Talk:OER Handbook/educator/Adapt/Authoring courses from content across many sources
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|Title suggestion||7||17:31, 28 June 2008|
|Citing sources||3||16:30, 28 June 2008|
|Disadvantages?||1||22:20, 15 June 2008|
|Two approaches to remixing ...||1||22:20, 15 June 2008|
"Composing Learning Resources from Multiple Sources" or more precisely (though a little verbose): "Building Learning Resources with Components from Multiple Sources".
Title changed to "Composing Learning Resources from Multiple Sources."
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.
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?
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.
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.
Agreed. I've added a subsection on keeping track of sources. Essentially, I recommend using a spreadsheet.
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).
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", ....
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.
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.