Talk:Funding proposals/Reusable and portable content for New Zealand schools
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|How can we work together?||0||09:24, 1 July 2009|
|Wonderful News||0||17:37, 30 June 2009|
|MariaD's miscellaneous comments||0||13:25, 23 June 2009|
|Major development tasks||1||00:34, 18 June 2009|
My original reason for getting involved in working with wikieducator was to explore ways in which students and staff can utilise wikis within our learning management system at Botany Downs Secondary College. I've developed the obvious "lesson" and tried to include some collaboration and sharing of ideas. I am hopeful that other science teachers may find it a useful resource and perhaps modify and improve the lesson. That's more than I could have hoped for if it were a resource built within the LMS. I am about to facilitate a professional development program in which some teacher's explore and develop the LMS and hope they will think about wikis, develop their skills and use them in some different ways. This will take place over the next few months so we shall see. I've tried to get a cross section of faculties represented in the program.--Robin 09:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
The work on this project is a giant step forward for WikiEducator. Kudos!
- spell out all abbreviations at their first use, in particular if your intended audience is people of differing backgrounds, e.g., I don't know what API is.
It's so exciting to see the interest in OERs is so many places around the world.
1. Is Maturity supposed to go down in 2011, as the graph shows? :-)
2. "ultimately shifting to a project owned and driven by New Zealands' teachers" - parents, students, ed researchers and technology enablers, too? What are roles of "others" in the platform? I guess it has to be focused on teachers only at this point for some administrative reasons?
3. "OER demonstrators: Develop 245 OER examples in WikiEducator based on the New Zealand curriculum." - should this specify the type of OER somewhat (lessons, whole courses)?
4. I don't get the little arrows in Figure 3. They look like a vector field with a singularity at Phase 4. I don't know if this type of the diagram is a good way to visualize this data. Maybe a radial diagram (three streams as radii and years as concentric circles) may work? I am not sure.
5. "synchronising and federating a collection of wiki instances" - would the readers know what it means?
6. You may want to include some "plain text" intros and conclusions before the stream section and after it. It is a bit dense and needs some transitions, unless you are very pressed for space.
There are two major development tasks:
- offline editing using Microsoft Office tools
- synchronizing a federation of wiki instances
These take quite different skill sets, and will probably each take more than 6 months to develop and test. It may be best to lump them into a single year long phase and assume they will run in parallel with different technical leads.
I agree --- we should separate out synchronizing a federation of wiki instances as a separate development task, i.e. introduce a new Phase, i.e. Phase 5: Techology tools -- Synchronizing a federation of wiki instances which runs for a year in parallel with Phases 3 & Phase 4.
I agree different technical leads would be appropriate and there is also a contingency related to additional funding to bring on board enough development capability for Phase 5. As you say -- this is not a trivial challenge, and I would also like to more involvement from the international community in terms of development and co-funding.
Shall we focus on improved refinements and focus for the existing Phase 3 & 4. Is the OO / Microsoft split the conceptual division point between Phase 3 & Phase 4?