WikiEducator:WikiEducator 3.0/Discuss

Planning Node is available from here

Wayne
Hi Everyone,

At last I'm back in the office again and will be in Vancouver for the next three weeks before my next international mission.

The phenomenal success of WikiEducator is attributed to hundreds of educators from around the world who wake up in the morning thinking: What can I do for WikiEducator today? This is the foundation for our current and future success.

I'm sure that there must be hundreds of questions pertaining to our unfolding futures (that is "WikiEducator 3.0" ) and I will do my best to answer all these questions. I know that I won't have all the answers -- but working together we'll find the answers to most of our questions.

In our networked society  -- they say that its far better to have the right questions (without necessarily having all the answers), than having the right answers to the wrong questions.

Key thoughts about WikiEducator 3.0


 * WE is a community project and will always be a community project run by the community for the community;
 * WE needs a non-profit entity to take is to the next level of success -- we have outgrown our home at COL;
 * The success of the community is the prime reason we can move forward independently.

This is an open invitation to all WIkiEducators for any questions you may have about WikiEducator 3.0, but more importantly providing us with well-founded advice on our next steps.

Look forward to an interesting conversation :-)

Cheers Wayne

Anil
You are right Dr. Wayne, we have to develop a sustainable nonprofit management model for WikiEducator. For that the WE community may be further strengthened in a formal way. The WE Council is a good step indeed.

In the next version, we may bring in Qualification Framework so that the content can be developed or linked with more meaning to the activity involved.

In the next version we may work on dual mode, I mean, Moderated and Non-moderated.

Moderation is essential to ensure the suitability of content for qualification framework. Therefore we may think about a group moderation scheme.

At the same time we may also continue the present set up for those who cannot wait for moderation. Moderators can also pick content from non- moderated interface.

Warm regards Anil

Peter
Ever since both the Transnational Qualification Framework ( http://www.wikieducator.org/Qualification_Framework) and the Quality Assurance Framework (http://www.wikieducator.org/ WikiEducator:Quality_Assurance_Framework) projects started I have wondered where these two overlap. I believe they are both key to the sustainability of WE. I would think that the quality of any featured works should include reference to where the resource meets a qualification framework item...

Come to think of it, shouldn't the Transnational Qualification Framework (http://www.wikieducator.org/Qualification_Framework) taxonomy align with the Categories portal list (http:// www.wikieducator.org/Template:Portal_list)?

I believe that once we have alignment of the "curriculum" taxonomy (categories) with the qualifications framework and the quality assurance approach we would have built a very serious foundation (*and we have most resources within these three structures, particularly having a resource categorised within the qualifications framework*) for the management and deployment of OERs...

Comments???

Leigh
It is great to have Anil back with us raising this again. Thanks Anil.

I very much like the idea of the moderated and not-yet moderated assessment standard. And Peter's link to the Quality is a good one I think, esspecially the first step of using categories.

I wonder if we could review one of Otago Polytechnic's development models?

Where we start a new page with a Qualifications Standard and then develop a subpage for a library of resources list, and another subpage for a list of lesson plans, learning and assessment activities.

If that was seen as a good development model for the TQF to encourage, I think we would see more and more teachers out there developing new course pages that simply draw on the many standard pages that are built...

Wayne
Hi Leigh and Anil

The concept of "non-moderated" and "moderated" content aligns very well with WE's work on the quality assurance framework. Our current thinking on quality is based on a tiered framework starting from a draft phase of a personal teaching resource ==> featured teaching resource ==> featured collaboration ==> a peer reviewed (or "moderated") resource.

We've made an attempt to capture these phases or levels with a simple graphic:

http://wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Quality_Assurance_Framework/Contribution_Levels

I think that its very important for our community to support all educators --- irrespective of the quality of draft materials or individual capability in the community. However at the same time we need to provide incentives and support in helping our community achieve the quality standards of which we'll all be proud!

Leigh -- that's a fantastic offer to use Otago Poly examples as a test case to refine our QA and review processes. BIG thank you.

We still have lots of work to do in getting this right, not to mention the challenges for a QA framework to support multiple pedagogical approaches. There are also strong linkages between the notion of an OER Transnational Qualifications Framework and mapping of our content developments. I'm very keen to get folk like NZQA involved in our deliberations, so its all important that we do a good job on our WE QA framework.

Cheers Wayne

Steve
Wayne wrote:

<< This is an open invitation to all WIkiEducators for any questions you may have about WikiEducator 3.0, but more importantly providing us with well-founded advice on our next steps. >>

I have a few questions:

2.0. If anything, I'd call everything up to the point of elected community governance a beta version, and only now really going into production. Or, that we were in alpha before, now we're in beta, and once we have a separate legal entity we'll be in production. (Not that I'd suggest actually using any of that, I only meant those as comparative analogies.)
 * Where did we get "WikiEducator 3.0"? I wasn't aware we'd had a

transferring WE from COL to Otago, what needs to be done, etc. How much do you have to do, and how much can others help you?
 * I'd like to know exactly what your proposed timeline is for

Education that is being established at Otago Polytechnic. If I understand correctly, that's something that will be permanently attached to Otago, so it won't serve as the separate legal entity that WE needs. What will this Centre's relationship with WE be, and what else might it do?
 * I'd like to know more about the International Centre for Open

had to act quickly, and especially given that Otago seems to be more flexible than COL when it comes to software development and multilanguage support, I'm pleased we're moving there. However, I believe that from this point forward issues must be discussed openly and decisions must be made through Council resolutions. Do you see anything in our future that would make this impractical?
 * I understand that to this point you were acting in WE's interest and

Thanks,

Minhaaj
Thanks for your input steve and Peter. I don't know whether moving WE to Poly Otago was a good decision and why was that necessary, but like all other decisions council doesn't have a say in this, so lets hope for the best and work for the community like we have always been. As far as wikieducator 3.0 is concerned, does that have to do something with web 3.0 ? because i really missed 1.0 and 2.0 if they were out there anyways.

Wayne
Hi Steve,

Responses in text below -

On Wed, 2008-10-01 at 09:53 -0700, Steve Foerster wrote: > Wayne wrote: > > << This is an open invitation to all WIkiEducators for any questions > you may have about WikiEducator 3.0, but more importantly providing > us with well-founded advice on our next steps. >> > I have a few questions: > > * Where did we get "WikiEducator 3.0"? I wasn't aware we'd had a > 2.0. If anything, I'd call everything up to the point of elected > community governance a beta version, and only now really going into > production. Or, that we were in alpha before, now we're in beta, and > once we have a separate legal entity we'll be in production. (Not > that I'd suggest actually using any of that, I only meant those as > comparative analogies.) WikiEducator 3.0 refers to the phases of our strategic plan:

Phase 1: Establishing Foundations (May 2006 - Dec 2007) Phase 2: Scaling up free content development (Jan 2008 - Dec 2008) Phase 3: Sustainable implementation of free content in education (Jan 2009 - )

See: http://wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:About

> * I'd like to know exactly what your proposed timeline is for > transferring WE from COL to Otago, what needs to be done, etc. How > much do you have to do, and how much can others help you? TImeline: Startup of the new International Center for Open Education is scheduled for 1 May 2009.

COL has agreed to fund the technical infrastructure of WIkiEducator for the first 3 years, that is servers and technical support staff. COL's future support for WikiEducator is conditional and requires that WikiEducator is established within a new legal framework that COL considers appropriate for such support. Our discussions have been around setting up an independent and appropriate non-profit entity.

At this time I don't have all the information that we need to determine the action items and detailed project plan -- but rest assured we're most definitely going to need lots of help from the community.

> * I'd like to know more about the International Centre for Open > Education that is being established at Otago Polytechnic. If I > understand correctly, that's something that will be permanently > attached to Otago, so it won't serve as the separate legal entity that > WE needs. What will this Centre's relationship with WE be, and what > else might it do? Steve the Open Education Centre comes under an employer - employee relationship. This is subject to the normal confidences afforded to employment agreements. The moment I have definitive detail on the relationship between the operations of the International Centre for Open Education and the WikiEducator project -- I will be the first to let our community know. Suffice it to say, the establishment of an independent legal entity for administering the funding for the WE project is a critical path decision for moving forward. Currently -- WE has no legal status. WE is a community of association whereby individual members are personally responsible (and liable) for their activities in the community.

> * I understand that to this point you were acting in WE's interest and > had to act quickly, and especially given that Otago seems to be more > flexible than COL when it comes to software development and > multilanguage support, I'm pleased we're moving there. However, I > believe that from this point forward issues must be discussed openly > and decisions must be made through Council resolutions. Do you see > anything in our future that would make this impractical? I have always acted in the best interests of the WIkiEducator project. I hold the highest number of edits in the community and the accolade of being the first member of WikiEducator :-). Since the inception of the project I have always put community first and will continue to do so. For the record, international education specialists at COL are appointed on a rotation basis --- i.e. 3 year contracts. My contract with COL expires on 30 April 2008.  Yes I do agree -- where feasible, all issues pertaining to WIkiEducator must be discussed transparently.

Cheers Wayne

Peter
Given we are more of a beta based project maybe we should shift to a WE 0.1, WE 0.2 & a WE 0.3 convention. This would be in greater alignment with software practices; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_versioning#Version_1.0_as_a_milestone I believe we have yet to achieve a 1.0 release of WE

Peter

Steve
Wayne wrote:

<< WikiEducator 3.0 refers to the phases of our strategic plan: >>

Oooooh, okay, fair enough.

<< TImeline: Startup of the new International Center for Open Education is scheduled for 1 May 2009. COL has agreed to fund the technical infrastructure of WIkiEducator for the first 3 years, that is servers and technical support staff. COL's future support for WikiEducator is conditional and requires that WikiEducator is established within a new legal framework that COL considers appropriate for such support. Our discussions have been around setting up an independent and appropriate non-profit entity. >>

I agree that this is critically important. In order to set up a non- profit organisation, it must have by-laws, yes? And these would presumably refer to a governance structure, e.g., Board of Directors or Trustees or what have you? I ask because if that's the case then this would effectively replace our Draft Policy on Governance, and if that's so we must be the ones to write it.

<< Steve the Open Education Centre comes under an employer - employee relationship. This is subject to the normal confidences afforded to employment agreements. >>

I hope that doesn't mean that you foresee your relationship with Otago would require confidences that would preclude you from sharing relevant information with the WE community.

<< The moment I have definitive detail on the relationship between the operations of the International Centre for Open Education and the WikiEducator project -- I will be the first to let our community know. >>

Fair enough.

<< Suffice it to say, the establishment of an independent legal entity for administering the funding for the WE project is a critical path decision for moving forward. Currently -- WE has no legal status. WE is a community of association whereby individual members are personally responsible (and liable) for their activities in the community. >>

Very good, on this I think everyone agrees. Can we assume the non- profit group would be chartered in NZ? (Fine with me if it is, so long as NZ recognises public domain dedications.)

<< I have always acted in the best interests of the WIkiEducator project. I hold the highest number of edits in the community and the accolade of being the first member of WikiEducator :-). Since the inception of the project I have always put community first and will continue to do so. >>

I know. I really hope you don't think that I'm asking you these questions because of any doubt of that, as for the record I have none at all. And hopefully everyone understands that you can't know everything yet. I'm only bugging you this way because I want to ensure that the community is as involved as possible in what happens to us, and you can't reasonably facilitate that if we don't do our part by asking what we need to know.

Wayne
On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 09:49 -0700, Steve Foerster wrote: > Wayne wrote: > > << WikiEducator 3.0 refers to the phases of our strategic plan: >> > > Oooooh, okay, fair enough. I've started a stub for Wkieducator 3.0 --- The idea being to provide a synopsis of our strategy and concise history of the project as the basis to ask the community to help us identify the strategic and operational priorities of Phase 3 in our development.

> << TImeline: Startup of the new International Center for Open > Education is scheduled for 1 May 2009. COL has agreed to fund the > technical infrastructure of WIkiEducator for the first 3 years, that > is servers and technical support staff. COL's future support for > WikiEducator is conditional and requires that WikiEducator is > established within a new legal framework that COL considers > appropriate for such support. Our discussions have been around > setting up an independent and appropriate non-profit entity. >> > > I agree that this is critically important. In order to set up a non- > profit organisation, it must have by-laws, yes? And these would > presumably refer to a governance structure, e.g., Board of Directors > or Trustees or what have you? I ask because if that's the case then > this would effectively replace our Draft Policy on Governance, and if > that's so we must be the ones to write it. Steve, replacing our Draft Policy on Governance -- not necessarily.

My personal view is that we should do everything we can to respect and support the autonomy of the WE community taking into account our history and what's been achieved to date and the legal requirements. It is conceivable to have an independent non profit that is responsible for maintaining the technical and operational infrastructure of the WikiEducator community in accordance with the policies approved by the WikiEducator Community Council without interfering with the governance of the community. I'm not a lawyer and we'll need to get legal advice on this question. So let's wait till we have feedback from the experts. > << Steve the Open Education Centre comes under an employer - employee > relationship. This is subject to the normal confidences afforded to > employment agreements. >> > > I hope that doesn't mean that you foresee your relationship with Otago > would require confidences that would preclude you from sharing > relevant information with the WE community. Nope -- I don't see it that way at all. We all have multiple roles and identities. My participation in WE is as an equal member of the WE family. For example, you work at a University -- but participate in WE as a member of the community. What I anticipate is a job description which gives me the time to work for the WikiEducator project as an organisational allocation of staff time. Increasingly, I hope to see more institutions officially donating FTE (Full time equivalent) staff time to the project. I've been thinking about launching an FTE for WikiEducator initiative where institutions commit real staff time to the project. > > << The moment I have definitive detail on the relationship between the > operations of the International Centre for Open Education and the > WikiEducator project -- I will be the first to let our community know. > >> > > Fair enough. > > > << Suffice it to say, the establishment of an independent legal entity > for administering the funding for the WE project is a critical path > decision for moving forward. Currently -- WE has no legal status. WE > is a community of association whereby individual members are > personally responsible (and liable) for their activities in the > community. >> > > Very good, on this I think everyone agrees. Can we assume the non- > profit group would be chartered in NZ? (Fine with me if it is, so > long as NZ recognises public domain dedications.) Yes -- the non-profit would be chartered in NZ. To the best of my knowledge, NZ recognises public domain dedications.

The final form of the non-profit is not my decision, nor should it be. This has to do with taxation status of different kinds of entities, for example an Educational Charitable Trust versus a non-profit company with charitable purposes. In the case of NZ Educational Trust, to retain "tax free" status has implications regarding disbursements -- this has nothing to do with the form of the entity but local taxation law. As an international project we must ensure that WE can continue its work at an international level. This international stuff gets pretty complicated -- our server sits in Germany and we will more than likely have our Phase 2 hosting located in Canada. Each country has its laws around these things as well. I'm not a lawyer and we will rely on the advice of legal professionals working in the field. There is also the question of legal liability of the organisation that funds operations etc. So lots of detail that needs to be worked out.

> << I have always acted in the best interests of the WIkiEducator > project. I hold the highest number of edits in the community and the > accolade of being the first member of WikiEducator :-). Since the > inception of the project I have always put community first and will > continue to do so. >> > > I know.  I really hope you don't think that I'm asking you these > questions because of any doubt of that, as for the record I have none > at all.  And hopefully everyone understands that you can't know > everything yet.  I'm only bugging you this way because I want to > ensure that the community is as involved as possible in what happens > to us, and you can't reasonably facilitate that if we don't do our > part by asking what we need to know. I respect and admire your approach and ongoing commitment to our project since the early days :-) --- keep bugging!

Cheers Wayne