Talk:OER Handbook/educator/Adapt/Authoring courses from content across many sources

From WikiEducator
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Title suggestion717:31, 28 June 2008
Citing sources316:30, 28 June 2008
Disadvantages?122:20, 15 June 2008
Two approaches to remixing ...122:20, 15 June 2008

Title suggestion

"Composing Learning Resources from Multiple Sources" or more precisely (though a little verbose): "Building Learning Resources with Components from Multiple Sources".

Ktucker (talk)17:36, 7 June 2008

Title changed to "Composing Learning Resources from Multiple Sources."

Sgurell (talk)07:16, 8 June 2008

Thanks. Would it now make sense to move this section into the "Compose" chapter? - Though some sections might be better right here under "Adapt" - e.g. the last one -- "When not to Adapt", and there could be some overlap. Probably better to move it all except When not to Adapt and possibly refer to it from here.

"... considerations to combining content from multiple sources." - the text after this could become another very short section (Licensing) which does little more than indicate that a suitable license is required and refer the reader to the appropriate section in the main Licensing chapter.
Ktucker (talk)22:17, 15 June 2008

I think this is an interesting question. As I look at the Compose and Adapt chapters I realize that the line between the two is somewhat blurry, though distinct enough to remain separate chapters. For example I'd move "Mobile Access" back to OER, though I realize it could be either a composing or adaptating subject.

What I'd like to do is continue this discussion on the issue tracker (because of its pan-chapter implications), but I guess the question I'd like to ask is: What do you see as the distinction between Composing OER and Adaptating OER in the context of this handbook?

Sgurell (talk)22:18, 16 June 2008

Adapting is an integral part of Composing OER.

Ktucker (talk)14:32, 27 June 2008

I understand your point of view. I always thought that Composing was more about generating an OER from scratch, while adapting was more about changing an existing OER.

Unfortunately, because of time, we cannot subsume Adapting into Composing OER.

Sgurell (talk)18:08, 27 June 2008
 
 
 
 
 

Citing sources

Keeping track of sources can be challenging and time consuming - worthy of mention here. N.B. This has nothing to do with licensing (addressed elsewhere) - just good academic practice, and there may some tools which help one to keep track of attributions.

Ktucker (talk)18:12, 7 June 2008

Agreed. I've added a subsection on keeping track of sources. Essentially, I recommend using a spreadsheet.

Sgurell (talk)20:07, 9 June 2008

When remixing media files (e.g. images) it can be useful to store them in folders "CC-BY", "CC-BY-SA", "GNU FDL", "PD". Then each folder could include a spreadsheet with attributions. At first, just the URL of the source for reference, and when actually using an image, obtain the correct attribution from the URL (add it to the spreadsheet, and include it in the OER's list of attributions).

Ktucker (talk)10:24, 28 June 2008

Agreed. I've added the suggestion to the paragraph. Feel free to make additional changes.

Sgurell (talk)16:30, 28 June 2008
 
 
 

Disadvantages?

Disadvantages as compared to? - Own internal and self-built resources or versus closed source components for which your institution may have a license, etc.?

Prefer "Considerations" with "hints and tips"/"guidelines" - to avoid the problem of referring to the "considerations" as "disadvantages".

Perhaps include sub-headings: "Context", "Continuity", "Terminology", "Presentation", "Tone and Voice", ....

Ktucker (talk)18:00, 7 June 2008

Replaced "disadvantages" with "considerations." Added sub-headings as specified and re-incorporated the content into those headings.

Sgurell (talk)18:55, 9 June 2008
 

Two approaches to remixing ...

I am not sure how useful is this distinction in practice with each adaptation exercise having its own properties. The point is to ensure consistency and continuity. The suggested subheadings (and any others?) under "Considerations" should cover most situations.

Ktucker (talk)18:09, 7 June 2008

I agree that the previous headings should cover many situations. The purpose of the two approaches to remix was more from a project management standpoint and less about providing alternate outcomes. When I wrote that particular subsection I was envisioning a teacher combining 4-5 sources, acknowledging the need for consistency and asking "So how to I do all of that?" The material under that heading is the best generalized advice I could think of.

If you still feel its value is minimal, I will delete it.

Sgurell (talk)19:01, 9 June 2008