Talk:OER Handbook/merged outline
- [View source↑]
- [History↑]
Contents
| Thread title | Replies | Last modified |
|---|---|---|
| So... | 4 | 00:26, 11 February 2008 |
| Outline Audience Issues | 2 | 19:16, 1 February 2008 |
Where do we start? Are we looking for each bulleted point to have it's own page? Or each section? Where do we start?
Right now the plan is for each major section (Get, Publish, etc.) to be its own page, although each section will take up multiple printed pages. As for the question of where do we start, I'm going to post a new thread on that.
Hi,
It would be useful to create a table on the content outline page listing each of the main sections of the combined guide.
For example the section on introducing OERs might look something like this
Introducing OERs[edit]
In the combined outline this is now listed as background.
| Aims | Subsections | Prerequisite units | Intended target audience | Scope |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| To provide a brief overview of OERs and why they're important. |
|
None |
|
30 minute learning resource |
From a learning design perspective there are two approaches we could consider
- Having one units with multiple tracks (eg one for teachers and another section for policy makers as in the case of the example above)
- Descrete units for a more homogeneous target audience. For example, a Unit on Developing and OER friendly Intellectual Policy may be of more interest to a managers/ decision-makers group whereas a unit on remixing free content may be more appropriate for teachers/educators.
I think the OER Handbook and its subsequent subsections should cater for both approaches. Spending a little time on generating a table like this will save a lot of time for the project down the track. It will also give clear guidelines and parameters for members of the community who would like to participate.
Furthermore, doing it in this way will help in determining the structure & scope for each unit. This will become the navigation for the respective units in the wiki.
Finally -- for each section I think a little needs analysis of the target audience would help a lot. Nothing too elaborate -- but a simple list of the kinds of questions the target audience are likely to ask pertaining to the relevant section will make sure that our handbook is a compelling page turner.
We should also think about designing these materials as interactive texts -- by that I mean incorporating useful activities for the user. Take a look at the Newbie Tutorials for ideas.
I've added another outline to the OER handbook main page that attempts to use the suggestions you've provided. Feel free to take a look and make suggestions. I'll continue to work on it.
I'm still with Teemu's deceptively simple spanner in the works when he called for a straight an simple "text book". The table above is using design and language that potentially narrows the scope and audience to education only. My preference is to stick with established bookish formats and structures (chapters, parts, footnotes, figures, index) and then complement it with worksheets for different contexts. If you can keep this in mind when you propose structures it will keep the door open for me to participate... unless you can convince me of the worth of edumacationing this from the start..
The question of where to start has come up. You can see I've started creating two sections of the handbook called "Introduction" and "Get OER." As I've been writing, its become clear that the outline is trying to hit two different audiences. For example, we have parts of the Background section (see merged outline page on the wiki) that apply to both audiences, and parts of it that would apply more towards institution-wide OER projects. From there the handbook goes to the "Get OER" section which, as outlined, is relevant for both, but mostly for micro-level development. After "Get OER" is the Publish section, which is mostly macro-level.
David Wiley has pointed out that both perspectives are needed. However, writing the handbook with the two audiences may be impractical.
This problem has seemed particularly vexing to me, and I wanted to get the wisdom of the community on this matter. Please give suggestions for how you think the handbook should take shape.
This was confusing to me as well, and it seems that the best idea, as you mentioned, would be to separate the two audiences out. If I'm a faculty wanting to share my resources then the information I need to know is going to be different than if I'm an institution wanting to start an official OpenCoruseWare project. I'm afraid if we have one handbook that covers everything, it won't be simple enough for a faculty member to wade through to find the parts that would be useful for them.
One way to do this is to have the first part of the handbook focus on the basics. Give the reader enough information so they feel comfortable gettin their information up and sharing it with the world. Then have an 'advanced' section. Once you've shared your resources, here is a way you can get your institution to share even more. Marionjensen 18:20, 31 January 2008 (CET)
Yes I agree with Marion. Start with the basics, targeting an individual.. but it makes sense to move to the organisational level for a number of reasons:
- The individual may need to argue reasons why the want to contribute OER and their reasons might need to be express to organisational management.
- The individual might be a consultant, change agent, librarian or other and again needs resources for proposing the organisation wide OER
- The individual may wish to first consider the organisational implications before adopting an OER stance individually.
And the the handbook should move completely into the organisational level with example IP Policies and copyright statements, employment contracts and other management document templates ready for use. Yes, I think that should be in the scope of the hand book, and I think it is easily achievable. You can have my organisation's policy's for a start!
So, in short:
- Basic
- Individual/independent/user/author
- Employee/academic/administrator/librarian/etc
- Organisation/department/faculty
- Institution/managers/contracts/HR/IT
- Global/consortium/multinational collaborations/etc
This seems like a natural progression from micro to macro to me...
