Jump to: navigation, search
Edited by another user.
Last edit: 13:52, 5 July 2009

Wayne, Very, very inspiring. I'm honored to be part of this effort. My thanks to you.

Thanks Alison, appreciate that :-) Also --- thanks for your detailed and thoughtful comments. Responses embedded below as I work through the refinements to the document --- --Wayne Mackintosh 22:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The strategy is very clearly defined and supported. I can't think of anything major to suggest. The examples seem to bend more toward upper level educational sectors, but don't think that's inappropriate -- I'm guessing it's the way things are right now.

Clearly the OERF is not planning to restrict operations to the tertiary sector. That's a good point, we should think about adding more examples for the other educational sectors --Wayne Mackintosh 22:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC).

Here are some smallish points for your consideration.

  • Under cost leadership: "Similarly, the competitive advantage among education institutions does not necessarily lie in the learning content they prescribe, but rather in the quality of teaching, unique interactions provided through its community of scholars, and learner support services." Suggest adding "diversity of learning opportunities" to the list -- it seems to me that institutions choose how the opportunities are set up, offered to the learners -- from design your own course to choose a course from our list, from formal lectures to fully experiential learning, from face-to-face to distance learning....
Good point - will implement your suggestion -- thanks --Wayne Mackintosh 22:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Under cost leadership: comparing this statement "Similarly, if institutions were to collaborate more effectively on the development of flexible learning materials using the OER model,..." and the label in the graph "OER-based flexible learning", I'm questioning in my own mind if "flexible learning materials" is the same as "flexible learning". I guess I'm understanding flexible learning materials to be like adaptable materials: instructors, teachers, curriculum coordinators can adapt to their needs. In contrast, my concept of flexible learning is demonstrated in the Flexible learning course on WE: "Flexible Learning is a type of curriculum design applied in formal education and training so as to offer people more choice, personalisation and control of their learning." I do see how the former leads to the latter. Well, just thought I'd share my initial interpretation.
Let me think about this --- splitting hairs, I think flexible learning materials are the "OER" / resources used in flexible learning delivery situations. I'll go back and take a look and see how to refine the statement. --Wayne Mackintosh 22:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Under product differentiation, not sure what is meant by "proof of concept" as an entry in the list without going to the link to see what's there. It seems to me that the capabilities on the publishing page are already included in the list. Wait, I think all that's needed is to delete the comma after proof of concept. It's "...proof of concept work..."
Yip -- good observation, while the capabilities are operational they still need further coding work and refinement --Wayne Mackintosh 22:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC).
  • In collaboration and content interoperability, "Pending a successful community vote by the Wikimedia Foundation to enable projects to migrate from the GNU Free Documentation License to an equivalent Creative Commons license[33], will potentially generate OER remix opportunities for educational content previously not possible." I think this is not pending anymore.
Well spotted! -- cut-and-paste error, will fix this --Wayne Mackintosh 22:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • In Objectives, #2, suggest expanding the usability bullet to suggest a broader range of innovation (more than supporting mass colloboration). I think it's also about creating templates and technologies to support learning design (e.g., inclusion of Java applets) and structures that make adapting content easier (e.g. transcluding small bits from a page).
Good point --- will elaborate with more examples. --Wayne Mackintosh 22:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and made some revisions to the page for seemingly obvious corrections. Here are some additional editorial comments, I'm happy to make these changes, just didn't want to presume and in some cases wasn't sure of your intent:

No worries -- Really appreciate this level of feedback and more than happy to implement the changes --Wayne Mackintosh 22:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • avoid abbreviations other than OER -- spell out: ICTs in the first value statement, IMS in 3rd bullet of product differentiation section.
Yip --- will get this fixed --Wayne Mackintosh 22:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Couldn't find a suitable solution for the IMS Global Learning Consortium abbreviation --- best to leave as is --Wayne Mackintosh 01:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • In cost leadership, indent set of 3 bullets located on the right of the graph.
might be a CSS bug with bullets next to images --- will see what I can do --Wayne Mackintosh 22:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • In product differentiation, suggest creating a new sentence for the last bit of "...Europe 10%, Pacific/Oceania 17%) and only 51% of respondents indicating English as their first language."
Good suggestion -- thanks --Wayne Mackintosh 22:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Inconsistent capitalization: internet vs. Internet, with enough of each that I'm not sure which you prefer.
Will fix for consistency -- thanks --Wayne Mackintosh 22:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • In second bullet of product differentiation, suggest alternate punctuation for " content etc (See Figure 5)." --> " content, etc. (See Figure 5.)"
That's better --Wayne Mackintosh 22:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • In product differentiation, move Figure 6 to be closer to it's listing in the text (bullet 6).
I agree will implement --Wayne Mackintosh 22:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • In product differentiation, bullet 6, suggest revising punctuation "...and reuse (See Figure 6)." --> "...and reuse. (See Figure 6.)"
Consistent with above -- thanks --Wayne Mackintosh 22:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • In challenges in achieving financial sustainability, 1st section, 3rd bullet, I think the left parenthesis is misplaced: "...magnitude, (Atkins, Brown and Hammond 2007:24)[30] suggest focusing..."
Will check this -- thanks --Wayne Mackintosh 22:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The external links are formatted differently in the collaboration and content interoperability section as compared with external links in other sections. Not sure if that's intentional.
No -- not intentional, was working to 2am on the concerned and got tiered -- now I have the time to fix this :-) Thanks --Wayne Mackintosh 22:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • In Aims, bulleted list, revise for consistent punctuation
Yip -- will do --Wayne Mackintosh 22:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • In Aims, bulleted list, change “of the range” to “using a range” in “Learning management system (LMS) vendors and developers of the range of delivery technologies who ensure...”
Will do -- thanks --Wayne Mackintosh 22:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Looking at this again --- "of the range" is better -- LMS vendors and developers are not the traditional users of these technologies.
  • In the Aims, bulleted list, add the word “movement” after free culture in “...aims of the free culture, including...”
well spotted --Wayne Mackintosh 22
31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hope this is helpful.

VERY helpful indeed -- BIG thanks --Wayne Mackintosh 22:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Regards, Alison

ASnieckus (talk)08:19, 4 July 2009

You're welcome. Glad to help.


ASnieckus (talk)14:25, 4 July 2009

Cheers -- thanks Alison,

Implemented all your suggestions apart from writing out the IMS abbreviation -- couldn't find a workable solution and one edit suggestions relating to changing “of the range” to “using a range”, which alters the intended meaning.

Thanks again :-)

Mackiwg (talk)13:54, 5 July 2009