills, and survival in the relevant context.

There is a worldwide shortage of teachers, and learners do not necessarily have parents available to support them in doing what it takes to get an education.

HIV AIDS is having an impact on the age pyramid in developing countries, eroding not only the aged cohorts, who form a key part of the extended family support systems, but of the current adult generations. The result is a lack of leadership from the aged, a lack of income and parental care, and care for the aged - a lost generation “Beyond Thunderdome.”

Institutions might (initially) prioritise administrative software over pedagogically inspired technology and resources. Learners the reverse, and educators need both. FLOSS packages for both of these functions are gradually being integrated.

Efforts to localise software may lead to redesign and development of completely new systems after analysing the local needs.

Creating one’s own educational resources, relevant to the local context, may prove easier and more effective than re-using resources obtained from elsewhere.

Priorities may be viewed from a global level. For example, FLOSS and open content show great promise towards the “Education for All” goal (UNESCO and others), and are key enablers towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals.

Motivators

In South Africa, after some lobbying by technical people with an understanding of the broader implications, the motivation for FLOSS adoption in government was driven top-down. The intention is to release funds previously earmarked for software licensing for use in capacity development and for addressing other development needs, while developing the local ICT industries and effecting self-determination (at least in terms of the software we use). The following documents were produced as part of the process:

However, some government departments have gone ahead of this process and conducted partial FLOSS migrations of their own. I expect this type of “do what is needed” will continue with innovative individuals leading in response to the needs of the communities they serve.

Motivation at other levels typically relate to improved software development processes, greater flexibility and reduced licensing costs.

A key motivator implicit in this posting is to do the right thing.

Barriers

The barriers to FLOSS adoption were discussed previously (see posting by Pat Masson). More generally, in terms of participation in the knowledge society, using current technology, there are several building blocks which reflect part of the challenge we face for maximum impact:

What opportunities do these present to FLOSS and OER developers, and to the communities of users? Which initiatives exist already providing or developing such building blocks? What should be prioritised to streamline participation in the global knowledge society?

Equality does not end at “access” unless we define “access” to mean physical access (to a computer or some other device) with sufficient bandwidth, and the ability to use the resources effectively. Relevance of the resources is important, as is the freedom to adapt/modify and share alike.

The barriers alluded to previously apply.

Some General Comments

Early Adoption of FLOSS by the OER Community

The OER community is quick to adopt FLOSS and develop and integrate features to support their learners. Recently, this has been incorporation of Web 2.0 features (mashups, use of resources such as del.icio.us, Flickr, YouTube, GoogleMaps, etc.). This is all great - where sufficient bandwidth is available at all times.

Bandwidth and Learning Resources

Recognising the bandwidth issue in much of the developing world, a group of people came up with the idea of “Education in a Box” which later became “Education out of the Box” - a collection of CDs containing FLOSS and free/open content for Education. The intention was to set up a web site with resources from which one could select and download for use in a local setting. The recipients would be free to use, copy, learn with, adapt, improve and share - i.e. take control of their own destinies and offer professional services (such as localisation, redistribution, support, etc.) enhancing the potential impact of these resources on meeting local needs.

The project did not receive direct funding but was supported indirectly by the Developer Roadshows (OSI, OSISA and OSIWA). It is a “libre project” - anyone is free to take the idea further in their own way.

Initiatives in South Africa which provide FLOSS and free/open content, which have exchanged notes, include the Digital Doorway (minimally invasive education), the FreedomToaster, and tuXlabs. The latter started out deploying FLOSS computer labs in schools, developing an effective methodology for doing this. At last count there were over 240 schools with tuXlabs. SchoolNet Namibia has done something similar with over 340 schools so far. The FreedomToaster provides FLOSS and some free educational content to anyone who arrives with blank CDs/DVDs. The digital doorway provides access to people in environments not normally suitable for computers (on account of crime and vandalism for example).

For connectivity within a community, the WirelessAfrica project suggests ways in which a community may set up a network. If there is high bandwidth to the Internet available somewhere in the community, everyone may gain access via the mesh.

Computer labs may not be a great way to support learning with ICT in schools with limited resources. One laptop per child is one alternative poised to be launched in several countries in the near future. Mobile phone penetration tends to be much higher in developing countries than for personal computers. MobilED is one project exploring use of mobile phones in education.

In terms of language barriers, there are research projects looking at tools to help with translation, text to speech, etc. See for example, the work of the Meraka Institute’s HLT group

Regarding FLOSS capacity building see Open ICDL and Learn Linux as two examples in South Africa. More broadly, a new project is starting to gain momentum: FLOSS4Edu.

The golden thread running through all the initiatives above is the emphasis on FLOSS and sharing the learning - libre knowledge.

I hope the trend generalises towards a vision such as “Enabling individuals and communities to empower themselves with knowledge, towards wisdom, for a sustainable world”.

Defining “equality” is difficult, and the challenges around achieving it are significant. It seems to me that best we can do is endeavour to maximise the options and opportunities for individuals and the freedoms to take these opportunities, whatever their context.

The reading list below is indicative of the perspective of this posting.

7 Responses to “FLOSS, OER, Equality and Digital Inclusion”

1. Ken Udas - May 3rd, 2007 at 4:55 am

Kim, I have found this to be a very thought provoking and information rich posting. As I read through the questions that you asked and the abbreviated responses that you provided, I kept returning to a number of related questions of my own. The principal question being:

Is there the need to develop curriculum around commons-based peer development?

That is, would treating commons-based peer development through the formal educational curriculum in primary, secondary, and tertiary education across an array of topics and subject areas strike at equity issues associated with access? Would it help to generate a culture that supports and actively promotes peer development, investment in technologies that support collaborative creation, law that favors (reduces barriers and creates incentives) community production, etc?

If so, it would seem natural for FLOSS and OER to be used as practical applications areas within a curriculum and also serve as sources of examples (artifacts) to be studied and refined. If it were possible to integrate commons-based peer development into an action-oriented curriculum, following for example a participatory action research approach to facilitated teaching and learning, a virtuous cycle could develop in which FLOSS and OER production and use impacts education, formal education becomes directly relevant to societal change, and societal change in turn promotes and is fueled by the use of FLOSS and OER in education. Eventually the application of the skills and patterns developed through the active study of commons-based peer development are also applied to the production of other intellectual capacity (work flows, processes, physical artifacts, etc.).

In partial response to your first question, “Q1. Is the learning from and between FLOSS, OER and other peer production case studies applicable in “developing” economies?” I believe that a curriculum that includes commons-based peer development principles would be more likely to thrive in “developing” economies than in developed economies that have a whole value system based on deformed information markets (artificial barriers that impede the free flow of information and ideas).

2. Wayne Mackintosh -May 4th, 2007 at 12:03 am

Hey Kim, Its always a pleasure to read your postings on libre content! Your coverage of cutting edge projects across the globe is impressive and you always provide a wealth of resources and links to what is going on in the field - particularly from the developing world perspective. South Africa is becoming a global leader in FLOSS and free content adoption, and I can assure you that we are learning much from your experiences. Thanks for an informative and challenging post!

The general public may not be aware of this — but your leadership thinking around the concept of “free knowledge communities'’ which evolved to libre communities was an instrumental catalyst in the foundation of WIkiEducator. Thanks for the inspiration!

I’m very pleased that you raised the issue of bandwidth in your post. Sadly most of the industrialized world uses bandwidth as an excuse to focus on legacy technologies for development at the expense of the potential of digital technologies for creating development futures.

For example - it’s relatively easy to develop wiki ==> pdf technologies that would provide access to learners in Africa who do not have connectivity. At COL we are working on funding solutions (with a very restricted budget ..;-( ) to achieve these objectives.

So I guess my question is how do we lobby the donor community and free content projects to collaborate on the technological solutions that will make a difference in Africa?

In other words - how do we make the future happen for Africa using free content?

I can assure you that we’ll be collaborating with you to achieve these ideals

Cheers, Wayne

3. Kim Tucker - May 7th, 2007 at 7:09 am

Response to Ken:

I am glad you raise additional questions. Drawing out “good strategic questions” is one of the most significant things we can do in this process.

Questions draw us towards the future (”which will be different from the past” to quote Wayne) … sowing the seeds of action in the now ….

This is what we tried to do while discussing a research agenda for OER - http://oerwiki.iiep-unesco.org/index.php?title=OER_research_agenda>

Re: Is there the need to develop curriculum around commons-based peer development?

Certainly include cbpp-like learning activities (among others) for most curriculi (learn by doing) - reminiscent of progressive inquiry and social constructionist activities highlighted in FLOSS such as