Learning4Content/Workshops/eL4C45/Thoughts on quality
Its very true ,the very first question that arises is that,is the quality really valid or probably reliable .According to me both approaches should be used because if we use closed authoring approach we will never be able to bring out the hidden wiki( contibutor) in every individual and open authoring approach is always good for pouring in new knowledge. I am not quiet sure about the mechanism ,but I think it should be a conscious effort from every individual who is contibuting ,and in Wiki it is always possible to edit and re-edit, that is wiki can fix it ...
--Mariya 03:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Good point Mariya, if there is something that needs to be fixed, we all have the opportunity to fix it. Do you think WE needs a quality control committee; that is, having a group of qualified individuals who oversee WE content and judge how valuable it is? Or should the quality of the content be left up to all the members of WE equally? --Benjamin Stewart 00:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't have any concerns about the quality of educational resources developed using an open authoring approach. Any educational materials can only be considered high quality when they are helpful and verifiable. The user of any materials needs to make their own assessment
My concerns are creating materials that get lost and you can't access them anymore.
Open authoring contributes to high quality learning materials by building a strong community of committed contributors to be self regulating, open and transparent.
I think there is a place for both closed and open authoring approaches to be used in the development of learning resources for use in education. Learning material that may be personal and cause embarrassment should be allowed to be closed and used on a restricted basis by the author. Guidelines on contributions and censorship should be part of the agreement for participation and self regulation. If someone is offended by another's contribution or has a different view this should be resolved respectfully in a transparent way that builds trust in the community and in the co-created materials. Quality of educational content developed in wiki environments can be assured by the host and the community of users being fully engaged and feeling like they own the product being co-created. --Markspain 04:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hello Mark. When you say, "my concerns are creating materials that get lost and you can't access them anymore", I think of Ning and their latest decision to do away with free accounts. The advantage of working in WE is that you own (or partially own) the content and can do with it as you like. You can back it up, print it out, etc. so that losing materials is less likely. I also wonder if creating a transparent learning experience can also be a determent to those who are not used it. Your thoughts? --Benjamin Stewart 00:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello Benjamin. You "wonder if creating a transparent learning experience can also be a determent to those who are not used it. Your thoughts?" I think some people may feel confronted with an open, transparent learning experience. Hosts will work hard at creating a safe, non-threatening transparent environment and participants will vote with their feet if they want to participate or not. This is a good example of freedom to choose at work. --Markspain 00:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Nadia El Borai
I agree with Mark Spain, if the resource is open others can improve or add so that the quality will be eventually good.
I share the concern of creating material that gets lost or cannot be accessed anymore. --Nadia El Borai 04:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I believe that is important to have open authoring approaches because its the best way to develop the learning resources but also science. In the same time we should have mechanism's that will prevent the possibility of misquote information. Especially in education diffusion of knowledge is important. --Elkab 13:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Eleni, whose responsibility should it be to correct misinformation? --Benjamin Stewart 00:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- There must be well-educated experts in the community, who should take the responsibility.--Matthew Wai 16:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
The quality will be good as long as the author is good. If shoddy materials can be immediately revised, open authoring approach is acceptable.
- Matthew, how does a community reach a consensus as to what is good or poor information? Or is it important that a consensus be reached? --Benjamin Stewart 00:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
If the majority of community members consider it good, then it can count as good.
If no consensus is reached, learners may be at a loss whether to trust the learning materials.--Matthew Wai 16:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be interesting to monitor the edits of educational resources over time. Are their edits based on world events, opinions. Which view would prevail if the content reported on materials where editors could have different points of view based on country, age, religion or more (I'm thinking of history and science in particular). So I do have some concerns on the quality of educational resources developed without some quality assurance in an open authoring approach - or maybe each resource would have disclaimers. I'm new to this, so maybe it already happens. I took MA course in England and had a gentleman from Tanzania in my courses. He enlightened me to how publisher resources coming into Tanzania were very Anglo-Saxon. There were worries the reading materials and content could change the cultural foundation of their children.
Still...I think the opportunity for open authoring is necessary. It links to a freedom for collaboration between many different people with many different backgrounds...so maybe the world becomes more globally of use than regional. I'm not sure.
I very much believe both approaches should be used in the development of learning resources for education. A closed contribution would be linked to one point of view that would stay tightly connected to it's author. For an open approach, the power of collaboration gives new opportunities for combined insight, creativity, extension. It is sort of knowledge in it's 'living' sense. Close authoring is more historical (does that make sense).
I'm new to this...so I'm not really sure how to assure quality of educational content. I have enjoyed reading others points of view. :)
I'm not real sure how to input my signature yet :) I'm looking around.
- Hello Terri. When you say, "A closed contribution would be linked to one point of view that would stay tightly connected to it's author. For an open approach", I wonder how much of an author(s) point of view is lost after the work goes through a peer-review process. An essential question that comes to mind (open for anyone): How is an author's perspective compromised when publishing in an open or closed way? By the way, click here to see how to add signatures to WE. --Benjamin Stewart 12:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)