I want to spend another day on MOOCs because it is critical to see how bad all this is. Remember, this is a republican dream come true being pushed by neo-liberals and Maryland pols are all neo-liberal.
MOOCs are ALEC-written corporate education with Bill Gates pushing it at university level just as he is pushing charters and K-12 privatization. STOP ALLOWING WALL STREET TO TAKE ALL THAT IS PUBLIC!
Regarding Maryland and MOOCs as higher education:
We have two good examples of how MOOCs is intended to lower education standards for 90% of Americans right here in Baltimore. Basu of WYPR and Schaller, professor at UMBC and columnist for the Baltimore Sun. Both represent the neo-liberal/neo-con global empire building economy and politics and represent why the public cannot get informed discussion. MOOC is an extension of that. Remember, the 1% have said that education is wasted on 90% of the American people so we do not need strong democratic education for all.
ALL OF MARYLAND DEMOCRATS ARE NEO-LIBERAL AND ARE WORKING HARD FOR THESE PRIVATIZATION POLICIES.
WHO ARE YOUR LABOR AND JUSTICE ORGANIZATIONS RUNNING FOR GOVERNOR AND STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL?
I'm listening to Basu give the same rundown of unemployment figures that have no basis in reality. Unemployment figures simply represent how many people are receiving unemployment benefits and not how many people are unemployed. If Basu wants to keep using that 7.6% number he needs to define that. His intent though is deception and that is why we only hear and read this 7.6% figure with no explanation. The unemployment is 25% and rising with the rate being 40% and rising for those only working part time. Indeed, the baby boomers Basu described fall into the part time category. Remember, the Fed policy of feeding free money to corporations was designed to allow corporations to make tons of money on the market so they could spend it in overseas expansion and not have to actually work (hire) here in the US. This deliberate stagnation of the domestic economy has had hiring rates so low as to move unemployment deeper and deeper over these 5 years. What was 10-11% in 2008 is now 25%....we are worse than most developed countries. Neo-liberals need to hide that figure and the reasons because people would be acting like Europeans and hitting the streets if they knew the objective is to keep unemployment high.....and then there is the green card need to have relatively low unemployment to bring in foreign labor. Reporting the real 25%/40% figures would not allow higher green card ratios!
Now, I'm a scientist and educator who would not know economics if not for the broad course requirements of degrees in America over the last century. Economics 101 allows me to understand all that jibberish. What these classes did as well is teach the subject over historical and futuristic modeling...you were taught to know what was and how to determine what might come and given choices as to what you thought best. YOU WERE GIVEN THE TOOLS TO FORM OPINIONS AND FORMULATE POLICY THAT WORKS BEST FOR YOU. THAT IS DEMOCRATIC EDUCATION!
MOOCs do the opposite. They are designed to be the cheapest tool for distributing education; they are meant to isolate the student from professors with views and opinions different from the cabal at the top; and they are meant to package canned lectures that will be distributed to universities all across the country making all students privy to selected points of view.....and they do not include questioning or forming your own opinion. That is where Basu comes in. As Basu likes to state, he is a Gen Y person meaning he was taught in a system that rewards getting along and not questioning. He has no problem telling you whatever he is told to repeat and may not even consider if what he is saying is right or wrong. BASU SIMPLY FOLLOWS DIRECTION AND DOES NOT MIND MAKING YOU DO THE SAME.....THIS IS GEN Y. I'd like to tell Basu that while Baby Boomers have deliberately been attacked financially because of their politics.....having our savings and investments stolen and having the economy tanked with high unemployment to eat away at the rest of our savings....THAT GIVES BABY BOOMERS THE TIME TO TEACH ACTIVISM TO GEN X AND GEN Y.......AND GEN Z. WE'LL TAKE THE PART TIME OR NO TIME WORK SO AS TO BUILD THE REVOLUTION!
The second media figure that highlights what MOOCs will do is the column written in the Baltimore Sun by UMBC professor Schaller......the neo-liberal opinion page writer who has a heart for labor and justice but has no intent to tell them what is really happening and what the real problems are. Schaller says 'It is terrible what wealth inequity has done and it is unjust and all, but there is nothing to be done.....we aren't going to reverse it. We just have to accept that .05% of the population have all the money'. LOL
We know of course that simply reinstating Rule Of Law and bringing back tens of trillions of dollars stolen in corporate fraud this past decade and suck out of the economy and off into offshore accounts will reverse wealth inequity. EASY-PEASY. Remember, when a government suspends Rule of Law it suspends Statutes of Limitation and politicians knowing crime has been committed and turning their heads are Aiding and Abetting. See, I learned all this in political science classes in high school! That is why they are eliminating all of that now. So we know that what Schaller is telling us is not true. It is simply what neo-liberals want you to believe because they have no intent of giving the money back. So in Maryland, and raging neo-liberal state, the public hears only this kind of information and media outlets are filled with people capable of sharing that kind information. You see why these two people work in higher education! Shame, shame, shame on Schaller for making people think they have no recourse!
What MOOC will do if we do not send it packing is capture lesson plans built by people like Basu and Schaller giving only this perverted point of view. Students will not get real information.....balanced and fair.....and they will not be forced to question and think outside of the box. As we saw with Common Core and its 'thinking deeply and not broadly' theme.....children may not even know what a box is!
WE DON'T NEED THE MASSES KNOWING ALL THAT ANALYTICAL STUFF THEY SAY!
Do you hear your politician and/or labor justice leaders telling you this? If not, they are working for corporate profit and wealth and not you and me! SHAKE THE BUGS FROM THE RUG.....ELECTING LABOR AND JUSTICE WILL REVERSE THE VOICE IN MEDIA!
Below you see that all of the elite universities are telling us we are lucky to have access to their higher education. Only, these campuses do not subject their own students to this junk. What better way to control the global corporation/wealth inequity created by these elite institutions and Wall Street then to market and place their selected lectures in all university degree programs.
As I showed last blog on MOOCs.....they are now being sold to universities and the cost to universities to expose to their students is pennies on the tuition dollar. EDUCATION MADE A BUSINESS.
MOOCs: Top 10 Sites for Free Education With Elite Universities
MOOC stands for Massive Open Online Courses. Although there has been access to free online courses on the Internet for years, the quality and quantity of courses has changed. Access to free courses has allowed students to obtain a level of education that many only could dream of in the past. This has changed the face of education. In The New York Times article Instruction for Masses Knocked Down Campus Walls, author Tamar Lewin stated, “in the past few months hundreds of thousands of motivated students around the world who lack access to elite universities have been embracing them as a path toward sophisticated skills and high-paying jobs, without paying tuition or collecting a college degree.”
Although MOOCs are the latest trend, not everyone agrees that schools should offer them. Joshua Kim Insight Higher Ed article Why Every University Does Not Need a MOOC noted that offering free material may not make sense for the individual university. It may be more important to stand out in other ways.
There may also be some issues for students who lack motivation. Since a MOOC is voluntary and there is no penalty for dropping the program or lagging behind, there may be issues with course completion. Although a student may have received an excellent education, there will not be a corresponding diploma.
For those who desire a free education and have the motivation, the following includes the: Top 10 Sites for Information about MOOCs:
- Udemy Free Courses – Udemy is an example of a site allows anyone to build or take online courses. Udemy’s site exclaims, “Our goal is to disrupt and democratize education by enabling anyone to learn from the world’s experts.” The New York Times reported that Udemy, “recently announced a new Faculty Project, in which award-winning professors from universities like Dartmouth, the University of Virginia and Northwestern offer free online courses. Its co-founder, Gagen Biyani, said the site has more than 100,000 students enrolled in its courses, including several, outside the Faculty Project, that charge fees.”
- ITunesU Free Courses – Apple’s free app “gives students access to all the materials for courses in a single place. Right in the app, they can play video or audio lectures. Read books and view presentations.”
- Stanford Free Courses - From Quantum Mechanics to The Future of the Internet, Stanford offers a variety of free courses. Stanford’s – Introduction to Artificial Intelligence was highly successful. According to Pontydysgu.org, “160000 students from 190 countries signed up to Stanford’s Introduction to AI” course, with 23000 reportedly completing.” Check out Stanford’s Engineering Everywhere link.
- UC Berkeley Free Courses – From General Biology to Human Emotion, Berkley offers a variety of courses. Check out: Berkeley Webcasts and Berkeley RSS Feeds.
- MIT Free Courses – Check out MIT’s RSS MOOC feed. Also see: MIT’s Open Courseware.
- Duke Free Courses – Duke offers a variety of courses on ITunesU.
- Harvard Free Courses – From Computer Science to Shakespeare, students may now get a free Harvard education. “Take a class for professional development, enrichment, and degree credit. Courses run in the fall, spring, or intensive January session. No application is required.”
- UCLA Free Courses – Check out free courses such as their writing program that offers over 220 online writing courses each year.
- Yale Free Courses – At Open Yale, the school offers “free and open access to a selection of introductory courses taught by distinguished teachers and scholars at Yale University. The aim of the project is to expand access to educational materials for all who wish to learn.”
- Carnegie Mellon Free Courses – Carnegie Mellon boosts “No instructors, no credits, no charge.”
The answer to 'Will MOOCs give rise to two separate university systems'...the answer is YES. Elite institutions say education is wasted on 90% of people....they are the ones who will be stuck with MOOCs if allowed to be instated. Gov O'Malley, always the Wall Street shill, is making U of M one of the first to allow credit to this junk just to pave the way to making it legitimate.
The use of online instruction is useful in blended classroom uses and as an aid for parents and students at home doing homework......there is value. WHAT WE ARE SEEING AS USUAL WITH ALL THAT IS MARKET-DRIVEN IS THAT THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE TURNS TO PROFIT-MAKING AND POOR QUALITY.
Massive online courses draw more backlash from college professors
By Ki Mae Heussner May. 2, 2013 - 10:09 AM PDT
San Jose State University, one of the biggest academic supporters of the growing MOOC (massive open online course) movement, apparently has some vocal dissenters in its ranks.
In the past year, the university has welcomed MOOC providers like edX and Udacity with open arms — in addition to launching a first-of-its kind program with Udacity to award college credit for courses taken on its platform. The school has a growing partnership with edX and plans to create a dedicated resource center for California State University faculty statewide who are interested in online content.
But discord seems to brewing among some faculty. This week, professors in the Philosophy department said they refuse to teach an edX course on “justice” developed by a Harvard University professor, arguing that MOOCs come at “great peril” to their university.
In an open letter (first published by the Chronicle of Higher Education) to the Harvard professor behind the course, the San Jose State faculty members argued that while they believe that technology can be used to improve education (by enabling instructors to record lectures so students can replay them, for example), they believe MOOCs could “replace professors, dismantle departments, and provide a diminished education for students in public universities.”
Will MOOCs lead to two classes of universities? Not only do they worry about a future in which fewer perspectives are offered by universities (“the thought of the exact same social justice course being taught in various philosophy departments across the country is downright scary — something out of a dystopian novel,” they say), the professors argue that the MOOC model will lead to two classes of universities.
“One, well-funded colleges and universities in which privileged students get their own real professor; the other, financially stressed private and public universities in which students watch a bunch of video-taped lectures and interact, if indeed any interaction is available on their home campuses, with a professor that this model of education has turned into a glorified teaching assistant,” the letter says.
In the past year, MOOCs have picked up considerable momentum – Coursera, for example, says more than 3 million students have enrolled in a course and 62 top universities from around the world have signed on as partners. And they’re starting to show their effectiveness in blended learning classrooms. In a pilot program at San Jose State, a professor leading an introductory course on electrical engineering incorporated content from the edX course “Circuits and Electronics,” assigning students videos and problem sets to review outside of class. According to edX and San Jose State, the pass rate in that blended class was much higher than the pass rates in conventional classes.
More faculty members show resistance But as MOOC providers carve out a bigger presence for themselves in higher education, university faculty members are beginning to raise compelling concerns. Last month, faculty at Amherst College voted to reject a partnership with edX, citing similar concerns about the long-term impacts of MOOCs on the U.S. university system. Namely, they argued that they would perpetuate an “information dispensing” model of teaching and lead to a centralized system of higher education that weakens middle- and lower-tier schools.
The San Jose example shows that just because university administrators are willing to embrace the MOOC format, it doesn’t mean that there isn’t deep resistance from their faculty. And, given that some believe that the MOOCs’ honeymoon period is winding down, it wouldn’t be surprising to see more examples like this emerge.
We know that blended learning from online classes can be and is a useful tool in education. What we have is the same Wall Street crowd drive by profit and no social values pushing what will be an inferior level of education on middle/lower class families.
MARYLAND IS GROUND ZERO FOR CORPORATIZATION OF K-COLLEGE WITH O'MALLEY IN THE LEAD.
Where's the Real Learning?
June 11, 2013 By Karen Symms Gallagher
I admit it – from kindergarten on, I was teacher’s pet. I got an assignment. I labored over it, made it perfect, turned it in early, got the A.
Until now. Let me confess: I am a MOOC noncompleter. I had heard the hype that massive open online courses (MOOCs) are transforming higher education, and I wanted to see for myself.
I enrolled in the University of Edinburgh’s MOOC on e-learning and digital cultures, offered through Coursera. With enthusiasm I joined my 260,000 fellow students, whom I assumed shared my interest in a rigorous and rich college experience online.
On day one, I got a form e-mail welcoming me. I was to watch a few videos each week, do a few readings, and do my homework – maybe: "There are no weekly 'assignments,' although we do recommend trying at least two of the suggested activities. These are not assessed, but will help you to prepare for the final assignment."
I started out eagerly, watching the videos, skimming the readings, and participating in the online discussion forum. I could do this late at night at home or while traveling for my day job. But after two sessions, my interest waned. Maybe it was the lack of real-time interaction with classmates or professors. Maybe it was the lack of accountability. I soon wasn’t watching all the videos, and I certainly wasn’t doing the practice homework that no one would ever grade. Honestly, I felt more like an audience member than a student.
The final assignment would determine if I passed or failed, but I didn’t feel connected enough to the class to complete the project. And what would have been my reward? A noncredit statement of completion of truly questionable value.
My MOOC experience is pretty typical. Passing is about showing up, not doing the kind of quality work that meets any standards of academic rigor. Even with bare minimum standards for passing, classes have huge rates of attrition.
At the University of Southern California Rossier School of Education, we pride ourselves on delivering high-quality master's-level programs online. I don’t think the problem is with online learning. Rather, we should see MOOCs for what they are so far: an easy way to dabble in a subject, maybe learn new material, maybe not, and sometimes with highly respected faculty. In my MOOC, I never saw my professor live online.
We must do more than put a camera in a lecture hall and put professors in a loosely moderated discussion forum. We must offer real-time interaction between professors and students, and between classmates. There must be learning objectives, not just topics to be covered, so students know where they’re headed academically. We must require students to be accountable and expect them to show a mastery of a subject beyond a "showing up" standard.
Those of us who deliver a real college experience online for credit are happy to share the many lessons we’ve learned. Because nobody wants to be a noncompleter.
Increasingly Amherst seems to be fighting to remain a progressive humanities university that regards students as citizens and shouts out for labor and justice more than most. We thank this university. Meanwhile, in Maryland we have U of M being one of the first to give MOOCs credit-worthiness.
NO ONE THINKS MOOCS ARE CREDIT-WORTHY. CORPORATIONS SIMPLY NEED THAT DESIGNATION TO MOVE FORWARD AND O'MALLEY......ALWAYS THE READY WALL STREET SHILL.....WILL THROW OUR UNIVERSITY SYSTEM INTO THE ROLE.
Faculty members said that participating in edX would not only be ineffective in improving the classroom experience, but it would also disrupt the institution of higher education.
Rejecting edX, Amherst Doubts Benefits of MOOC Revolution
By Amna H. Hashmi and Cynthia W. Shih, CRIMSON STAFF WRITERS April 26, 2013
By rejecting Amherst College’s participation in edX, professors at the liberal arts school expressed doubt in the benefits of Massive Open Online Courses for its faculty, students, and reputation. For the more than 60 percent of Amherst professors who voted against partnering with edX, reaching hundreds of thousands of students around the world does not align with the college’s mission to be “a purposefully small residential community.”
“Ultimately, we’re trying to help our residential students, and [it] wasn’t clear exactly what the MOOCs would allow us to do which we couldn’t do in other ways,” said Stephen A. George, a professor of life sciences at Amherst who introduced the motion against participating in edX. “It was really the massive, synchronous MOOC that did not seem to fit with our goals and values.”
Amherst Chair of Classics Rebecca H. Sinos, who is currently taking Harvard professor Gregory Nagy’s CB22x: “The Ancient Greek Hero” on the edX platform, said she does not believe that teaching online courses would provide her with the opportunity to reconfigure the curriculum for the benefit of her students.
Faculty members said that participating in edX would not only be ineffective in improving the classroom experience, but it would also disrupt the institution of higher education.
“Any MOOC course that I have seen so far is a poor substitute for a real academic course,” said Thomas L. Dumm, an Amherst political science professor. “But if we go the route of having these standardized courses by academic superstars, such as your own Michael Sandel, what’s going to happen to the rest of the professoriate?”
David W. Wills, an American studies professor at Amherst, said that the excitement about online education and MOOCs and the zeal with which they are being promoted makes it harder for schools and professors to refuse jumping on board.
“I think my colleagues...were trying to resist the hype and stay true to their deepest commitments as educators. Our hope is that we can make our way in the world of online education without abandoning those commitments,” Wills said. “If that proves impossible for us, that’s not just bad news for Amherst. It’s bad news for higher education.”
A 21-page unofficial memo written by an ad hoc group of concerned faculty in December 2012 lays out 10 questions about edX participation, questioning whether edX would enhance Amherst teaching.
“If our relation to EdX is an experiment, what is our hypothesis, and why are we testing this rather than another hypothesis?” the memo asked.
“Will Amherst’s voice be influential when confronted with the massive weight and reputations of Harvard, MIT, Yale, Berkeley, and the University of Texas, not to mention the influence of funders like The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (which works closely with EdX?)”
In lieu of joining edX, Amherst faculty members voted to move more courses and class materials online and to find additional ways to incorporate technology in the classroom.
George said that there are other ways to increase the virtual visibility of the college, and that Amherst pursuing online education on its own would allow more freedom to its professors.
The decision was far from unanimous, with approximately 70 out of 110 faculty members voting against creating AmherstX. Political science professor Austin D. Sarat, who presented the pro-edX motion, declined to comment for this story.
Amherst administrators and professors praised edX’s goals to increase access to education, and emphasized that the decision to reject AmherstX was not indicative of a general disapproval of the interface.
“We are disappointed that Amherst College will not be joining edX,” edX said in a statement. “Amherst is a wonderful institution and we would have been delighted to have them join. We acknowledge that online educational platforms are not the appropriate solution for all courses or all faculty.”
As edX approaches its one-year anniversary, it has expanded to include 12 institutional partners in its X Consortium. Only one of those institutions, Wellesley College, is comparable in size and mission to Amherst’s small, private liberal arts focus that prides itself on faculty-student engagement.
“My best guess is that because Wellesley is geographically closer to Harvard and MIT, they’ve got the advantage of a larger number of faculty collaborating with people who are participating in edX and are perhaps more certain about what they’re getting into,” said Amherst computer science professor Scott F. H. Kaplan.
“I think edX is being very selective, maybe too selective. One of the points that was made in the discussion was that edX seems quite proud to turn down a lot of institutions that might like to join,” said George. “They seem to be looking more towards the prestige of the name of the institution than really looking at which would be the best courses in many different institutions.”
Below is a clip of a good assessment of what MOOCs are and what they are meant to do. It is all market-driven and capturing education for monetization and financialization.
This is what Obama, O'Malley, and Rawlings-Blake is doing to your schools along with the pols at Maryland Assembly and City Hall. THESE ARE VERY, VERY, VERY BAD PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING TO KILL DEMOCRACY AND HAND ALL THAT IS PUBLIC TO THESE GLOBAL 1%.
GET RID OF NEO-LIBERAL POLITICIANS BY RUNNING AND VOTING FOR LABOR AND JUSTICE!
One does not have to be a rocket scientist to know that people who make lying, cheating, and stealing the central ethos of their actions are not trying to provide Open Access to information....they are just using this premise to expand and capture higher education.
Massive Open Online Courses and Beyond: the Revolution to Come
Saturday, 17 August 2013 10:30 By Michael A Peters, Truthout | News
The other major issue with MOOCs is whether it will be responsible for the further monetization and financialization of higher education. It is clear that what are now free courses could easily become monetized in the future through a variety of business models. MOOCs are increasingly the result of venture capital partnerships and for-profit arrangements among big publishers, universities and providers of video content. As the UK Universities' Report "MOOCs: Higher Education's Digital Moment?" puts it:
MOOCs may also be emblematic of a broader shift in attitudes towards online education that reflects changing patterns of online activity in wider society. MOOCs and other open and online learning technologies may reshape the core work of institutions, from pedagogical models to business models, and the relationship between institutions, academics, students and technology providers.
I found Ian Bogost's discussion very helpful in this regard. In "MOOCs and the Future of the Humanities (Part One): A roundtable at the LA Review of Books," Bogost provides an approach from political economy that provides an overall context within which to view some of the central features of MOOCs. I summarize Bogost's points in abridged form:
MOOCs are a type of marketing. They allow academic institutions to signal that they are with-it and progressive, in tune with the contemporary technological climate.
MOOCs are a financial policy for higher education. They exemplify what Naomi Klein has called "disaster capitalism": policy guilefully initiated in the wake of upheaval.
MOOCs are an academic labor policy. As a consequence of the financial policy just described, MOOCs are amplifying the precarity long experienced by adjuncts and graduate student assistants and helping to extend that precarity to the professoriate. MOOCs encourage an ad-hoc "freelancing" work regime among tenured faculty, many of whom will find the financial incentives for MOOC creation and deployment difficult to resist.
MOOCs are speculative financial instruments. The purpose of an educational institution is to educate, but the purpose of a start-up is to convert itself into a financial instrument. The two major MOOC providers, Udacity and Coursera, are venture-capital-funded start-ups, and therefore they are beholden to high-leverage, rapid growth with an interest in a fast flip to a larger technology company or the financial market.
MOOCs are an expression of Silicon Valley values. Today's business practices privilege the accrual of value in the hands of a small number of network operators.
MOOCs are a kind of entertainment media. We are living in an age of para-educationalism: TED Talks, "big idea" books and the professional lecture circuit have reconfigured the place of ideas (of a certain kind) in the media mainstream.
Bogost voices some concerns that academics and institutions should take seriously. The UK Universities' Report provides a more sober analysis, suggesting that the long-term impact on higher education is not clear. The report also questions the sustainability of MOOCs and their relevance to the core work of higher education institutions. The report provides a useful framework for assessing MOOCs based on a couple of questions: What are the aims of engaging with massive open online courses in terms of mission, recruitment and innovation? What organizational changes do new online models of education require in terms of sustainability, pedagogy, credit and capacity?
These questions frame institutional evaluations of MOOCs. Additional questions concerning the future of academic labor, the nature of global competition and the adoption of national policy approaches are also important. And there is also the central question involving the perspective of the learner.
MOOCs emerged from the open-education movement with an emphasis on "openness" and scale in online education. Ultimately the philosophy of MOOCs will be determined by the interpretation of "openness."
With the advent of the Internet, Web 2.0 technologies and user-generated cultures, new principles of radical openness have become the basis of innovative institutional forms that decentralize and democratize power relationships, promote access to knowledge and encourage symmetrical, horizontal peer learning relationships. In this context radical openness is a complex code word that represents a change of philosophy and ethos, a set of interrelated and complex changes that transform markets, the mode of production and consumption, and the underlying logic of our institutions. How well do and will MOOCs advance these values?
I would like to suggest that "peer philosophies" are at the heart of a radical notion of "openness" and would advocate the significance of peer governance, peer review, peer learning and peer collaboration as a collection of values that form the basis for open institutions and open management philosophies. This form of openness has been theorized in different ways by John Dewey, Charles Sanders Pierce and Karl Popper as a "community of inquiry" – a set of values and philosophy committed to the ethic of criticism that offers means for transforming our institutions in what Antonio Negri and others call the age of cognitive capitalism. Expressive and aesthetic labor ("creative labor") demands institutional structures for developing "knowledge cultures" as "flat hierarchies" that permit reciprocal academic exchanges as a new basis for public institutions.
The reinvention of the university as a public institution allows an embrace of a diverse philosophical heritage based on the notions of "public”: "the public sphere," "publics" (in the plural), "civil society" and "global public sphere" - all concepts that hold open the prospect of addressing the local and the global - both the community, the regional as well as the national and the global. This is a philosophy out of which values can be forged and orientations adopted that reflect this heritage, which squares with an institutional identity as a part of a historical public system of higher education and which contributes to a global civic agenda of common world problems. MOOCs have a significant role to play in this situation.
The notion of the university as a public knowledge institution needs to reinvent a language and to initiate a new discourse that reexamines the notions of "public" and "institution" in a digital global economy characterized by increasing intercultural and international interconnectedness. This discourse needs to begin by understanding the historical and material conditions of its own future possibilities, including threats of the monopolization of knowledge and privatization of higher education together with the prospects and promise of forms of openness (open source, open access, open education, open science, open management) that promote the organization of digital creative labor and the democratization of access to knowledge.