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

  • The idea is for each of the founding anchor partners to provide opening statements using the Logic Model --Wayne Mackintosh 05:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Statements should be succinct -- 5 mins per anchor partner. --Wayne Mackintosh 05:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Could include suggestions from anchor partner how they intend to contribute to each of the initiatives of the logic model. --Wayne Mackintosh 05:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with the above suggestion of Dr. Wayne. It will be the most efficient and effective way to utilize the proposed five minutes. Anil Prasad 04:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Each member to agree with the model at each meeting. Any comparisons to be presented as a graphic. E.g. The Learners are now in Design and Dev stage, so that should precede the Open Curriculum box? --Simonfj 01:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Simon -- the logic model is a framework for organizing the planning of a large and complex initiative. This is the framework we discussed and agreed at the first meeting. You will find relevant links in the pre-knowledge box above. Anchor partners are free to develop their own organizing frameworks or alternatives and this is a significant advantage of the wiki model - -different audiences can devise their own typologies and frameworks to understand the model and reference the relevant knowledge artefacts. The OER Foundation is not going to revisit and agree the organizing framework at each meeting - we don't have the time, and its the basis of our planning. The anchor partners will naturally discuss and agree improvements and refinements to the model as we progress -- but we are not in the game of reinventing wheels. --Wayne Mackintosh 06:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  • The Logical Model is holistic . I suggest that each component again has a graphical representation detailing the component further.--Ravi limaye 17:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
  • I'd like to hear how each anchor partner sees itself contributing to one or more areas of the logic model. What resources are they committing to this initiative? What do they see their role as? Once this is known the OERu can do a gap analysis to see what elements of the model remain unaddressed and then seek out partners to fulfill those gaps. By having the anchor partners declare the role they wish to participate in we'll also identify those who have common interests. Ideally this meeting will generate one or more action projects that have the OERu anchor partners collaborating on initiatives.--Pstacey 23:05, 6 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

  • Prime purpose of this item is to identify and finalise the inaugural credential for the OERu --Wayne Mackintosh 05:58, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  • For one diploma and degree programmes in Arts as decided in the first meeting? Anil Prasad 04:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Anil, my understanding is that the outcome of the open discussions in the SCoPE seminar will be tabled as the starting point for discussions by the anchor partners. At this stage, the consensus view is to propose a "Bachelor of General Studies" or equivalent as the starting point. --Wayne Mackintosh 07:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Just the way we have the virtual meetings, we need to have Virtual Training Need Analysis of all possible courses. This will enable development of organized potential curricula for various courses. I don't mind undertaking such an exercise for few of the topics to start as a prototype for Rapid curriculum development. I am working on http://wikieducator.org/Multimedia_Course and probably from pool of wikieducators we can plan on a fast track about curriculum. Thus the steps for a course can be:
  1. Decide on curriculum
  2. Complile content / edit / validate
  3. Find assessment strategies

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

  • Add suggestion here
  • Add suggestion here

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

  • The anchor partners will need to consider quality assurance related issues in the context of cross-border articulation. This is a medium term issue and unlikely to be resolved within the constraints of a 2 day meeting - -however, broad parameters and principles for the next steps can be considered. --Wayne Mackintosh 06:01, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Discussants may also consider ideas from the TQF for VUSSC and the experience from European Union etc during this part of the discussion. Anil Prasad 05:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
  • I was wondering about relevance of Washington Accord for OERu.OERu should clarify with Washington Accord functionaries and get equivalence to Open courses and this would be meaningful.We need to explore this possibility--Ravi limaye 17:37, 6 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.
  • Add suggestion herer
  • Add suggestion here

Open Pedagogy – design for efficacy and scalability

  • Here, let us ask the techies 'how do various Learning/Course Managements Systems address the need for efficacy and scalability?' :) Anil Prasad 07:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
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
  • Add suggestion here
  • Add suggestion here

Academic Volunteers International – recruitment, training and coordination

  • Will it be feasible to maintain an Intern system as many international agencies do nowaday? Of course, intern system alone cannot serve the purpose. Anil Prasad 09:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Interns will be one category of volunteers. But one important category?
    • Will it be possible for participating Universities/ HE Institutions recruit Inters from among their PG students/ Researchers who express willingness and add them to a common registry of volunteers?
    • Would it place the OERu in a better position to claim that we have a critical mass of verified volunteers?
    • Would it be possible for OERu/participating institutions to issue them experience certificates so that the system can support such youngsters' career prospect (that will be the reward for their service)?
    • Wouldn't it ensure availability of trained manpower for future vacancies in ODL sector?
    • Wouldn't it provide opportunity to the academicians in the conventional setups to apply for internship when they hope a career shift to ODL domain?
    • Wouldn't it create an ideal ecosystem where learning is connected to livelihood? Anil Prasad 10:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
      • If the Interns System is feasible, what kind of administrative arrangements do we require? Decentralised recruitment and deployment by participating Universities/Institutions and centralized training (using systems like eL4C)and coordination by OERu? Anil Prasad 04:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
  • Add suggestion here
  • Add suggestion here

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

  • The nature of assessment may differ from course to course. However an automated assessment may be one component at lower levels of cognitive domain which might suffice for number of courses. For higher levels the partner institutes role may be moe prominent.
  • Over a period OER should have battery of assessment tools to suit different domains, pace and learning objectives. presently I found the quiz template good for lower levels of cognitive domain. I would like to be updated on assessment tools --Ravi limaye 17:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Add suggestion here
  • Add suggestion here

2012 Prototype Project

  • The OER Foundation and USQ are planning to implement a OERu prototype in 2012 which will assist the network in refinining and developing the design --Wayne Mackintosh 06:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  • What constitutes an achievable prototype? --Wayne Mackintosh 06:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  • How can we engage and ensure participation from all anchor partners? --Wayne Mackintosh 06:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I have the following sugessions
    • Content Planning: A sample course or program can be taken from each Department. A team can be deployed to convert the content in various forms in Wikieducator Framework.Each course may require a different pedagogical approach for which the templates can be decided.The same may be developed as a challenge on the wikieducator platform through various workshops and moderators/ facilitators for ensuring the delivery deadlines.Thus the steps can be:
      • Decisions on :What is the content ? What is the delivery approach? Finalizing a wikieducator theme
      • Decisions onWho would compile the content (We can have anchor partner giving content/ we already have content which can be reused/ content experts and timeline defined)
      • Defining a team of moderators from OERu and Anchor institute and wikiusers with temperament and tanacity to facilitate and deliver
      • Will to executei.e If there is will ways and means can be found out
      • Collabrative brainstoming sessions are indeed helpful

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

  • The OERu group needs to define one example that shows how the OERu would work from start to finish. Until there is at least one example the whole thing remains conceptual. Focusing down on a specific example that all agree with will help separate philosophy from practice and identify practical actions that anchor partners can take to advance the initiative.--Pstacey 23:05, 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)
  • Add suggestion here

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

  • OER Foundation can demonstrate technologies and approaches we have been using and piloting to scale access to OER learning while recognizing the requirements that anchor partners will be using their own learning mamnagment systems? --Wayne Mackintosh 06:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
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
  • How do we minimize costs without increasing the burden or risks associated with delivery technologies on campus? --Wayne Mackintosh 06:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
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.
  • How can anchor partners assist in supporting technology infrastructure of a global network like the OERu in a sustainable way? --Wayne Mackintosh 06:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Should the OERu formulate and declare open standards for Learning/Course Management Systems?
    • Would it (the action suggested above)facilitate the collaborative development of an open platform by OERu?
    • Would it encourage other developers to adopt OERu standards for L/CMSs? Anil Prasad 04:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
      • These are important questions -- and as a matter of clarification: The OER Foundation is an open institution and all content and technology support provide by the the Foundation will adhere to open standards and free file formats as a matter of policy. The technology infrastructure of the OER Foundation is based entirely on free software. The OER Foundation cannot and does not intend to dictate what technologies will be used on the campuses of OERu anchor partners. We respect freedom of choice. However the fact that the OER Foundation hosted materials will adhere to open and free file formats will ensure that all systems have unencumbered access to learning materials. --Wayne Mackintosh 06:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
        • We are committed to working with OERu institutions to support the OERu network. Identifying standards would be very helpful for us and others who want to play a supportive role. Glen Moriarty 11:37 5 October 2011
  • Add suggestion here
  • Add suggestion here

Open business models

  • How grants from International agencies?...Grants from national governments can be made available through OERten members?...The participating institutions to donate a fixed percentage of amounts collected as fee-for-credential-services (without adding extra load to the students)? Anil Prasad 06:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
  • We need to undertake the following :
    • Matching the latest Education Policies of various Governments with OER philosophy.
    • Preparing Country specific Presentations to converge the Government Policy with OER Advocacy
    • Approach the highest levels to get Government Notifications on the issuesof collabrations between institutes and OER

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

  • Add suggestion here
  • Add suggestion here

Open governance and associated management processes

  • The OER Foundation subscribes to open philanthropy, open governance models and radical transparency in its planning and implementation. The OER Tertiary Network (OERTen) functions well with about a dozen members. What governance models and approaches should the network adopt to ensure the scalability of open governance models --Wayne Mackintosh 06:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Can the experience of the WikiEducator project inform governance models for the OERTen? --Wayne Mackintosh 06:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
  • With models like http://www.ocwconsortium.org/ , http://plar.org/ available , we need to build framework for Creation of portal which shows strength of our entity . We need to have tools for Creation of portfolios and a working prototype --Ravi limaye 18:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Open project management

  • What are the next steps for the OERU --Wayne Mackintosh 21:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
  • How will we project manage the OERu implementation? --Wayne Mackintosh 06:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

General issues not covered above

  • See above -- Agenda points and contributions could be classified immediate, medium term, and long term to assist in prioritising items for discussion at the November meeting. That is spend more time on things which we need to do now (action plan) and restrict medium term and long term items to very focused (meaning short) conceptual/strategic overviews. For example -- don't spend two days of the meeting trying to sort out the detail of quality assurance mechanisms. Focus on the strategic principles at this meeting. --Wayne Mackintosh 00:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • We need a point somewhere about capacity development i.e planning wiki authoring skills online workshop and workshop of open licensing especially for staff of OERu anchor partners. --Wayne Mackintosh 02:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Need a short session to compare notes and prepare a strategy for submitting a collaborative bid for the Next Generation Learning Challenges -- Wave III. Target the Feb 9 Submission Date? See also Wave IIIb FAQs. Download the Wave IIIb RFP - -THe OERu collaboration would be a strong contender. --Wayne Mackintosh 02:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Feedback on AU SSHRC research project? --Wayne Mackintosh 03:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Based on valuable feedback from Unisa on this agenda, we need to incorporate a more substantive mechanism for anchor partners to voice and record their issues. I propose setting up a page Anchor partners: Context, issues and ideas. This will be a space where anchor partners can elaborate in preparation for the meeting. I also propose that we include an Anchor partner context panel where priority issues can be tabled in the form of a panel discussion including contributions from virtual participants with OERu thought leaders responding to how the network may resolve these issues early in the meeting process. The intention is to bring everyone up to speed with issues which are already resolved by the network, but will also orient the meeting and highlight the issues which must still be addressed in the future. --Wayne Mackintosh 02:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Add suggestion here
Create a book
Bookmark and Share