Transcending OER's "valley of death" -- From OER advocacy to mainstream adoption.
7 views
Skip to first unread message
Wayne Mackintosh
Dec 7, 2010, 9:58:23 PM12/7/10
to WikiEducator, wikieducator-teacher...@googlegroups.com, heyw...@googlegroups.com
Hi Everyone,
Stephen Downe's is absolutely right: "The dichotomy is not between proprietary content and open content, ... but between institutionally manufactured content and community-based content".
Stephen has expressed his disappointment at the recent UNESCO/COL Policy Forum convened in Paris -- the last in a series of online discussions and workshops aimed at taking OER beyond the OER community (http://oerworkshop.weebly.com/). I share Steven's dissapointment at the closedness and lack of foresight and understanding of the real issues and challenges we face in mainstream organisational adoption of OER.
There has been no substantive opportunity for OER practitioners and leaders from around the world to engage in a community-based approach in designing and collaborating on the plans for taking OER forward. Where is the open and collaborative planning under this initiative happening for sustainable OER futures? We need to transcend the "talk-shop" mentality and move forward with open collaboration and a healthy dose of open philanthropy.
The open web is the most powerful enabler we have for social and organisational transformation in achieving sustainable OER futures. I guess agencies are free to use closed models for designing open futures behind closed doors -- but they don't get it. This perpetuates the status quo at the expense of widening access to learning for the 4 billion people of the world who are undeserved when it comes to formal education.
I'm disillusioned with the absence of open collaboration among mainstream OER initiatives and suggest that this is one of the major barriers in building a sustainable OER infrastructure and ecosystem because we refuse to use our point of difference when compared to closed models -- namely the freedom to collaborate. If we are serious about getting out of OERs "valley of death" we must shift our thinking from sharing for learning, to learning to SHARE. In fields like OER, it is more important to learn how to receive than to give away. Single organisation-based OER projects will do more to maintain the status quo, than transform education for the better.
I think its time to take the "OER implementation challenge" by the horns and make the future happen. Consider the facts:
I cannot find any rational reason other than the notion that we are dealing with a classic text-book case of the "innovator's dilemma". The antennas of educational leadership and organisations around the world are so tuned to responding to the existing closed market signals of the classical education model -- that they simply "cannot see" the immediate efficiency gains for a better education system which is free and open. The literature on transformational management when organisations are faced with fundamental change precipitated by disruptive technology suggests that it is not easy to transform from within the organisation :-(. However, organisations can and do change when faced with a crisis.
The OER movement needs a catalyst -- a quantum shift project that will help educational leaders and policy-makers open up education. But more importantly embrace leadership and take the responsibility to lead.
I propose that we initiate an OER collaboration by design and establish a free and open university for the world. This is not an institution in the conventional sense of the word, but a collaboration of like minded individuals and institutions who will collaborate openly on the remix (or development) of high-quality open distance learning materials designed for independent study. Learners around the world will be free to study at no cost .
We should collaborate on achieving an inventory of OERs linked to the graduate profiles of real credentials and invite institutions from the formal sector who would be willing to provide assessment and credit for greatly reduced cost when compared to the normal offerings. In this way we address the impasse of gaining credit for free learning. This is by no means new or revolutionary thinking --- we just haven't succeeded in scaling this up in a way that will support mainstream adoption of OER in our instutions.
In the spirit of open philanthropy and a healthy does of the open source approach of releasing early and frequently -- we are working on draft concepts here: http://wikieducator.org/OER_for_Assessment_and_Credit_for_Students .
The OER Foundation, Otago Polytechnic and the University of Southern Queensland will be hosting a strategic planning meeting in Dunedin, New Zealand on 23 February 2011 to progress this agenda.
We will develop the strategy and operational plans openly and transparently in the wiki under a project called "OER for assessment and credit for students".
We extend an open invitation to international agencies like COL and UNESCO to join us. We extend an open invitation to all formerly registered tertiary education providers of the world to join us. We expect collaborators to play by the rules of the game because we are serious about the mainstream adoption of OER and getting this right.
Let's make OER futures happen :-).
Cheers
Wayne
--
Wayne Mackintosh, Ph.D.
Director OER Foundation
Director, International Centre for Open Education,
Otago Polytechnic, New Zealand.
Founder and elected Community Council Member, Wikieducator
Mobile +64 21 2436 380
Skype: WGMNZ1
Twitter | identi.ca
Stephen Downe's is absolutely right: "The dichotomy is not between proprietary content and open content, ... but between institutionally manufactured content and community-based content".
Stephen has expressed his disappointment at the recent UNESCO/COL Policy Forum convened in Paris -- the last in a series of online discussions and workshops aimed at taking OER beyond the OER community (http://oerworkshop.weebly.com/). I share Steven's dissapointment at the closedness and lack of foresight and understanding of the real issues and challenges we face in mainstream organisational adoption of OER.
There has been no substantive opportunity for OER practitioners and leaders from around the world to engage in a community-based approach in designing and collaborating on the plans for taking OER forward. Where is the open and collaborative planning under this initiative happening for sustainable OER futures? We need to transcend the "talk-shop" mentality and move forward with open collaboration and a healthy dose of open philanthropy.
The open web is the most powerful enabler we have for social and organisational transformation in achieving sustainable OER futures. I guess agencies are free to use closed models for designing open futures behind closed doors -- but they don't get it. This perpetuates the status quo at the expense of widening access to learning for the 4 billion people of the world who are undeserved when it comes to formal education.
I'm disillusioned with the absence of open collaboration among mainstream OER initiatives and suggest that this is one of the major barriers in building a sustainable OER infrastructure and ecosystem because we refuse to use our point of difference when compared to closed models -- namely the freedom to collaborate. If we are serious about getting out of OERs "valley of death" we must shift our thinking from sharing for learning, to learning to SHARE. In fields like OER, it is more important to learn how to receive than to give away. Single organisation-based OER projects will do more to maintain the status quo, than transform education for the better.
I think its time to take the "OER implementation challenge" by the horns and make the future happen. Consider the facts:
- The marginal cost of replicating digital knowledge is near zero.
- It is far cheaper for ten institutions and individuals to collaborate on the development (community approach) than one institution trying to manufacture an OER course on their own. Its an order of magnitude cheaper when 100 individuals work together as a community to achieve a common goal.
- The traditional institutional model cannot respond to the demand for education on our planet. We simply don't have enough money to build the institutions to even begin to address this demand -- yet we have the technology at our disposal to provide free learning to every person on the planet.
I cannot find any rational reason other than the notion that we are dealing with a classic text-book case of the "innovator's dilemma". The antennas of educational leadership and organisations around the world are so tuned to responding to the existing closed market signals of the classical education model -- that they simply "cannot see" the immediate efficiency gains for a better education system which is free and open. The literature on transformational management when organisations are faced with fundamental change precipitated by disruptive technology suggests that it is not easy to transform from within the organisation :-(. However, organisations can and do change when faced with a crisis.
The OER movement needs a catalyst -- a quantum shift project that will help educational leaders and policy-makers open up education. But more importantly embrace leadership and take the responsibility to lead.
I propose that we initiate an OER collaboration by design and establish a free and open university for the world. This is not an institution in the conventional sense of the word, but a collaboration of like minded individuals and institutions who will collaborate openly on the remix (or development) of high-quality open distance learning materials designed for independent study. Learners around the world will be free to study at no cost .
We should collaborate on achieving an inventory of OERs linked to the graduate profiles of real credentials and invite institutions from the formal sector who would be willing to provide assessment and credit for greatly reduced cost when compared to the normal offerings. In this way we address the impasse of gaining credit for free learning. This is by no means new or revolutionary thinking --- we just haven't succeeded in scaling this up in a way that will support mainstream adoption of OER in our instutions.
In the spirit of open philanthropy and a healthy does of the open source approach of releasing early and frequently -- we are working on draft concepts here: http://wikieducator.org/OER_for_Assessment_and_Credit_for_Students .
The OER Foundation, Otago Polytechnic and the University of Southern Queensland will be hosting a strategic planning meeting in Dunedin, New Zealand on 23 February 2011 to progress this agenda.
We will develop the strategy and operational plans openly and transparently in the wiki under a project called "OER for assessment and credit for students".
We extend an open invitation to international agencies like COL and UNESCO to join us. We extend an open invitation to all formerly registered tertiary education providers of the world to join us. We expect collaborators to play by the rules of the game because we are serious about the mainstream adoption of OER and getting this right.
Let's make OER futures happen :-).
Cheers
Wayne
--
Wayne Mackintosh, Ph.D.
Director OER Foundation
Director, International Centre for Open Education,
Otago Polytechnic, New Zealand.
Founder and elected Community Council Member, Wikieducator
Mobile +64 21 2436 380
Skype: WGMNZ1
Twitter | identi.ca
Wayne Mackintosh
Dec 8, 2010, 3:35:20 PM12/8/10
to wikieducator-teacher...@googlegroups.com, WikiEducator
<Wayne>
<Joyce responds>
<Joyce responds>
<Wayne>
<Joyce responds>
<Wayne>
<Joyce responds>
<Wayne responds>
Fantastic! This will be a great learning experience for us all.
The classic DE model works in an economic sense because the high cost of developing independant study materials is spread across large numbers of students. So while collaboration is time consuming, this is no different from the team approach pioneered by the British Open University.
<Joyce responds>
I know...this is the model we use at ESC and the one I learned from Michael Moore way back in the 1980's when I received my Certificate in Distance Education from the Pennsylvania State University, but I find that such collaboration is time consuming even within a single institution, there is some danger that completely open collaboration will take even more time unless there is some mechanism for working together with clear step-by-step procedures, schedules, etc. Otherwise, I know myself well enough to know that collaboration will fall to the bottom of the "to do" list and not get done. I may be wrong but I am assuming that other busy people may have the same problem.
<Wayne responds>
I agree unstructured and unscheduled collaboration will take more time -- However, in the open collaborations we work on, there are work plans with milestones and schedules as part of the development -- see for example (http://wikieducator.org/Open_Content_Licensing/Project_plan). Using a team approach in an open collaborative environment, there are opportunities for saving time - because team members can work simultaneously instead of using a standard production line. You are right, if this is done as a community service / outreach initiative it will inevitably fall to the bottom of the "to do" list -- and this is why organisation leadership and commitment is paramount. This type of collaboration should be part of the official recognised duties of staff working at DE institutions. The only difference being that instead of producing closed materials -- staff work on selected course developments under open content licenses. Same time effort, no additional cost but in medium term significant savings for the organisation because the institution will be able to reuse other OERs as the ecosystem matures. Ideally the team members will come from different institutions to facilitate improved "ownership" of the outputs.
I agree unstructured and unscheduled collaboration will take more time -- However, in the open collaborations we work on, there are work plans with milestones and schedules as part of the development -- see for example (http://wikieducator.org/Open_Content_Licensing/Project_plan). Using a team approach in an open collaborative environment, there are opportunities for saving time - because team members can work simultaneously instead of using a standard production line. You are right, if this is done as a community service / outreach initiative it will inevitably fall to the bottom of the "to do" list -- and this is why organisation leadership and commitment is paramount. This type of collaboration should be part of the official recognised duties of staff working at DE institutions. The only difference being that instead of producing closed materials -- staff work on selected course developments under open content licenses. Same time effort, no additional cost but in medium term significant savings for the organisation because the institution will be able to reuse other OERs as the ecosystem matures. Ideally the team members will come from different institutions to facilitate improved "ownership" of the outputs.
<Wayne>
we now have the technology where ODL institutions can collaborate on the development of shared teaching resources under open content licenses. We will all have the freedom to use, adapt, brand and modify these materials for our own institutions
<Joyce responds>
This is very true but from my perspective at SUNY/ESC there is a kind of "chicken-egg" problem. We already have a rather complex process of internal online course approval and development that creaks along and works reasonably well. I think we would be happy to collaborate with others on some courses but we would need to create a mechanism to integrate the openly developed courses into our on-going processes. This would not happen immediately. I can't speak for the administration or even my fellow Area Coordinators and Teams who are responsible for course selection and development, but I imagine we would want to do a few courses jointly, work out the "bugs" and perhaps eventually switch to the collaborative model. At our place at least the issue is not so much that we don't have the will to collaborate we just need a clear way to do so.
<Wayne responds>
Absolutely, I would suggest that these collaborative OER courses should be subject to the same course approval procedures and must be integrated with on-campus processes. No exceptions for OER -- that's how we can ensure quality. My suggestion would be to do this incrementally -- start with one course using a learn-by-doing approach so we can work out the bugs. Doing this collaboratively we model process and share our learning. We can find the way to do this -- we just need to take the first step.
Absolutely, I would suggest that these collaborative OER courses should be subject to the same course approval procedures and must be integrated with on-campus processes. No exceptions for OER -- that's how we can ensure quality. My suggestion would be to do this incrementally -- start with one course using a learn-by-doing approach so we can work out the bugs. Doing this collaboratively we model process and share our learning. We can find the way to do this -- we just need to take the first step.
<Wayne>
The model doesn't require more money to be added into the system -- it simply requires a reallocation of existing resources and staff time to work on OER development instead of closed course production.
<Joyce responds>
This is exactly my point...I know you are extremely busy but the process of "selling" ESC (and probably other institutions) on reallocating resources would be easier if someone (you?) could provide a clear way to do it without too much use of jargon etc. I very much agree that collaboration is ideal...but on things like major process change it would be good to be able to start from a specific proposal and/or invitation and then work from it. You and probably some of the major leaders in wikieducator are in an ideal position to put together a proposal that the rest of us could work from.
For instance, if you were to put together a clear plan for international collaboration on course development, I would be glad to present it to our administration...but they will be unlikely to respond positively to conceptual proposals and would probably not be happy with me if I spend too much time away from my primary duties.
<Wayne responds>
That's what we're doing at the strategic planning meeting on 23 February 2011 -- drafting a clear plan to put together a pilot for an agreed credential. The proposal will be developed openly and collaboratively in the wiki. We would welcome attendance from you or one of your senior administrators to join has and help develop the plans. While we at the OER Foundation are immersed in the open model -- we are not well versed in all the organisational procedures, and this is where we need your help :-).
That's what we're doing at the strategic planning meeting on 23 February 2011 -- drafting a clear plan to put together a pilot for an agreed credential. The proposal will be developed openly and collaboratively in the wiki. We would welcome attendance from you or one of your senior administrators to join has and help develop the plans. While we at the OER Foundation are immersed in the open model -- we are not well versed in all the organisational procedures, and this is where we need your help :-).
<Wayne>
Agreed - -we must find practical and easy ways of working together - -but that's the easy part -- its just technology.
<Joyce responds>
Technology may seem to be the easiest part to you, but I still find it intimidating especially every time my rather old brain has to learn new steps to be taken...in case you haven't guessed I am much better at conceptual thinking than details. :-) As for ESC...here is where I hope to go with this. I am starting a sabbatical soon...my primary goal has to be completion of a community organizing textbook that I have been working on for years...then I hope to turn attention to a newly designed position that requires a lot of degree planning and advising, graduate teaching, and innovative course design. In the course design part of my work, I will propose that the administration free me to work with the OER Foundation on the kind of course designing that you are propose. I may even ask for "released time" to work with you all beginning in Fall, 2011, but I am not sure how amenable the administration will be to that especially after I have had a six month sabbatical...I am not sure that we have anyone else other than me who would like to devote time to this although if we could develop a functional model, it is possible that at least some of our on-going course development could be switched to this open collaborative effort. As I said earlier, I think that ESC may have the will, but we will need to work on the way. Time is the big challenge. Tom Mackey and I have been trying to get a single hour or two carved out to talk with you on skype...and haven't been able to do so.
<Wayne responds>
I should have been a little clearer in my response. I meant that the technology is the easy part when compared to the transformational leadership challenges. We will definitely need to build in faculty support, improvement of the technology tools etc -- but easier to do than move organisations forward ;-). Your innovative course design role would perfectly! What could be more innovative than designing sustainable education futures through OER? You wouldn't need "release time" -- just an agreement to work on one course that would be released under an open content license.
Lets try and get our schedules lined up so we can Skype -- exciting times.
I should have been a little clearer in my response. I meant that the technology is the easy part when compared to the transformational leadership challenges. We will definitely need to build in faculty support, improvement of the technology tools etc -- but easier to do than move organisations forward ;-). Your innovative course design role would perfectly! What could be more innovative than designing sustainable education futures through OER? You wouldn't need "release time" -- just an agreement to work on one course that would be released under an open content license.
Lets try and get our schedules lined up so we can Skype -- exciting times.
Bottom line. I am 100% sure you can count on me to help as long as I stay reasonably healthy. I am 90% sure that you can count on ESC to join the experiment. Let's try to work on the details. All the best to you and yours. Joyce McKnight
<Wayne responds>
Fantastic! This will be a great learning experience for us all.
-----wikieducator-teacher...@googlegroups.com wrote: -----To: wikieducator-teacher...@googlegroups.comDate: 12/08/2010 12:21AM
Subject: Re: [WE Teacher Collaboration] Transcending OER's "valley of death" -- From OER advocacy to mainstream adoption.
Hi Joyce,
Appreciate the feedback and as always your volunteering spirit to serve!
I agree -- paying student's needs must come first and herein lies my critique regarding organisational transformation for the mainstream adoption of OER.
Those of us (organisations and individuals) having worked in the open and distance learning field know how to develop high quality distance learning materials. It is an expensive and time consuming process involving inputs from many professionals including content experts, learning designers, multi-media designers, linguistic and editorial professionals etc. The classic DE model works in an economic sense because the high cost of developing independant study materials is spread across large numbers of students. So while collaboration is time consuming, this is no different from the team approach pioneered by the British Open University.
In the OER world and the open web -- we now have the technology where ODL institutions can collaborate on the development of shared teaching resources under open content licenses. We will all have the freedom to use, adapt, brand and modify these materials for our own institutions -- but the tweaking will be an order of magnitude cheaper than creating entire courses on our own. I don't see any of the so-called mega-universities collaborating on courseware under free cultural works approved licenses. Why is that? The open universities now have real potential to address the challenges of improving the quality of learner support. It's not rocket science -- learner support is a variable cost which increases proportionally with the number of enrolments. The funding cake for ODL institutions is not getting bigger -- so the only way we can get more internal money for improved student support is to save time and cost on course development. OER provides us with that solution.
The model doesn't require more money to be added into the system -- it simply requires a reallocation of existing resources and staff time to work on OER development instead of closed course production. In this regard, the responsibility lies with the educational leadership of our organisations. Can you imagine the impact if all the ODL and DE institutions of the world allocated 10% of the staff time currently expended on close course production to OER?
Agreed - -we must find practical and easy ways of working together - -but that's the easy part -- its just technology. The difficult challenge is getting our organisational leaders to commit to the core purpose of education -- and that is to share knowledge freely and allocate their institutional resources accordingly.
We extend an open invitation to SUNY/Empire State College to join us :-). So far two institutions are committed, a third institution means we divide by three instead of 2. Let me know how I can help in getting ESC on board - -you are already a founding member of the OER Foundation!
As more institutions join -- the better we get at what we do.
Cheers
WayneOn Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 5:53 PM, <Joyce.M...@esc.edu> wrote:
You can count me in Wayne. I will do my best to devote some time, energy, and thought to this wonderful cause. However, as I reflect on your points, I don't think the reason for lack of collaborative course development is an ethical or moral one but a practical one. I, for one, make my living doing interesting, but rather conventional things like writing, teaching, advising, creating and managing on-line courses, community organizing, and caring for friends and family. My employer is very enlightened, but paying students' needs have to come first and even unilateral course development has to be squeezed in among many other demands. Collaboration while it generally leads to better products is also time consuming and often at the bottom of most institutional priorities. It seems to me that we need to find a way to work together in ways that are not too complicated or time consuming while constantly keeping the vision before us that you have so eloquently outlined. Joyce McKnight, SUNY/Empire State College
-----wikieducator-teacher...@googlegroups.com wrote: -----To: WikiEducator <wikied...@googlegroups.com>, wikieducator-teacher...@googlegroups.com, heyw...@googlegroups.com
From: Wayne Mackintosh
Sent by: wikieducator-teacher...@googlegroups.com
Date: 12/07/2010 09:59PM
Subject: [WE Teacher Collaboration] Transcending OER's "valley of death" -- From OER advocacy to mainstream adoption.
----You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WikiEducator Teacher Collaboration Forum" group.
To post to this group, send email to wikieducator-teacher...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to wikieducator-teacher-colla...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator-teacher-collaboration-forum?hl=en.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WikiEducator Teacher Collaboration Forum" group.
To post to this group, send email to wikieducator-teacher...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to wikieducator-teacher-colla...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator-teacher-collaboration-forum?hl=en.
--
Wayne Mackintosh, Ph.D.
Director OER Foundation
Director, International Centre for Open Education,
Otago Polytechnic, New Zealand.
Founder and elected Community Council Member, Wikieducator
Mobile +64 21 2436 380
Skype: WGMNZ1
Twitter | identi.ca
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WikiEducator Teacher Collaboration Forum" group.
To post to this group, send email to wikieducator-teacher...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to wikieducator-teacher-colla...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator-teacher-collaboration-forum?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WikiEducator Teacher Collaboration Forum" group.
To post to this group, send email to wikieducator-teacher...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to wikieducator-teacher-colla...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator-teacher-collaboration-forum?hl=en.
kirby urner
Dec 8, 2010, 9:42:49 PM12/8/10
to wikieducator-teacher...@googlegroups.com, WikiEducator
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Wayne Mackintosh <mackinto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
<< abbrev >>
> We extend an open invitation to international agencies like COL and UNESCO
> to join us. We extend an open invitation to all formerly registered tertiary
> education providers of the world to join us. We expect collaborators to play
> by the rules of the game because we are serious about the mainstream
> adoption of OER and getting this right.
>
> Let's make OER futures happen :-).
>
> Cheers
> Wayne
>
Greetings Wayne --
Your entreaties made for interesting reading. As you may recall,
I'm somewhat new to Wikieducator, having committed something
from the Oregon Curriculum Network called: Digital Mathematics:
Heuristics for Teachers.
When I got started on this project, I was not yet aware of
Mathematics for the Digital Age and Programming in Python
(by Litvins, used in several schools), which is not an OER
(order from Skylit Publishing).
The two co-exist (the OERs and the texts with a price tag).
Likewise I use Free Open Source Software (FOSS) on my
Windows computers, and these co-exist as well. However,
there's still lots of competition going on in the software
"solution space". Cost is an issue, maintainability is an
issue, the likelihood of a resource simply going away is an
issue.
I hope Wikieducator has a long half-life.
Anyway, in addition to (1) co-existence, between FOSS
and not-FOSS (i.e. OER and not-OER), I am aware of
(2) high quality FOSS that's best in show. In other words,
in some categories, the free solution is actually also the
best.
The more expensive alternatives might come with built in
support, whereas with the freebie you need to recruit a
geek who believes in what you're doing.
The latter is what many would rather not try. They need
someone to yell at, at the end of the day, even if the
commercial off the shelf solution is less capable, more
breakable, than the free version.
What I'm seeing in STEM education, K-16, is the free
sector is often simply better than the pay sector at offering
relevant educational materials. OERs rule in some areas.
In that sense, they have a double edge versus less
worthy more expensive brands.
These better free wares may also optionally positively
affiliate with some sister brands in the commercial sector.
The OER is the flagship, but those wanting to buy extra
have that capability. The extra may not mean better,
just more of the same (more time at the web site?). The
extra may be certification, since that's asking your peers
to evaluate your performance, to offer coaching and judgment.
There's always an opportunity cost, then.
To end with one more concrete example, I mentioned
Python the computer language up top. It's a language of
choice among geeks around the world, taught formally
at MIT, proudly used by Google, NASA and many others.
I'm not saying it's the best language as that would be
meaningless, just that it fits the needs of many a
course in computer science or semantic web. Some
of the best alternatives, are also free.
Engineering really has come a long way in disentangling
from counter-productive intellectual property games.
Much of the world does not recognize "software patents"
per se (as distinct from "copyrights"). Plus a lot of the
best ideas are already in the public domain, even in
places where the workers believe in patents, because
true innovators got tired of seeing their hard work
owned by others (talking about the GNU Project
especially -- lots of good lore).
My guess is a similar pattern will occur with OERs.
(1) the best of the best will float to the top and (2) it
will be a mix of pay-per-view (fee-for-service) and truly free.
The quality of the free stuff will be very important, as that's
how a curriculum will be judged by the public. Only
those who sign up get access to the for-pay stuff, and
that's much harder to evaluate publicly. Testimony will
vary. Some students will be disappointed by how much work
it is, now that it's not just on Youtube. These are ancient
patterns, unlikely to just go away.
Conclusion: it's prudent to have some free content available
that is as good or better than most of the for-fee stuff
out there. Wikieducator could be a good host for some of
that.
In some areas, such as STEM, this is actually happening i.e.
the free Web is doing a better job than any of the costlier
sources.
Kirby
PS: in the meantime, there's a lot of push back from
mediocre writers and publishers spinning myths about the
free stuff.
Check out this poster from a local high school.
I'd say these are outright lies in some cases, plus the
message is all too clear: because the free web is free,
we will say lots of bad things about it, because free
scares us.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/17157315@N00/5236862304/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/17157315@N00/5236861850/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/17157315@N00/5236269713/sizes/o/in/photostream/
> Hi Everyone,
<< abbrev >>
> We extend an open invitation to international agencies like COL and UNESCO
> to join us. We extend an open invitation to all formerly registered tertiary
> education providers of the world to join us. We expect collaborators to play
> by the rules of the game because we are serious about the mainstream
> adoption of OER and getting this right.
>
> Let's make OER futures happen :-).
>
> Cheers
> Wayne
>
Your entreaties made for interesting reading. As you may recall,
I'm somewhat new to Wikieducator, having committed something
from the Oregon Curriculum Network called: Digital Mathematics:
Heuristics for Teachers.
When I got started on this project, I was not yet aware of
Mathematics for the Digital Age and Programming in Python
(by Litvins, used in several schools), which is not an OER
(order from Skylit Publishing).
The two co-exist (the OERs and the texts with a price tag).
Likewise I use Free Open Source Software (FOSS) on my
Windows computers, and these co-exist as well. However,
there's still lots of competition going on in the software
"solution space". Cost is an issue, maintainability is an
issue, the likelihood of a resource simply going away is an
issue.
I hope Wikieducator has a long half-life.
Anyway, in addition to (1) co-existence, between FOSS
and not-FOSS (i.e. OER and not-OER), I am aware of
(2) high quality FOSS that's best in show. In other words,
in some categories, the free solution is actually also the
best.
The more expensive alternatives might come with built in
support, whereas with the freebie you need to recruit a
geek who believes in what you're doing.
The latter is what many would rather not try. They need
someone to yell at, at the end of the day, even if the
commercial off the shelf solution is less capable, more
breakable, than the free version.
What I'm seeing in STEM education, K-16, is the free
sector is often simply better than the pay sector at offering
relevant educational materials. OERs rule in some areas.
In that sense, they have a double edge versus less
worthy more expensive brands.
These better free wares may also optionally positively
affiliate with some sister brands in the commercial sector.
The OER is the flagship, but those wanting to buy extra
have that capability. The extra may not mean better,
just more of the same (more time at the web site?). The
extra may be certification, since that's asking your peers
to evaluate your performance, to offer coaching and judgment.
There's always an opportunity cost, then.
To end with one more concrete example, I mentioned
Python the computer language up top. It's a language of
choice among geeks around the world, taught formally
at MIT, proudly used by Google, NASA and many others.
I'm not saying it's the best language as that would be
meaningless, just that it fits the needs of many a
course in computer science or semantic web. Some
of the best alternatives, are also free.
Engineering really has come a long way in disentangling
from counter-productive intellectual property games.
Much of the world does not recognize "software patents"
per se (as distinct from "copyrights"). Plus a lot of the
best ideas are already in the public domain, even in
places where the workers believe in patents, because
true innovators got tired of seeing their hard work
owned by others (talking about the GNU Project
especially -- lots of good lore).
My guess is a similar pattern will occur with OERs.
(1) the best of the best will float to the top and (2) it
will be a mix of pay-per-view (fee-for-service) and truly free.
The quality of the free stuff will be very important, as that's
how a curriculum will be judged by the public. Only
those who sign up get access to the for-pay stuff, and
that's much harder to evaluate publicly. Testimony will
vary. Some students will be disappointed by how much work
it is, now that it's not just on Youtube. These are ancient
patterns, unlikely to just go away.
Conclusion: it's prudent to have some free content available
that is as good or better than most of the for-fee stuff
out there. Wikieducator could be a good host for some of
that.
In some areas, such as STEM, this is actually happening i.e.
the free Web is doing a better job than any of the costlier
sources.
Kirby
PS: in the meantime, there's a lot of push back from
mediocre writers and publishers spinning myths about the
free stuff.
Check out this poster from a local high school.
I'd say these are outright lies in some cases, plus the
message is all too clear: because the free web is free,
we will say lots of bad things about it, because free
scares us.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/17157315@N00/5236862304/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/17157315@N00/5236861850/in/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/17157315@N00/5236269713/sizes/o/in/photostream/
Wayne Mackintosh
Dec 8, 2010, 9:59:35 PM12/8/10
to wikied...@googlegroups.com, wikieducator-teacher...@googlegroups.com
Hi Kirby,
Lots of valuable insight in your post - -thanks :-). I think there are important lessons for the OER to be derived from the experiences of the free software movement.
Agreed! The OER University concept is one where participating universities will oversee the quality of the free course materials - -this is important otherwise they won't sign up to provide assessment services or a credit for the credential. Already a number of tertiary education institutions have expressed keen interest to work with us. I think this is fundamentally doable.
We'll learn a lot along the way -- but we're committed to doing this. All help and advice is well received.
Lots of valuable insight in your post - -thanks :-). I think there are important lessons for the OER to be derived from the experiences of the free software movement.
The quality of the free stuff will be very important, as that's
how a curriculum will be judged by the public. Only
those who sign up get access to the for-pay stuff, and
that's much harder to evaluate publicly. Testimony will
vary. Some students will be disappointed by how much work
it is, now that it's not just on Youtube. These are ancient
patterns, unlikely to just go away.
Conclusion: it's prudent to have some free content available
that is as good or better than most of the for-fee stuff
out there. Wikieducator could be a good host for some of
that.
We'll learn a lot along the way -- but we're committed to doing this. All help and advice is well received.
simonfj
Dec 10, 2010, 10:06:10 PM12/10/10
to WikiEducator
Hmmm,
"Valley of death" eh?
OK, WE want to take the OE(R) movement into the mainstream. So can we
forget how much content we might produce (for a sec) and think about
the infrastructure a global "300" might need to do a charge forward.
The 'mainstream' is a series of networks which .edu content sits on.
Access to them begins with a sign on to some institutional silo, which
wil sit on one of these NREN(etworks).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_research_and_education_network
We are seeing these networks beginning to 'federate' their services.
(wikieducator, and other OERs are 'service providers')
E.g. http://www.aaf.edu.au/index.php/services/service-catalogue/
http://www.cuccio-cdpiuc.ca/en/canadian-access-federation/index.php
http://www.aaf.edu.au/index.php/services/international-federations/
Incommons in the US.
Registering wikieducator as a 'common' service provider for these
networks puts it into the mainstream of National edu networks (which
means the WE community can start talking to 'their' NRENs about the
other 'common services' they might want).
But before WE go off and take the easy yards, can we give some thought
to the other global OERers who may not like using a wiki to co-produce
content. E.g. I'd prefer something like global plaza.
http://www.globalplaza.org/spaces/global
So I could link together OERers, and track/record/archive all the
conversations which happen when a production is taking place.
Could we also give some thought to a directory, not of services, but
of content. Ideally we are attempting to aggregate similar content
(communities) from around the world. The idea that there are not
enough OER seems a bit silly. OERers simply haven't thought through
how customers can find similar content (communities), regardless of
language. We have this wacking huge library of amazing content called
the web, and simply no way of classifying it in such a way that a
potential contributor can find the shelf on which they should put (and
take) 'their' bits.
WE need to bring together, not just some good National(REN) techs, but
also some good National librarians in order to provide for global,
disciplinary groups and their communities of interest. WE could also
use some very demanding WE'ers who can describe the kinds of tools
they need.
Stephen's done this quite a few times now. But he's never addressed
the network people who might actually construct them.
regards,
simonfj
Wayne Mackintosh
Dec 12, 2010, 9:31:04 PM12/12/10
to wikied...@googlegroups.com
Hi Simon,
Agreed on all the components you suggest for building a sustainable OER ecosystem. However, in the absence of real organisations in the formal education system committing time, resources (and real dollars) to achieving these objectives, OER will remain a peripheral activity of the OER enthusiasts and advocates.
The OER for assessment and credit for students project and the concept of a virtual "OER university" aims to address this gap in the current OER infrastructure. The "OER University" is essentially a directory of services around OER, but more importantly services that will lead to real credentials from tertiary education institutions working in the formal education sector. The work of the OER foundation is not restricted to any given technology and frankly OER wants to be free. By the some token the wiki model is a good technology because it is firmly rooted in collaboration. That is the chasm we need to cross in the OER world, namely from OER advocates to mainstream collaboration among institutions.
Exciting times and opportunity to transform education for the better.
Cheers
Wayne
Agreed on all the components you suggest for building a sustainable OER ecosystem. However, in the absence of real organisations in the formal education system committing time, resources (and real dollars) to achieving these objectives, OER will remain a peripheral activity of the OER enthusiasts and advocates.
The OER for assessment and credit for students project and the concept of a virtual "OER university" aims to address this gap in the current OER infrastructure. The "OER University" is essentially a directory of services around OER, but more importantly services that will lead to real credentials from tertiary education institutions working in the formal education sector. The work of the OER foundation is not restricted to any given technology and frankly OER wants to be free. By the some token the wiki model is a good technology because it is firmly rooted in collaboration. That is the chasm we need to cross in the OER world, namely from OER advocates to mainstream collaboration among institutions.
Exciting times and opportunity to transform education for the better.
Cheers
Wayne
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "WikiEducator" group.
To visit wikieducator: http://www.wikieducator.org
To visit the discussion forum: http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator
To post to this group, send email to wikied...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
simonfj
Dec 20, 2010, 10:01:51 PM12/20/10
to WikiEducator
Merry Xmas Wayne,
You know I agree with all you are trying to achieve. The problem with
progressing these things is how WE might be able to collaborate with
other communities (like Moodle) in achieving them. The main thing you
point out is that the wiki MODEL is the right one (not the technology
-; the MODEL of having one spot in cyberspace where disciplinary
groups can come to work on the same content and leave behind (a long
term archive of) some useful free content.
I also agree that 'a directory' is sooo important. It's just a matter
of how you consider this directory being used. If you take the
Europeana (the "content only") approach, WE'll end up with (say
around) 4 million items (from Euro museums, art galleries, etc, in
their original domains) which can be searched from one head directory
(called Europeana), so long as you understand the language(s) and know
of Europeana.
Meanwhile the techs in each NREN will (are now) working on a directory
of various Real Time online tools (like Video Conferencing). They
duplicate as far as their National borders as well. So while global
'content' communities like WE are thinking 'metadata', globally-minded
Real Time (all IP) techs are likely to be thinking about a new Global
Dialing Scheme (GDS).
This doesn't further the cause of aggregating both info & comms, which
a directory to a bunch of online 'resources can point at - that a
global community can find & use, and then leave their content in situ
as 'their' long term archive. Today, a user who visits (say) the Open
CourseWare's site, views their membership list, and considers the
massive duplications which the (national) institutional domains
represent, can't find a discipline's global community (or see the list
of resources which they use). All they MIGHT find is one course
duplicated endlessly and poorly.
No one can stop a more open, global, education framework being
developed. The question is how to help institutions (and their
economic managers) understand what benefits there are in using a new
media model - one which builds (i.e. aggregates) around global
(disciplinary) groups' urls rather than (National) institutional
urls.
We already know that eduroam is the first service/product which opens
the path between National institutions here. i.e. reciprocal
arrangements, between institutions and their National networks, where
a user can get access to 'their' stuff, regardless of where they may
be in the world. Eduroam is, in effect, the world's largest
wireless.edu network.
The question now is, as we know there is a beginning of reciprocal
arrangements between National networks, how WE may work with 'our'
National (NREN) techs, so they understand what tools/services the
global groups, which span 'their' networks, may prefer to use; and
then systematize/standardize the paths between them/us/WE. You'll be
glad to know 'they' are also trying to reach out.
Merry Xmas,
simon
P.S.
Innovation, according to Drucker, is always about shifting habits to
take advantage of the lower costs thrown up by new stuff like
technology. So you might like to consider three questions.
1. If, rather than using (the PSTN when you used) your mobile, you
used a widget like Skype and the institution's wireless network to
talk/conference with your global peers, how much would it save your
institution?
2. If, rather than institutions paying a third party publisher for
aggregating 'their' authors papers, they offered a(n open access) url
where global peers could aggregate their papers/build their content,
how much would this save your institution?
3. Why would you need/want two directories?
A happy new year to all.
James Salsman
Dec 21, 2010, 10:20:30 PM12/21/10
to WikiEducator
On Dec 20, 7:01 pm, simonfj <simo...@cols.com.au> wrote:
> Merry Xmas Wayne,
>
> You know I agree with all you are trying to achieve. The problem with
> progressing these things is how WE might be able to collaborate with
> other communities (like Moodle) in achieving them....
> Merry Xmas Wayne,
>
> You know I agree with all you are trying to achieve. The problem with
> progressing these things is how WE might be able to collaborate with
>
> A happy new year to all.
I agree. I am thrilled that new Quiz extensions are being built but
> A happy new year to all.
astounded so few have come forward to join me in endorsing GIFT as
described at http://microformats.org/wiki/gift
The asterisk bulleted list tree format is write-only with no metadata
to accommodate question management. GIFT and the extensions proposed
at that site are designed to be most useful for open educational
resource curation, adaptive content delivery, and encourage serious
low stakes self study assessment content.
We need to increase the number of people to whom the content is
useful, including by building curation systems for this sort of
content.
Regards,
James Salsman
simonfj
Jan 5, 2011, 6:13:39 PM1/5/11
to WikiEducator
Hi James,
I've spent quite a bit of time working my way through the links you've
offered, trying to get my head around what microformats (mf) is all
about. I can see it's a "grass roots up" approach to sharing functions
and content. But it hasn't clicked between me ears, probably as I need
some concrete focus for the penny to drop.
This one is one problem which mf wants to solve that interests me.
http://www.scottmcmullan.com/blog/2004/12/googleinternet_.html
"Berkeley calender project is part of the effort by trying to bring
sanity and sharing to the 80+ event calendars of UC Berkeley".
My problem is that, although perfectly logical from an engineer's
perspective, I just don't see this approach having legs. i.e." ... all
events in the world, from a garage sale in Lexington to a tech
conference in SF, could be automatically discovered (Google), stored
in one central, public domain, web services accessible database
(Internet Archive), where the events could then be categorized".
It's the categorization where the problem lies (for me); of events or
anything else. Language (metadata) precludes the mash up of bilingual
content/resources. That's one shortcoming. But main problem, so far as
I can see, is that we want content to be aggregated by the groups, in
environments which span institutions like Berkeley. As yet a suitable
global directory, which can be shared by them, has yet to be agreed
upon. On OCWC' site, like so many other sites, we can see the groups
popping up on "communities of interest" pages. Groups, like WE's,
attract their Communities of Interest; or they would if they could be
found and/or be given a fixed spot in cyberspace; and shared a common
directory.
I'm delighted to see you talking about "building curation systems",
and "increasing the number of people to whom the content is useful".
Absolutely! The challenge though, it seems to this little poor geek
floating on a world wide web, seems more about having curators agree
on which global community they will be supporting, and offering all
(multilingual/global) groups a global classification system - like
they do groups' printed stuff, which they buy (back) from 3rd party
publishers.
We could certainly use a group calender around here (as one mf app),
just as much as Scott could have used it for his web services SIG.
Every other similar SIG will say/has said the same thing, as they come
and go, reinventing the same same wheel/producing similar content,
again and again. Hopefully this year we might see a few National
librarians/curators agreeing on which common directory is to be used
to point at 'their' global groups. At which point mf's might come into
their own.
Thanks again, simon
> I agree. I am thrilled that new Quiz extensions are being built but
> astounded so few have come forward to join me in endorsing GIFT as
James Salsman
Jan 14, 2011, 7:55:55 PM1/14/11
to WikiEducator
Hi Simon,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply below. Did you ever see the
"Cyclo Teacher Learning Aid" instructional system which shipped with
World Book encyclopedias? Here:
http://www.laughinglibrarian.com/2006_07_01_archive.html#115318764847654506
I'm trying to provide the internet version of that, with adaptive
testing. This could be used, for example, to determine whether to
recommend that a learner start with the simple or regular version of a
Wikipedia article (i.e. http://simple.wikipedia.org or http://en.wikipedia.org).
Also, sets of self study questions have long been recognized as useful
instruction as a supplement to static text, especially if they are
interactive rather than static texts themselves.
I am also interested in calendars, but I know the consortia and
commercial vendors involved with those technologies are making
progress. Do you know about the W3C? http://w3.org -- They have
working groups involved with standardizing calendar formats.
Sometimes I fear that instructors don't want to endorse the best
educational technologies because they are afraid of them, just as many
of the academics who were wasting so much time copying scrolls at the
time of Gutenberg were afraid that his printing press would put them
out of business. On the contrary, it enhanced their earning potential
and the utility of their professions.
Regards,
James Salsman
On Jan 5, 4:13 pm, simonfj <simo...@cols.com.au> wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> I've spent quite a bit of time working my way through the links you've
> offered, trying to get my head around what microformats (mf) is all
> about. I can see it's a "grass roots up" approach to sharing functions
> and content. But it hasn't clicked between me ears, probably as I need
> some concrete focus for the penny to drop.
>
> This one is one problem which mf wants to solve that interests me.http://www.scottmcmullan.com/blog/2004/12/googleinternet_.html
Thank you for your thoughtful reply below. Did you ever see the
"Cyclo Teacher Learning Aid" instructional system which shipped with
World Book encyclopedias? Here:
http://www.laughinglibrarian.com/2006_07_01_archive.html#115318764847654506
I'm trying to provide the internet version of that, with adaptive
testing. This could be used, for example, to determine whether to
recommend that a learner start with the simple or regular version of a
Wikipedia article (i.e. http://simple.wikipedia.org or http://en.wikipedia.org).
Also, sets of self study questions have long been recognized as useful
instruction as a supplement to static text, especially if they are
interactive rather than static texts themselves.
I am also interested in calendars, but I know the consortia and
commercial vendors involved with those technologies are making
progress. Do you know about the W3C? http://w3.org -- They have
working groups involved with standardizing calendar formats.
Sometimes I fear that instructors don't want to endorse the best
educational technologies because they are afraid of them, just as many
of the academics who were wasting so much time copying scrolls at the
time of Gutenberg were afraid that his printing press would put them
out of business. On the contrary, it enhanced their earning potential
and the utility of their professions.
Regards,
James Salsman
On Jan 5, 4:13 pm, simonfj <simo...@cols.com.au> wrote:
> Hi James,
>
> I've spent quite a bit of time working my way through the links you've
> offered, trying to get my head around what microformats (mf) is all
> about. I can see it's a "grass roots up" approach to sharing functions
> and content. But it hasn't clicked between me ears, probably as I need
> some concrete focus for the penny to drop.
>
simonfj
Jan 22, 2011, 9:00:56 PM1/22/11
to WikiEducator
Interesting. So if I was to try and describe what you have in mind to
a application developer, the spec might be something like.
"We want an app that can be included in an online environment/url/
portal that enhances "its" online library. One reads the 'article'/
watches the video and then hits a 'questions' button, which pops up
the app, that works just like cyclo-teacher".
Wouldn't seem like a complicated app to write. (always much easier
when you can point at a physical widget and say "we want one of
these".)
Re: apps like this, and standardizing calenders. Yes the w3 committees
try and write specs for standardization (so apps can share data). But
there always needs to be a proof-of-concept built to make it real. In
the .edu space, in some NRENs, mainly at Internet2 and Surfnet (in the
english speaking world) you'll find the 'standardization' of apps
beginning to focus on building online collaborative environments. I
pointed at (Internet2's) COmanage page. You can see the (basic) apps
they are focussed on in the red area. http://www.internet2.edu/comanage/
COIN's architecture looks much the same. i.e. wiki, calender, file
share.
Both WE and the NREN techs want to see this stuff move into
"mainstream adoption". (the techs are the mousetrap builders, OER
communities like WE, OCWC and http://www.web2rights.com/OERIPRSupport/index.html
are the cheese makers; or car manufactures and petrol sniffers if you
prefer another metaphor :) The problem, as far as i can see, is that
the NREN (techs) talk to 'their' national communities, whereas the
cheese makers are globally minded. The techs also focus on the 'fat'
end of town (as it's far more interesting). COmanage, as an e.g. use
LIGO as one of their global disciplinary groups, and then, as a
secondary thought, consider how to open LIGO's resources to the wider
world = http://www.ligo.org/students_teachers_public/research.php
So OERers are trying to open up the global conversation about Open
Access, apps and content, while the Nationally funded techs (up to
now) prefer to duplicate their global peers efforts. Then, at a
conference, which, like ours, might be streamed at one url, recorded,
and afterwards buried on some other strange sounding url, compare
"best practice" and apps, which represent 3 degrees of separation/
opinion/strategy.
And, of course, all have an (unformed) idea of how to make "their"
initiative sustainable. http://open-access.net/de_en/general_information/business_models/
2011 is going to be an interesting year for mainstreaming the new
publishing model. I'm pretty sure WE will see OE(R, if we must
consider Educational material in physical terms) beginning to
bulldozer the professional boundaries of "production (teaching),
access/aggregation (network management) and distribution
(librarianship). My opinion is fashioned more by the economic
relevance/woes of our (edu and gov) institutions than any professional
knowledge. (i.e. % of grads joining the unemployment queues = 40% in
southern Spain). 10 months of drowning in Euro languages tends to
stretch one's imagination about "common" educational problems.
I like your analogy of Gutenberg's time (as western-centric as it
is) ; although I prefer to compare today's institutional confusion to
the time of the introduction of the steam powered printing press (in
London in 1809, and the rotary press mid 1800's). Now everyone has
their own web press we drown in poorly funded/duplicated materials;
vanity published by every self-important .edu, in one country/language
of course.
Ah, UTILITY! That magic word which refuses to acknowledge professional/
sectoral boundaries. A telephone! A fax! A web conference! A TV
station! ....... A (National) network for each! Nah...... give me one
url for each of my disciplinary Global groups, an institutional sign
on, a directory, and let the NREN network guys weave their SIP & ENUM
magic.
regards, simon
Sydney feb 2011
On Jan 15, 11:55 am, James Salsman <jsals...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> Thank you for your thoughtful reply below. Did you ever see the
> "Cyclo Teacher Learning Aid" instructional system which shipped with
simonfj
Jan 29, 2011, 1:03:02 AM1/29/11
to WikiEducator
Just at quick one. This is a link to an email discussion at terena -
the trans european research and education network.
http://www.terena.org/mail-archives/refeds/msg01110.html
These are the techs whose peers provide your institution's network in
your country. They are talking about 'federating services' between
countries. This is the equivalent of Wayne's 'learning to share'
globally but in the perspective of the National Research and Education
Network technicians. So they will be collaborating rather than
duplicating 'resources', which in turn will change/open the technical
culture of OER institutions. The same arguments for OER (above) apply
to technical people as much as content people. The financial benefits
(to an institution and it's communities) are as great.
The only difference, because WE are in a globalizing world, is that
content OERers can't collaborate at their best without the assistance
of the technical OERers. So please, at the conference, include a chat
about the communications tools which you would prefer in order to be
inclusive of other global OERers, and maybe share with OCWC and other
OE projects.
After OER need open source, open standards & open access as well.
http://www.surf.nl/en/OverSURF/Pages/SURFenOpen.aspx
the trans european research and education network.
http://www.terena.org/mail-archives/refeds/msg01110.html
These are the techs whose peers provide your institution's network in
your country. They are talking about 'federating services' between
countries. This is the equivalent of Wayne's 'learning to share'
globally but in the perspective of the National Research and Education
Network technicians. So they will be collaborating rather than
duplicating 'resources', which in turn will change/open the technical
culture of OER institutions. The same arguments for OER (above) apply
to technical people as much as content people. The financial benefits
(to an institution and it's communities) are as great.
The only difference, because WE are in a globalizing world, is that
content OERers can't collaborate at their best without the assistance
of the technical OERers. So please, at the conference, include a chat
about the communications tools which you would prefer in order to be
inclusive of other global OERers, and maybe share with OCWC and other
OE projects.
After OER need open source, open standards & open access as well.
http://www.surf.nl/en/OverSURF/Pages/SURFenOpen.aspx
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages