Jump to: navigation, search

Use of the word "strategies" seems wrong. I thought of tactics at first, but on further reflection these are more like "pleas" or "recommendations".

I like the first recommendation - the learners are highlighted (but remember to say "libre and open" instead of just "open" throughout).

In the second recommendation, consider specifying free file formats.

and regarding access for people with disabilities and people without access to the internet, add something on localisation (another aspect of "access"). You could also say that the license should permit people to localise the resources and adapt them for any specific needs.

Ktucker (talk)03:45, 14 December 2007

In the third recommendation: Accreditation processes should not "give preference to" OER. Perhaps reword to "embed criteria in accreditation processes that acknowledge the value of collaborative development of educational resources ..." etc.

In paragraph seven, begin with "These recommendations ..." and think about saying "more than just the right thing to do". How sure can one be? For example, the note about the accreditation processes above would be the wrong thing to do, and there is a lot of western baggage that comes with all of this.

In the same paragraph, re "expensive textbooks": is there a time component included? i.e. billions of people will gradually become connected in the next decade, the degree of access will vary. There are still places where text books are still a good option. So it is great that the print option is mentioned earlier in the document. Perhaps be more general than "expensive textbooks" and say "redirect funds from inefficient dissemination methods towards more effective learning.

In the same paragraph: remove the last sentence "These are strategies that make sense for everyone" (are you sure?).

Ktucker (talk)03:46, 14 December 2007