|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|What the handbook does '''not''' do ...||1||18:23, 23 June 2008|
|K-18||2||21:23, 16 June 2008|
|Table of Contents||3||20:05, 11 June 2008|
|The "Use" section||1||21:16, 9 June 2008|
|Navigation Templates||1||03:57, 5 June 2008|
The definition of OER is broad. We are really focussing on a subset. Would it help to add something on what the handbook does not cover? What would these things be?
- Developing of FLOSS for education (adapting Moodle, contributing to GIMP, ...). For this refer the readers to the developer pages of the software in question.
- Does not cover learning design in any depth, though some aspects may be implicit in the text. Refer to ...
- Comprehensive coverage of OER practices. Only a few are covered as examples in the text.
Alternatively, or in addition, we could have a section "Where to from here?" in or just before the conclusion chapter.
- If you are interested in contributing to FLOSS for education, see the developer pages ...
- For more on learning design and OER practices, see ...
>>The definition of OER is broad. We are really focussing on a subset.
I'm not sure what you mean.
>>Would it help to add something on what the handbook does not cover?
I think that it would be appropriate.
Things not covered in the handbook:
- Comprehensive coverage of OER practices. (by design, I want educators to feel they have options)
- Tutorials for media development (no GIMP, no Open Office, though there are links to docs and tutorials)
- Provide legal advice
- Cover advanced OER issues (theory)
- Institution-wide or systemic change
I've added a subsection to the Preface as an attempt to cover these issues.
>>Alternatively, or in addition, we could have a section "Where to from here?" in or just before the conclusion chapter.
The "Additional Reading" and "OER Forums" may meet that requirement, unless you think something more directive is needed. My hesitation with something more directive is that there are so many different paths someone can pursue after creating OER.
How well established is this abbreviation? I suggest we remove it - on the assumption that this handbook will be of interest to anyone including life-long learners, technical and vocational trainers, etc. (i.e. those included in "and others"). We could reduce "... to help primary, secondary and tertiary (K-18) educators and others find ..." to "... to help educators find ...".
Some sections will need to be aligned with changes to the Quick Action links (Navigation Templates)- if that is the approach ultimately taken.
The following changes are suggested:
These are some interesting ideas. Certainly the OER lifecycle has some ambiguity which lends itself to variations. I need to talk to Wiley about this since the OER lifecycle is his idea.
I am posting some of my thoughts on the rationale page.
Note how the thinking evolves ... e.g. there seems to be growing consensus that "Licensing" should stand alone (not a sub-section of Share). It follows that it is not in the sequence - but a separate section referred to by the chapters that do form part of the cycle.
As indicated previously, "Use" could be merged into a "Learning Design" section. As it stands, the following thoughts spring to mind at first glance:
|Upload/import course materials into a course management system/virtual learning environment||Move to Share (for internal use) or would the term "Deploy" apply?|
|Packages and Metadata||Move to Share.|
|Syndicate materials through RSS/Atom feeds||Syndication and RSS should be covered under "Find" and "Share".|
|Integrating OERs in teaching and learning||This one belongs here :-). My first impression of the content: trying to be too clever. Dive into the story and give simple examples of using the resulting resource in a standard, traditional way, and in a more innovative blended social construction scenario. You can end the section with a discussion about the lack of evidence based guidelines and speculative opportunities for different approaches to learning/teaching. Most items in the numbered list are covered elsewhere already, or would fit in the proposed learning design section i.e. no. 6 "Remix ..." as it relates to the last paragraph).|
|Using Low bandwidth/mobile versions||Fine - remind us to revisit this one - more to say re mlearning and blended learning.|
|Evaluation||Fine - remind us to revisit this one too.|
|Accessibility When Using OER||Build into Evaluation (above)|
I'm still waiting on Wiley regarding the lifecycle, so I can't comment on moving things to "Find" or "Share."
>>Upload/import course materials into a course management system/virtual learning environment >>Move to Share (for internal use) or would the term "Deploy" apply?
I would be interested in shortening the term and may work "deploy" into it.
>>>Dive into the story and give simple examples of using the resulting resource in a standard, traditional way, and in a more innovative blended social >>>construction scenario.
I'm reluctant to do hypothetical stories because I fear they may come off as artificial. That's partly the impetus behind the User Stories sections; to provide actual voices from the OER community.
>>>Most items in the numbered list are covered elsewhere already, or would fit in the proposed learning design section i.e. no. 6 "Remix ..." as it >>>relates to the last paragraph).
I thought they would be a nice summation, and maybe something needs to be said to that effect, but I will delete if you still feel they are extraneous.
>>>Accessibility When Using OER >>>Build into Evaluation (above)
I could see building it into Evaluation, although it would break the symmetry with other sections (at least as presently constituted. I want to explain my approach to accessibility in the handbook. Typically in technical books there is an accessibility chapter, usually towards the back. With this document I wanted to have educators think about accessibility from beginning. Not necessarily as a dominating consideration in OER development, but as something to think about at each stage. So I'm a little reluctant, but not intractable, merged any accessibility section with another.
>>>Using Low bandwidth/mobile versions >>>Fine - remind us to revisit this one - more to say re mlearning and blended learning.
Placed issue in tracker.
>>>Evaluation >>>Fine - remind us to revisit this one too.
Placed issue in tracker.
The final structures and multiple points of entry and navigation can be worked out later. Here are some thoughts for that time:
Change the current structure (left column) to (right column):
|List of navigation templates||Quick Action Links|
or becoming a minimalist one liner:
Find | Learning Design | Co-Create | Adapt | Share
or better still (user/reader oriented):
Policy Maker | Educator | Learner | Administrator
Oh, I see there are separate handbooks for some of these.
One approach would be to have a series of "trails" through the pages with a compact colour coded button/dots set at the foot and/or top of each page (e.g. learners follow the blue trail, educators follow the yellow, policy makers the green, etc.). In this way you will not end up with potentially several navigation templates on a page.
The idea of color trails is intriguing, and one I'll have to think on. As a note though, the other two handbooks would have their table of contents on different pages, so there wouldn't be multiple navigation templates in that respect.
The "List of navigation templates" was not really intended for end-user use. The idea was to have links to the navigation template for editors, to reduce the number of clicks necessary to edit a navigation template.
Though I could see why it might be confusing for current users.
Whether we change to the Quick Action Links proposed will depend on if we decide on the revised organization for the handbook itself.