[Oer-community] Introduction to the discussion

[Chris Yapp]

Stephen,

 

that brings a clarity which I welcome.. Very helpful, thank you,

 

regards

 

Chris Yapp

 

90 High Street

Wheatley

Oxfordshire

OX33 1XP

Tel: 01865 874866

Mob: 07777 667786

Skype: cgyapp

 

From: Stephen E Carson [mailto:scarson at MIT.EDU] 
Sent: 06 October 2010 13:37
To: Chris Yapp
Cc: [BKK] Dr. Bassem Khafagy; oer-community at athabascau.ca
Subject: Re: [Oer-community] Introduction to the discussion

 

Chris et al,

 

I think it's really difficult to ask such questions broadly about OER, as
OER encompasses so much.  As I've worked in the field I've identified a
number of different overlapping and often conflicting notions about what OER
are and how they operate.  I think it's helpful when talking about OER to
keep in mind these multiple visions.  Here are a few that I've identified:

 

OER as substitute:  This is the idea that OER can be used to substitute for
copywritten materials, generally text books and journal articles.  Here the
interest seems to be primarily about cost savings, and the concern about
whether the quality of the materials is equivalent to the for-fee versions.

 

OER as reusable resource:  This is the learning object vision married with
open licenses, the idea that we can come up with definitive version of
granular learning materials appropriate to wide audiences that can be
flexibly localized and recombined.  Interest in this area seems to be
focused on gains in efficiency in the creation of course materials,
scalability in automated learning and to some extent cost savings.

 

OER as transparency:  This is the vision that I believe gets the least
attention, but the one that is most important to models like OCW and to
institutions.  Most of the benefit for schools publishing OCW and other
curricular materials is both the quality improvements prompted but the
increased scrutiny the materials are subjected to, and in the transparency
across curriculum that OER project provide.  In publishing curriculum
openly, communities of educators at institutions know more about what they
collectively teach and how the subjects are related.  Student sin these
communities have more information about what they will learn and how.

 

I'm sure there are other visions as well.   So I would answer your question
by saying saying some institutional arrangements are very compatible with
some visions of OER.  Some are not.  But I think in this and all parts of
this deliberation, we need to acknowledge that we are discussing "OERs" in
the plural, rather than one unified field of OER.

 

Best,

 

Steve Carson

External Relations Director  |  MIT OpenCourseWare



President  |   OpenCourseWare Consortium

One Broadway, 8th floor  |  Cambridge, MA 02142

Map: http://tinyurl.com/cbo2kn
P: 617 253 1250  |  C: 617 633 4659  |  F: 617 253 2115  |  Skype/AIM:
scarsonmit




 

On Oct 6, 2010, at 7:34 AM, Chris Yapp wrote:





Bassem,

 

thanks for your response.

I am involved in some scenario planning on the future of libraries and
obviously attitudes to IPR, copyright, creative commons and OER obviously
are central to roles of different libraries.

 

Much of the discussion so far appears to  assume that the current
institutional arrangements are compatible in the long term with OER. In our
work on libraries , to be published April 2011 we don't see that assumption
as viable in any of our scenarios

 

Is there an evidence base for that or is it wish fulfilment?

 

For example the Open University was a new model of a University built to
embrace technological possibilities.

What we are learning about "free" in the web 2.0 world is that it helps
those with deep pockets and tends to monopoly in the long run.

That seems to me to be incompatible with the spirit of OER.

 

 

 

regards

 

Chris Yapp

 

90 High Street

Wheatley

Oxfordshire

OX33 1XP

Tel: 01865 874866

Mob: 07777 667786

Skype: cgyapp

 

From: oer-community-bounces at athabascau.ca
[mailto:oer-community-bounces at athabascau.ca] On Behalf Of [BKK] Dr. Bassem
Khafagy
Sent: 05 October 2010 21:45
To: oer-community at athabascau.ca
Subject: Re: [Oer-community] Introduction to the discussion

 

Dear all,

I think that the comments of Chris Yapp are very important to reflect upon
them.  To me, OER is not only valuable to universities or educational
institutions.  It is also valuable to corporate world, continuing education,
and life-long knowledge acquisition for all.

If we are to expand on the thinking of Paul, and try to be creative in
developing a model where OER is supported/maintained by a process where
benefiting the society is more important than simply generating fund,
growing bigger and bigger, or getting the best possible financial ROI .. if
we are to think more in this direction, we may be able to see the
macro-level view of things, before we get buried in the details of the
micro-level thoughts.  Both are important of course, but to me, such a
gathering of minds ought to focus more on the big picture.

Just a thought.

Best,

Bassem

Dr. Bassem Khafagy
CEO, E-L-M-E, Inc.
P.O. Box 9587
Nasr City, Cairo - Egypt
b.khafagy at e-l-m-e.com

<ATT00001..c>

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://deimos.cs.athabascau.ca/mailman/private/oer-community/attachments/20101006/848521c5/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 4339 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://deimos.cs.athabascau.ca/mailman/private/oer-community/attachments/20101006/848521c5/attachment-0001.gif