| << Chapter < Page | Chapter >> Page > |
Hi Philipp, I remember those guys from the Muppets - they would end up arguing away until each had completely swapped their positions - best skit on the show. The students as creators is definitely a rich avenue for OERs and you can imagine how rapidly the quality would improve if each course is an iterative improvement on the last and creating the course materials is part of the assessment.
Philip wrote:>
This is why I like the wiki model so much :-) . The openness of the authoring model means that we can conflate the functions of teaching and learners. Learners can become teachers by authoring new content. Teachers can become learners by observing what changes learners are making to the content resources they authored.
So I’m in total agreement with your recommendations!
In response to David’s post
David, you make a compelling and valid point:
“When an institution enters a new world (like the world of open educational resources) we can and should expect the early adopters to move in baby steps, dipping their toes in before diving in head first.”
I think this is true of life, and this argument can provide a justification for the proliferation of the NC restriction in many OER projects.
I’d like to respond as an academic. I hold a terminal degree and have spent the majority of my career in the University. I’ve had the privilege of holding senior management positions in the university sector. I also know that you are a pioneer of the “open content” movement - pushing the envelope around free content long before the concept of “Open Education Resources” was coined by that UNESCO meeting. (I was reading your stuff long before you attained guru status :-) ) My point being - Why is it that we as academics “get” the problems of the NC restriction when other academics don’t?
Let’s face it - the university is an institution that is endowed with some of the smartest people on the planet. What are the reasons why these smart people don’t get the value proposition of free content when our culture of research is built on sharing knowledge? Both of us as researchers stand on the shoulders the giants that have gone before us. We have no problems sharing knowledge when it comes to research (and attributing our sources) - but we have this aversion to sharing teaching resources. It doesn’t add up.
I’m very interested in exploring the reasons why the removal of the NC restriction is such a big step. It doesn’t add up with our core values of academic freedom.
mmmmm - another research project?
Response to Philipp:
I think that you are spot-on. I have been teaching/facilitating online since the mid-90s and have designed each of the classes to be heavily conversational and project-based. With this type of course design, 99% of all content and is generated by the learners during the class experience and all of the learning activities are based on learner contributions. Ignoring what learners create would be an enormous missed opportunity.
So, does this speak to some learning design and class facilitation principles, techniques, and patterns that promote the generation of usable and reusable content and learning activities?
Response to David/opencontent:
Like Richard, I think that there is benefit in hearty and respectful exchange of opinions, but I am really turning to the likes of Rice, USU, MIT, etc. for guidance as early adopters, innovators, and thoughtful practitioners. Although we are just starting to dabble in OER/OCW at Penn State, I believe that there is an enormous watershed of interest in OERs. In fact, I know that there is. My concern is that we turn uncritically to the larger community and just do what the early adopters did. After all, if it is good enough for MIT, USU, CMU, and Tufts surly it is good enough for us. I am in the process of generating a dialog around the importance of:
In any event, it is critical for me, and I think other later adopters, to be able to get insights into what is working well and what is not working so well. How we can improve on what is being done, how to avoid some of the pit falls, and how to take advantage of lessons learned. In doing so we are turning to the early adopters in the hopes that they will be reflective and transparent. As Wayne mentions above, it is part of the tradition of standing on the shoulders of giants.
Ken, I must compliment Penn State’s reflective approach based on solid academic tradition, before taking a substantive decision like licensing of OERs. Your institution has the benefit of hindsight which the early pioneers did not have at their disposal.
While I’m not an expert on the US Higher Education system - I think that the dialog around this issues you have listed are well aligned with the original mission of the Land Grant universities. The critical question is closely linked to what it means to be a Land Grant university in the knowledge society - particularly with the rapid growth in free content made possible by Web 2.0 technologies.
It’s by no means an easy decision - but who said leadership would be easy?
Have enjoyed the interactions generated by these replies which confirms that we’re busy with important work!
Cheers
This was a great exchange. Thank you Wayne and to thanks to everybody who contributed and who have been following along. Stay tuned for the summary, which will be posted soon.
Notification Switch
Would you like to follow the 'Collaborative learning and the open educational resource movement' conversation and receive update notifications?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|