Talk:OER Handbook/educator/Introduction/Considerations
- [View source↑]
- [History↑]
Contents
| Thread title | Replies | Last modified |
|---|---|---|
| Is anything missing from this page? | 1 | 16:42, 26 June 2008 |
| Several points - start separate discussions if/where needed | 3 | 21:10, 15 June 2008 |
Just wondering if we need to say more about "quality" and "accessibility"?
The following text from "Find" seems adaptable for the Quality consideration:
- Because OER are generated largely through volunteer work, the topics and types of OER available vary widely. Additionally, quality control is handled differently by each site, with some sites being more selective than others.
also:
- Quality is highly contextual.
An alternative Find page is suggested in the discussion.
Suggestion: move the above text from "Find" into a Consideration re quality, and replace the current Find text with the suggested alternative Find text.
>>The following text from "Find" seems adaptable for the Quality consideration:
I've moved it to the "Considerations" page.
>>Quality is highly contextual.
Yes and no. Educators will likely want accuracy regardless of context.
>>An alternative Find page is suggested in the discussion.
I've added your straw dog recommendations, with some differences mentioned on the Talk page.
Would it make sense to rename this section "Considerations" and separate general issues, which apply to all on-line learning resources one might obtain (open or not) from OER-specific issues? For example, the following "disadvantage" applies to any learning resource obtained from someone else:
- OER created by someone else may need a significant amount of customization (called "localization" in the OER community) before they work in your local context.
- The fact that the user is able to adapt the resource is an advantage. So, listing this under "disadvantages" is misleading.
- Also, I would also remove "(called "localization" in the OER community)" as there is a subtle difference between "localisation" and "recontextualisation". "Customisation" is fine as it can cover both.
Other examples where the status of "advantage" or "disadvantage" is debatable in some contexts are:
- Because OER are free, using them can lower costs to students and organizations.
- If free/gratis also means you are not free to adapt and disseminate on other media and charge a fee for those services, this becomes a disadvantage (or at least, the advantage may be limited in some cases - the NC cases).
- If you want to include "closed" material in your OER, obtaining copyright clearance from the owner can be difficult and expensive.
- This does not seem like a disadvantage of OER - it applies generally.
Alternatives to "Advantages and Disadvantages": "Considerations": "Before you Leap ...", "What are you getting into?", "Implications", "What it means to Go-OER" ... and some of the bullet points could be phrased as recommended Do's and Don'ts:
Do:
- Get buy-in from your colleagues (for peer development), and
- from upper management and policy makers if possible, ...
- Check for completeness
- Be prepared to work with the resources and engage with a community of co-developers
Do Not:
- Expect volunteer co-developers to meet your time expectations - they have internal deadlines of their own.
- etc.
It might be useful to classify all these statements (along with some of the new ones in "Why OER?", etc.) to help put them in the right place (adv, disadv, why, etc.).
>>Would it make sense to rename this section "Considerations" and separate general issues, which apply to all on-line >>learning resources one might obtain (open or not) from OER-specific issues?
I think "considerations" would work, and I've changed the title and template links to reflect that. You raise a good point about distinguishing between disadvantages specific to OER. I will have to make some edits tomorrow.
>>I would also remove "(called "localization" in the OER community)"
Statement deleted.
>>If free/gratis also means you are not free to adapt and disseminate on other media and charge a fee for those >>services, this becomes a disadvantage (or at least, the advantage may be limited in some cases - the NC cases).
I was hanging a lot of emphasis on the word "can." I understand your point about freedom, but I don't know that we can introduce that point to the reader in this section of the handbook without confusing them. I added the clause "in some situations" for better emphasis.
>>If you want to include "closed" material in your OER, obtaining copyright clearance from the owner can be difficult and expensive.
That's true, but speaking from experience the difficulty seems more acute when you are using a combination of mixed and open (because you usually have a budget behind an entirely closed venture).
>>Alternatives to "Advantages and Disadvantages": "Considerations": "Before you Leap ...", "What are you getting >>into?", "Implications", "What it means to Go-OER" ... and some of the bullet points could be phrased as >>recommended Do's and Don'ts:
There's definitely merit in this suggestion. As I see it, the question is what are we trying to do with this section. If we're operating under the assumption that those reading are fully planning on an OER project, then I think the "Do/Don't" list is the way to go. Otherwise, I think an objective (as possible) look at when to adopt OER is important.
