2011.11 Agenda suggestions

From WikiEducator

Jump to:navigation, search






Instructions to participate in planning the OERu meeting of founding anchor partners

  • Before posting your thoughts, please check that you are up to date with recent OERu developments by consulting the recommended reading and preknowledge resources below. We don't want to waste time on questions already answered :-)
  • Step 1 - Review suggested agenda items (Target date: Close of business Friday 7 October 2011)
    • Review the draft agenda subheadings subheadings below.
    • Add your contributions, thoughts and ideas as separate bullet points under the corresponding draft agenda items directly on this wiki page. (Remember to sign your name using the signature button in your edit window.)
    • Post general comments for discussion on the OERu discussion list on Google Groups.
  • Step 2 - Finalize a working agenda for the 2-day meeting (Target date: Monday 31 October 2011)
    • Cast and sequence the agenda with allotted times and activities (Target date: Tuesday 11 October 2011)
    • Discussion and feedback on the proposed agenda (Target date: Wednesday 26 October 2011) - Discussions during this phase should be posted on the corresponding talk page in the wiki.

Note As an open planning initiative we will draw on the principles of Wikipedia's model of rough consensus where contributors act in good faith and the strength of the underlying argument carries more weight than mere counting of heads. The founding anchor partners will have final decision-making autonomy on the agenda.




Contents

Recommended reading



Preknowledge

The OER Foundation encourages open and transparent governance and planning approaches. We welcome sincere contributions from all interested persons in shaping the agenda for the future of the OERu. Before submitting your thoughts and ideas, please familiarise yourself with the work done to date to avoid revisiting questions which have already been answered. Key resources:
 |  Inaugural meeting  | 

Timeline and relevant links for the OERu initiative:

OER Tertiary Education Network (OERTen) founding anchor partners:

Sponsors



Draft agenda items

High-level logic model providing a systemic perspective of main initiatives for building a participatory OERu ecosystem
Jim Taylor and Wayne Mackintosh have suggested a number of agenda items for the 2-day OERu meeting of founding anchor partners as a framework for discussion in working towards a final agenda.

We invite you to add your thoughts, ideas and suggestions under the relevant subheadings as separate bullet points. You will need to have a registered account on WikiEducator to edit this page. If you are new to wiki editing, the tutorial on Editing basics will get you started. Remember to sign your contributions.

Posts and discussions on the proposed agenda items will conclude on the close of business on Friday 7 October 2011.

The meeting will commence with a mini Mihi Whakatau (formal Maori welcome) to visitors.

Partner statements using the “Logic Model” as a framework for potential contributions

Agreed -- under each initiative of the Logic model, we need to unpack and detail the necessary planning and implementation activities to achieve the goals of the OERu. That is the next step in the planning process. Still work in progress. --Wayne Mackintosh 00:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Good thinking. WE could perhaps craft these questions as suggested guidelines in the opening Anchor partner statements and request partners to respond to these at the beginning of the meeting. That way we will have an early indication of the gaps to inform discussion during the course of the meeting. --Wayne Mackintosh 00:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Open Curriculum – initial credential and associated specific foundation courses

  1. Decide on curriculum
  2. Complile content / edit / validate
  3. Find assessment strategies

--Ravi limaye 17:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Quality accreditation for OERu and cross-border course articulation for OERu

See another useful pointer - the Report on progress in quality assurance in higher education by the COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIESAnil Prasad 06:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Anil, the OER Foundation has extended formal invitations to the Commonwealth of Learning to join the meeting (either face-to-face or virtually). COL's leadership on the TQF provides a solid foundation for moving forward and was duly recognized in our report referenced in the pre-knowledge section. Thanks for reemphasizing this important document. I am also working with colleagues at the European Foundation for Quality in e-Learning for inputs and information sharing on progress within in Europe on this question --Wayne Mackintosh 07:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Yet another resource UNESCO-APQN Toolkit - Regulating the Quality of Cross-Border Education Anil Prasad 15:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Ravi, I am not familiar with the detail of the Washington Accord, but as I understand it, it is an agreement between a number of countries to accept one another's credentials in Engineering through the relevant professional engineering registration bodies. There are well established protocols within accredited institutions to manage these issues. In fact, this is one of the strengths of the OERu model in that Accredited institutions will pre-agree the articulation pathways within the network. This agenda item will discuss and identify the high-level parameters for quality. Our institutions will be working within the requirements of their own national or regional accreditation and/or quality authorities. This is how we will achieve the requirement for credible credentatials.

Open Pedagogy – design for efficacy and scalability

I think, it would be a good idea to have a panel of techies also in the Council room of Otago Polytechnic during this meeting. Anil Prasad 07:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Anil, the Lead Software Engineer of the OER Foundation will be present at the face-to-face meeting and will be able to provide well founded advice to any technical related questions. Virtual participants will also be able to advise here. Our time is very tight and given that this is a high-level strategic meeting, we must accept that we will not be able to address all the detail in a 2-day meeting. I agree that the detail relating to technology is important, but we don't have the funding required to bring a technical panel to Dunedin and extend the meeting time to accommodate this. Of course -- virtual discussions are ongoing, and perhaps this is the best way to continue the technical discussion. --Wayne Mackintosh 07:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Thats fine, my mentioning of techies included Jim as well. Definitely he can make invaluable inputs in this matter. Anil Prasad 16:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
Anil, Jim, would love to be a part of that conversation. I think we can help Glen Moriarty 11:17, 5, October 2011

Academic Volunteers International – recruitment, training and coordination

Good ideas in many of the points suggested here. These will definitely need to form part of the volunteer ecosystem and will need to be integrated into the planning discussions. Thanks. --Wayne Mackintosh 07:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
We have experimented with recommendations and reputation points to give volunteers a sense of buy-in. We have based this largely on sites like Hacker News and other reputation sites. Can definitely be iterated on, but seems these items might be helpful based on other sites. Glen Moriarty 11:21, 5 October 2011
Volunteers should have two main ingrediants Apptitude and Open Attitude. As mentioned by Anil, an ideal ecosystem needs to be connected with livelihood. Wikieducator itself is pool of many resources. Imagine projects where facilitator, volunteers all earn a livelihood and deliver outcomes in decided timeframe. There may be various catagories of volunteers (at vaious levels of Maslow's hierarcy of needs) they should be handled accordingly. A college volunteer seeks pocketmoney / a professor may be seeking recognition and honorarium /. If the policy has solutions for needs of different categories, we can have a sustainable pool of volunteers.--Ravi limaye 17:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Open Assessment – cost recovery and associated process management

We at NIXTY provide a testing engine that any institution would be welcome to use. We can also clone over tests very easily. So, if institution A and institution B agree on the validity of their tests to assess Criterion A, then they could use the same test. We'd be happy to work with them in building out the tests (e.g., get us the questions and we'll build them) and cloning tests over for others to use. Glen Moriarty 11:25 5 October 2011

2012 Prototype Project

--Ravi limaye 17:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Ravi, Paul -- I think that the discussions on the prototype are intended to cover the practice of doing this in the real world from start to finish. Looking at how this agenda is shaping up, the November meeting should prioritize and structure discussions based on the timeline of activities needed for implementation. For example, the prototype planning is immediate and should have a higher priority than, for example planning the detail of the QA systems which are more medium term. Thanks - -this help structure the agenda and some of the other sub-headings could be subsumed under the pilot project discussions? --Wayne Mackintosh 00:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Open Delivery Platform: WikiEducator, Learning management systems, social media etc

I know some institutions struggle to add external programs to their current LMS/SIS because it can complicate internal reporting. We would very much like to work with anchor institutions to help resolve this problem by providing a complete solution that does not interfere with internal reporting. Solution would consist of branded channel for institution, courses (transferred from WikiEducator), tests, certificates and payments. This would also support persistent student data in that individuals would be able to take courses at more than one institution. Glen Moriarty 11:30 5 October 2011
We can provide the above service at no cost to OERu institutions. Institutions would have to pay the paypal fee for any credits purchased. Glen Moriarty 11:30 5 October 2011.

Open business models

Good points -- the aim of the OERTen network is to be financially self sustaining. Recurrent costs for assessment and credential services provided by anchor partners will be on a cost-recovery bases. These cost could be recouped by government grant. This issues have been covered in the pre-knowledge materials. --Wayne Mackintosh 07:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

If you feel appropriate I can start the exercise as a volunteer for India, China --Ravi limaye 12:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Open governance and associated management processes

Open project management

General issues not covered above

Navigation
Community
Create a book
Toolbox