Comments from Rory McGreal - Athabasca Univeristy
In the freedoms of all educators to teach with the technologies and contents of their choice, hence our commitment to Free/Libre and Open Source technology tools and free content.
- RORY>> Remove “all”. (Actually removing “all” and “every” is generally a good practise throughout the document unless you really mean it.)
- Good observation -- thanks, will get this amended. We'll we do believe in the values of freedom of choice for all educators :-), but I do see your point and will review the document --Wayne Mackintosh 22:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- So, are you saying that educators who wish to use paper correspondence rather than the Internet should be free to do so? Who pays for the paper? Who inputs the data for that teacher?? This needs qualifying somewhat.
- The freedom refers to the choice not the cost --- you're right the statement needs clarification. --Wayne Mackintosh 22:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
That educational content is unique - and by working together we can improve the technologies we use as well as the reusability of digital learning resources.
- RORY>> I don’t understand what the purpose of this value is. I would think that at least some if not a lot of educational content is NOT unique. Also, some content designed for other purposes can be used educationally – Is that unique? Why do you need to add “unique”?
- That's a good point --- the issue here is that we have an educational focus with the objective to develop resources that facilitate learning. Clearly this value needs further work. --Wayne Mackintosh 22:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
In a forward-looking disposition working together to find appropriate and sustainable solutions for e-learning futures.
- RORY>> Don’t we also believe in learning from experience. “forward-looking” seems to discount this.; Pragmatism is good, but empiricism has its place.
- Absolutely! And we also believe in learning from our mistakes :-) I'll go back and work on the statement to capture these ideas as well. --Wayne Mackintosh 22:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- RORY>>> Wouldn’t the key initiative be to increase the number of OER resources AND their actual implementation in learning environments?? If the foundation is not charged with doing this then who is??
- I had assumed that increasing the inventory of OER and their implementation to be integral components of a sustainable eco-system. That said -- in the absence of clearly articulated objectives that focus on these dimensions, they are easily lost. Will go back and refine the objective statements.
- Wouldn’t research into the benefits (economic, pedagogical and administrative) of using OERs be an important part of the initiatives??
- They most definitely are! I'll go back and see where this fits within the strategic initiatives etc. Primarily the OER foundation is not a research agency -- however, we can play an important role in facilitating and focusing research attention, especially since many of our prospective members have considerable research capability. Good point. --Wayne Mackintosh 22:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- RORY>> Wouldn’t the underuse of available OERs be included in any analysis??
- Should be -- to the best of my knowledge, the research is a little thin in this area, but will see what I can find. Should definitely form part of the environmental analysis. --Wayne Mackintosh 22:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
OER environmental scan
- RORY>>> Can you add a bullet for AU Press as the first open access university press, publishing open access books and journals.
- Absolutely -- how could I overlook this <blush>. Open access publishing is a significant component of the value chain network. Will definitely be adding the bullet :-) --Wayne Mackintosh 22:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Learning infrastructure is fostered, not built: Self-sustaining OER systems will only be achieved when social, organizational, and cultural issues are resolved in tandem (Atkins, Brown and Hammond 2007:56). Copied from attachment to the wiki
- RORY>> If they say “only” they are mistaken. Surely, it is possible that sustainability can be achieved if issues are resolved separately?? Or even possible if some issues are not resolved. They should use “best” rather than “only”.
- I agree -- but don't take responsibility for this one. Could add a clarifying footnote rather than amending the source quotation. --Wayne Mackintosh 22:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
AIM Big goal
The aim of the OER Foundation is to foster the development of a sustainable OER ecosystem
- RORY>>> Should this goal not incorporate the use of a growing body of OERs? After all it could be easily made sustainable by not growing. There needs to be some reference to the ongoing development AND use of OERs in a sustainable system. NOT just a sustainable system.
- Agreed as mentioned above -- further refinement is required, and these should be incorporated as key outcomes (and indicators of success) in the strat plan. --Wayne Mackintosh 22:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
A sustainable OER ecosystem will require individuals, governments, and institutions using principles of self-organisation to collaborate on OER projects.
- RORY>>>> “require” is to strong a word – possible: “depend on” and what happens if we get funding from orgs that do not use “principles of self-organization”??? Do we refuse? Why must ALL contributors have to be self-organized? That does not seem to make sense to me.
- Agreed --- "depend" is far better. Its not required that all contributors have to be self-organised. Refering to the concept of self-organisation here confuses rather than clarifies --- will look at rewording this statement. --Wayne Mackintosh 22:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Learners who will benefit from:
- lower cost open textbooks,
- RORY>>> Why limit this to just textbooks??? What about wikis that aren’t texts?? Multimedia? Etc.?
- Excellent point -- will make the necessary changes. --Wayne Mackintosh 22:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- BIG thanks Rory -- this is valuable feedback and will contribute to a more robust and meaningful strategy. --Wayne Mackintosh 22:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)