Australian Red Cross – teaming up with other Red Cross and Red Crescent around the world to provide relief.

Oxfam Australia – responding with public health, water, and sanitation services to prevent the spread of disease.

Médecins Sans Frontières Australia – medical projects and are now helping to treat the injured.

Plan International – focus on water, sanitation, health, shelter and child protection.

Half a million people predicted dead. If there is a good time to open up your heart and empty your wallet, this is the time to do so.

* Pictures taken from Brisbane Times and information from SBS Word News

Wish Beth a happy birthday and help her make her wish come true – http://bit.ly/beth53

“Connectivism, “a learning theory for the digital age,” has been developed by George Siemens and Stephen Downes based on their analysis of the limitations of behaviourism, cognitivism and constructivism to explain the effect technology has had on how we live, how we communicate, and how we learn. Donald G. Perrin, Executive Editor of the International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning says the theory “combines relevant elements of many learning theories, social structures, and technology to create a powerful theoretical construct for learning in the digital age.”

I highly recommend reading the Wiki article if you have the time and/or work in the ICT field.

Education is relatively a new field to me, even though I am currently working in it! However, the digital world isn’t so I am only picking one slide from the entire presentation (found here) to comment on, since its the only one that has gotten quite a discussion during the lecture.

The slide show showed this quote:

“What we have here is a transition from a stable, settled world of knowledge produced by authority/authors, to a world of instability, flux, of knowledge produced by the individual … ” – Institute of Education, London, 2007.

So, that quote got quite a few discussions going and I didn’t get the time to budge in so here is my 2 cents worth.

The Way, The Truth & The Light
OK, well, I didn’t mean to be controversial with the subheading but historically, the church had the monopoly over the truth. However, things changed after the Englightenment because pretty much, everything was up for grabs! The truth slowly disperse to people in the society, and over the past centuries, the politicians, scientists and teachers control the truth. Even when the internet started booming, the truth was still very much centred and controlled. I remember when I was an undergraduate students, referencing websites was a huge no-no, unless in very very unique circumstances, you can reference huge, well-recognised organisations such as the World Health Organisation or governmental websites.

Social Media Shifted The Equilibrium
In the last few years, the explosion of social media has not only called for micro-information, but we also see a shift in the controller and communicator of the truth. Social media shifted the power to people, to everyone and encouraged conversations. This is an important point, because websites used to be static and information-relaying, but social media pushed for conversations and interactions. Increasingly, the perception of truth and information started coming in from all kinds of sources – friends, friends of friends and even people you don’t really know! (Twitter is a great example – how many people you don’t know do you follow and how many tweets from people you don’t know you have RT’ed)

It was also during this time that the smart people start to see a revolution – we’re moving into a Connected Age where we’re all becoming hyperconnected and this can be a great thing because like I mentioned before, with our powers combined (pun intended) we can seriously become Captain Planet! Those who recognise this started innovative and revolutionary ideas such as Wikipedia and Creative Commons. These ideas call for conversations, scrutiny but most importantly, credible, reliable and quality information and/or product! Everyone is an expert and everyone has a piece of truth. In the case of creative commons, someone can produce a revolutionary theory today, publish the book under creative commons and allow anyone and everyone who thinks that they have a piece of mind to add to that to tear the theory apart and add their own parts to it.

Things are continuously being challenged and at a rate that is more rapid than before. This is the perfect time for social innovation to prosper and if anything, time for us to actually believe that the answer to many social problems is potentially very near.

Back to the quote
At the lecture, the idea that we’re at “a transition from a stable, settled world of knowledge produced by authority/authors, to a world of instability, flux, of knowledge produced by the individual” was challenged and my point of view is that many traditional thinker of the digital world still does not recognise or see this information shift pushed by the digital realm. They are not backward thinkers, if anything, these are the people that will help improve the theory, idea and how we convey this very new way of thinking to them.

Some might misunderstood the use of “instability” in the sentence, but its important for us to remember that this instability is not necessarily a bad thing, in fact, more often than not, it is a good thing. This instability is the conversation that I am talking about.

And a great example of that is this post. Back in those days, what was presented in a lecture either stay in our mind or gets regurgitated into our assignments and exams, but in the Connected Age, the lecture might have ended but the conversations continue happening on Twitter, on Elluminate Live where it was streamed LIVE and on this blog. And everyone, every conversation adds at least a tiny piece of truth to the lecture.

What does this mean in Education?
Like I mentioned before, I am no expert in this area but I feel like I should add some opinions to this. I have been really frustrated with some universities approach to teaching, especially the attitude of the lecturers. I came from a work background where youth participation is taken very seriously. We work in an organisation that targets young people, but we not only provide service for the young people, but we work with the young people as well. By participation, we are not talking about providing feedbacks but giving the influence to change things. It is recognising that everyone can be an expert and inviting people that you “work” with to be co-creators with you. However, in traditional education, the teacher and lecturer remains the disseminator of the truth and information presented in lectures and assessments are based on pre-existing information, without much creative input from the students.

- + -

I am incredibly excited by the work George is doing, because that is one of the challenge I think tertiary science education in Australia is facing. I am really looking forward to next year to jump on board with Dr Mia O’Brien (@Mia_OBrien) to look at setting up Teachers Without Borders and some other projects.

Other works of George Siemens:
- Connectivism: Networked and Social Learning
- elearnspace.org: everything elearning
- his very interesting blog

Last week’s Twitter #4change Chat was around Education, in particular the role of social media in Education, so if you’re interested George’s blog has more interesting read.

There has been a number of predictions about mobile internet lately. The IDC predicted that mobile internet users will increase by up to over 1 billion by next year.

IDC predicts that, for the first time, there will be over 1 billion mobile devices accessing the Internet by year-end, gaining quickly on the 1.3 billion PCs accessing the Internet (the former are growing at 2.5 times the rate of the latter).

The introduction of smart phones, especially the iPhone definitely had a great impact on the figure, but I think the most exciting is the rapid improvement of the Android, and a prediction that there will be a Google phone by 2010, which I am sure will fuel the figure.

More Internet Users by 2010
I am super excited at all these figures, because I am sure that the cost of accessing the internet will decrease, especially in Australia where internet download is capped – which I found ridiculous when I first moved here from Malaysia, where internet is limitless. Smart phones will also become more affordable, and this means that for the first time, marginalised communities will be able to access the internet quite easily. I was presenting at Making Links recently, and David Mejia-Canales presented on InfoXchange’s Wired Community @ Collingwood project, where they installed computer and internet, and trained the multicultural community to use the internet. The challenges of the project is not only the financial costs involved, but the training proccess.

Installing broadband in a house is not cheap – you’ll have to pay for the phone line and the internet line, both of which can be quite expensive if its used and paid by only one person. With mobile internet, you do not have to know how to operate a computer, and I am quite certain that learning to access mobile web is a lot easier than via PC.

Marginalised Communities
One of the challenge of internet is reaching marginalised communities as most of these people do not have access to a PC, however, findings also suggest that most of them have at least a mobile phone. The Bridging the Digital Divide, a research undertaken by the Inspire Foundation and ORYGEN Youth Health found that the internet and mobile phones play a much greater role than expected in the lives of young people who are socially, culturally or economically marginalised, and it challenges the concept of the “digital divide” which suggests that marginalised young people’s use of technology is limited.

I guess my next point isn’t exactly “marginalised” communities, but “stigmatised” issues. Being able to access internet on the mobile phones mean that young people can access internet in private and whilst the skeptics will say that this is dangerous, my point of view is that young people will be able to access more information, especially those which typically is stigmatised in the community, such as mental health issues, LGBT, diseases and drug use. However, for this to happen, service delivery websites need to ensure that their websites is mobile compatible, which sadly, most isn’t!

Internet as a setting
I think all these highlights my point from previous posts that the internet is becoming more and more of a setting where people converge, meet and connect. It is beyond just tools, and I really hope that more and more organisations recognise this and builds platforms that allow this to happen. The potential of it is there, the challenge is for people to recognise that and do something about it.

Nathaniel also links to a few other services or ventures that have used the mobile phones for good, and the one that I’ve been waiting for since March is the Extraordinaries. It’s a really good example of how a venture draws power from the connectedness that technology has allow us. The connection is there, we just need to recognise it and learn how to use it wisely.

Photo credit: shapeshift

After my first glance at the paper, my enthusiasm immediately died down by 20%. There were 5 columns – First Name, Last Name, Mobile, Address and Email Address.

I know that there used to be a perception that the more details you get from someone, the more you can keep that person in because you can easily hunt them down. However, those are red tapes that first put people off.

We’re moving towards a 140 characters world, where every character counts and if you don’t need those information, don’t ask for it. Looking through your database, do you see any information of your stakeholders that you’ve never used? Such as address – what do you do with them? Those extra information, although comes in handy when you need it, but the chances of you needing them is not worth wasting your computer’s space, administration managing the database and the person filling in all these information that you don’t need.

It’s easy to be sucked into thinking that the more, the better but in a world where resources are limited, you want to be efficient and straight to the point. Managing extra things that will give you limited outcomes is only a waste of time and resources. In a non-profit settings, you cannot afford to waste any of those. As far as thinking ahead goes, its about narrowing it down to the niche and efficiency.

That also applies to organisation managing social media. A lot of time, organisation jumps on the bandwagon because everyone’s on it, but if social media does not have the audience that will benefit your organisation its just another waste of resource.

A few years ago, I got hold of a copy of the Good Giving Guide by Give Well. I was actually shocked at a number charities’ overhead ratios – which is basically the ratio or percentage of money used to cover the administrative and all other incurred costs. If you get a chance, I strongly recommend anyone whose interested in the area of non-profit to have a look, although bear in mind that overhead ratio does not tell you the meaningful work that the non-profit does.

Over the past few days, as the holiday season draws near, talk around giving also started to surfaced\ and being the geeky person that I am, I’m subscribed to a few blogs that’s been talking about it quite a bit. The ‘controversy’ lies around giving based on overhead ratio.

Tim Ogden over at Philanthropy Action raised a number of very important points and have been advocating for people to not give purely based on overhead ratio .

• It tells you nothing about the impact the charity has on people it’s trying to help
• The rules for determining overhead costs are vague and every charity interprets them differently
• Accounting experts estimate that 75% of charities calculate their overhead ratio incorrectly
• It discourages charities from investing in tools and expertise that would make them more effective

Allison Fine actually took a really strong stance on the issue, which criticised the organisations that introduced, advocated and promoted the use of overhead ratio to measure the efficiency of non-profit in the first place. Ken Berger in his blog also pointed out that beyond overhead ratio, we need to take into consideration the organisation’s:

1. Financial health – Is the nonprofit sustainable? Does it have robust financial strength to survive in good times and bad? Is the overhead not at the extreme end of the continuum?
2. Accountability – Does the organization have ethical practices, good governance and transparency? Is it accountable to its constituents?
3. Outcomes – Can the nonprofit supply information about meaningful and lasting change in the communities and lives of the people it serves? Can they show evidence that these changes are as a result of their efforts? Do they have systems and processes in place to effectively manage their performance?

I strongly agree with the three points that Ken raised. Having said that, I think this calls for organisations to actually take evaluations of their programs more seriously but more so, calls for more transparency and accountability. I know that this puts extra burden on organisations, but I think that in the long run, its a lot more beneficial for the organisation and the community. It allows the organisation to build trust, thus leading to satisfaction and engagement with its stakeholders – whether it be volunteers, staff or supporters.

The evaluation also allows the organisation take a reality check on its progress – the level of meaningful engagement its doing, the effectiveness and also it allows the organisation to understand its audience. This information is useful for the organisation to ensure its impact, but used wisely, it could also benefit in its fundraising effort. For example, understanding your audience can help you target the groups directly related to the audience that you are impacting on. Although your audience gains the most benefits from your service, often, its the groups that is directly related to you audience that sees the impact and ‘give back’ to your organisation.

Back to my opinion of giving, I’ve never considered overhead ratio as an influence on my giving. Afterall, I disagree with cutting down costs just because you’re non-profit. Thinking like a ‘non-profit’ will not do any organisation good (limited resources, unlimited work to do). The first step to thinking non-profit like a business/enterprise. Compelling equity is one of the keys to engaging your stakeholders and ensure dedication from them.

I often look at the work that the organisation is doing – the direct outcome, the accountability and sustainability of the organisation. It makes me feel good, and I think that is the number one factor that influence giving. But perhaps, this Christmas, as donors, we need to think more about our giving. It seems like we don’t matter but the way we give ultimately sets a culture that promotes accountability from non-profits.

I think Ken’s final paragraph would be a nice conclusion to this long post:

We believe like many others that this is a critical battle for the very soul of the nonprofit sector. We MUST get past the notion of doing the “good work” with no accountability. We MUST get past the idea that nonprofits are too complex or unique to be measured. I have seen it close up for years and it is not a pretty picture. The nonprofit sector must get its act together and make sure it is really helping provide meaningful change in communities and peoples lives. It is life or death for many of those we serve whether we are effective or not. So let’s work together to measure, manage and deliver what is really important to make our world a better place.

Do you care about an organisation / service’s performance before you give? Love to hear your thoughts.

The Will
I believe that every successful social innovation begins with a will to change the world – a dream so big no one around you don’t think its possible.

William has always been fascinated by electricity, and after having to stop school, with no knowledge to read a book, let alone understand the theories, he relied on his determination to study the books he borrowed from the library. From his little understanding, he let his instinct and the pictures in the books guide him to build a windmill that will change his family, and his community’s life forever.

New Invention from Old Inventions
He scrambled through the junks and found some scraped metals, tractor parts and a bicycle frame. Using his limited knowledge, he built the first windmill in his village.

His invention, albeit an old invention in many developed countries was a milestone for people in his village, because it means, for the first time, they are able to power electrical appliances, charge mobile phones and pump clean drinking water for free – necessities to many in the first world countries, but a luxury to them.

More than Electricity
Being able to power other electrical appliances mean the family can be connected to the outside world via technologies such as mobile phones. However, the invention has enabled more than just connection to other parts of the world. It was an invention that has enabled them to access technology they have never been able to before, in a sustainable, affordable and green way. The value lies in the large-scale of social change the invention brought to the community.

The next step for them is to replicate his model for every house in the village and hopefully having access to clean water and electricity, these people can generate their own income and understand the power of innovation.

After his own experience with his cousin’s suicide and acknowledging that youth suicide was and still is the leading cause of death amongst young people, and mental health issues remain a stigma and public health concern that has not received much public attention, Jack set out to do something about it.

So with an idea in mind and a trust in technology, Jack sets out what he wanted to do – come up with a website that to reduce the escalating youth suicide rate.

Balance Between Evidence-Based and Innovation
I am one of the lucky few who can testify that meeting Jack and having a coffee with him is an inspiring event.

Jack was smart, right from the start – he knew that there needs to be a balance between evidence-based and being innovative, and a leader in the field. He set up the Inspire Foundation, a non-profit that utilises information communication technology to improve the mental health and wellbeing of young people. It runs two programs – ActNow and Reach Out.

Reach Out became the first online program that addresses youth suicide and is probably one of the first that uses a youth advisory board to ensure that the program remains relevant for young people.

Reach Out also came out with the first, award-winning serious game, Reach Out Central, that combines gaming and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy to help young people develop skills for life.

Recognising Internet as a Setting
Recognising the internet as a setting where young people converge, exchange ideas, develop resources and have conversation, and acknowledging the potential of young people, Inspire made a move towards user generated content, inviting young people in the organisation’s work in social change.

Inspire's Program Model

ActNow raises the awareness of social issues and connects young people with opportunities in their community, and develop resources to help young people take action they are interested in.

Between the Lines is a community for young people aged 18 – 25 that enables them to make informed decisions and reduce problematic drug & alcohol use.

Inspire has since grown to America and Ireland. Inspire has also launched a Teacher’s Network, providing resources to help teachers use Reach Out in their classroom and Reach Out Pro, providing access and advice for health care professionals on a range of technologies and online resources that can be used to enhance the effectiveness of psychosocial support and mental health care provided to young people.

Inspire’s Success
Inspire’s main factor of success is recognising the potential of technology. We are at the Intelligent or some say, Connected Age where we are more connected than ever before. Technology is becoming smaller, cheaper, more mobile and easier to access. It has help us to reach even the hardest to reach communities, the challenge is now to think outside the box and combining the knowledge of community development and technology to address social needs.

Ashoka: Innovators for the Public are hosting Tech 4 Society, a conference exploring technology, invention and social change, in Hyderabad, India, in February 2009. Find out more about the conference here. This blog post is an entry in their competition to find the official blogger to travel to and cover the event.

And I absolutely agree. But I think that having an online community does fuel the offline activity whatever it is. Technology and ‘being online’, if used correctly, is a powerful catalyst for any form of activism.

I am a big advocate of online community, although truth is in order to obtain highly engaged participants, most of the activities have to happen offline.

There are many engagement models out there but I love Priscilla’s best because its simple and easy to understand.

According to her:

In my levels of engagement chart, a simple action involves befriending (e.g. MySpace), subscribing, forwarding and/or learning. An easy action involves blogging, signing petitions, protesting and/or wearing a badge/shirt/wristband. A specific action involves donating, volunteering, finding events to attend, downloading and using online materials offline and/or creating and uploading video/images. Once you become an active member, you are doing offline actions more than online actions.

I am not sure if I agree with protesting and volunteering being on the sympathiser end of the chart. I think they are more likely to be ‘active members’.

It is easy, although it takes a long time and strategies, to start an online community. Social media made it even easier for us to build our social network and pump out our cause; however, when it comes down to action, the personal relationship and real action still has to happen offline.

Technology provides the medium and is a catalyst for many activism.

You can organise an event on Facebook, invites people to come but what matters in the end is the number of people that turn up, not the number who said they are attending the event. In this case, Facebook provided the tool and catalyst to be able to invite more people than traditional medium can.

coconinoco

I don’t think that the involvement as sympathiser should be undermined, but every organisation would love to move their participants up to become activists. There is value in having a large number of sympathisers but when it come to impact, I think activists contribute more. Moving participants up the levels is the challenge. More on that next time.

I’m not sure if I understand online activism well enough but would love to hear your thoughts.

I’ve been meaning to blog about stuff that comes across my mind and interesting things I’ve read, but I have just been really lazy and busy to organise my blog to write them, so I have resulted in tweeting them instead.

However, there are times when I’d come across interesting things I like to discuss, for example recently I had a discussion with Mark Lobo about my research work looking at how tertiary education should be teaching students ‘to be’ rather than ‘about’ a subject and Mark pointed out that its especially true for courses like Art (e.g. photography). Theories you learn in courses can sometimes be so overwhelming and limiting that you lack the ability to think outside the box; which I believe is the same for many other courses. Assignments these days require students to regurgitate information that’s readily available and most works we get at university are based on pre-determined outcomes, which defeats the purpose of doing it don’t you think? A good example would be Science experiments, especially in first year – we all know what the results are going to be and we are forced to follow a step-by-step recipe book style experiment, which I don’t understand why we are doing it in the first place.

Ah well. More to come as my research continues.