Design blueprint

Jump to: navigation, search

Very interesting to see the prototype blueprint. A few thoughts:

  • Would it be helpful to set an agreed-upon standard for course metadata so that we all use the same definitions (without getting too complicated of course)? Also each institution will need to translate this information into their own setting (e.g. credit values, year level, how it fits into existing program at the sponsoring institution). Maybe this information needs to link up (with a little magic scripting) into an articulation database as this feature may rapidly grow over time when institutions start to recognize these courses. I.e. a "transfer guide."
  • Learning outcomes and objectives are key for prior learning assessment purposes. If possible it would be good to ensure that learning outcomes are at the forefront as these are the key elements that need to be assessed, along with the assessment pieces.
  • It would be interesting to know what information institutions would be interested in to accept this as PLAR rather than as a "parallel course" where the learners are assessed as if they were taking a full institutional course.
  • Do we want to assume some tools for journaling (would we recommend something such as a blogging tool or just leave it open to institutions?). In the same vein can we assume some tools for collaboration even if the courses are built as independent study? A few thoughts for discussion! Irwin--Irwin DeVries 10:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Idevries (talk)23:14, 1 March 2012

Hi Irwin, good questions. A few thoughts as we use our prototype courses to find answers.

  • During the prototype phase, I agree that we need to have some course metadata -- ie notional learning hours, level and relationship with institutional credentials. In the medium term, I think that it would be useful for the OERu network to adapt and modify the Transnational Qualifications Framework developed by COL. We could then map or "register" OERu courses against this framework which will provide a mechanism for managing the "transfer guide". An adapted version of the TQF (available under an open content license) with corresponding technology support could become the articulation database you are referring to.
  • Agreed, learning outcomes will be important for institutions planing to use RPL protocols for assessment and credentialing. Perhaps the statement of learning outcomes will become a minimum requirement for the design boilerplate for OERu course developments.
  • Yes, I think we should set up an activity under the "Open credential services initiative where we can map the intended mechanism of assessment and credentialing of the prototype courses. I'll set this up in the next couple of days.
  • With reference to your point about tools, my recommendation is that the OERu should avoid promoting single tools or solutions which may generate future technology dependencies that can be avoided. I think we must also keep our eye on the requirement to scale for thousands of students across the world. Ideally our suggested tools should adhere to the minimum requirements of open standards and open file formats and facilitate freedom of choice for learners to choose their preferred tools. As a next step, I think we should generate a list of activity types and corresponding suggestions for tools which can be used, with some guidance to learners on the advantages and disadvantages of each of the tools. The OERu must also ensure that learners do not incur cost or be required to pay licensing fees for the use of these tools.

Thanks Irwin - -valuable reflection and we have identified two concrete activities for the next steps.

Mackiwg (talk)10:11, 8 March 2012