[Oer-community] Antw: Wrapping up the conversation

[Stephen Downes]

  I think Thomas Pfeffer gives us an excellent summary (below), to which 
I would like to make only one addition.

The summary is offered strictly from the point of view of instructors, 
and the production and (especially) use of OERs by instructors. We 
really should widen our perspective.

In the 'alternative concepts of OER', for example, we should include a 
representation of OERs as artifacts created, modified and passed along 
in order to facilitate learning and conversation between and by learners.

And in 'learning to share' we should express the need to learn from the 
sharing culture that learners, especially, have already developed on the 
web - everything from fan fiction to parodies to lip-dubs to blogging, 
syndication, and file sharing. We should also express the need to find 
and implement ways to *support* this sharing, instead of discouraging it 
and passing legislation prohibiting it.

To my mind, these are the two most important aspects of open educational 
resources, but to get to them, we must get beyond the instruction- and 
instructor-focused discussion, which really seems to be the hardest 
thing for these discussion lists to do.

-- Stephen



On 10/14/2010 7:16 AM, Thomas.Pfeffer at uni-klu.ac.at wrote:
> Dear Mary Lou
> Dear All,
> skipping through the converstation of the last weeks, I try to answer 
> your last question: Where should we be concentrating efforts for 
> maximum impact?
> 1) Foster alternative concepts of OER
> Sometimes the debates on OER tend to simplify the conceptual diversity 
> of OER conepts and models. Stephen Carson was one of the few 
> acknowledge different approaches in a very practical way, distinguishing
> *) OER as a substitute (of textbooks)
> *) OER as reusable resource (focused on automated learning)
> *) OER as transparency (accross curriculum, to inform students)
> I fully agree that the last category has been underobserved so far. 
> For traditional universities in continental Europe, this would be the 
> most plausible way to introduce OER (e.g. as semi-transparent OCW.) In 
> fact, much material is available already without being formally called 
> "OER".
> 2) "Learning to share"
> The first observation leads to the second: there exists a variety of 
> concepts and approaches. However, as Paul Stacy said there is a "huge 
> reluctance" to go beyond the individual model and use "anyone elses OER".
> So, what would be key is (as Wayne Macintosh phrased it) the "learning 
> to share". We definitely need more experience and training in the 
> "learning to share" and learning to use OER beyond individual models.
> From my side, I would be interested in developing a training 
> course/program for "learning to share and learning to use". (However, 
> this offering would have to generate some revenues to cover my costs.)
> best whishes
> Tom Pfeffer
> http://thomas-pfeffer.wikispaces.com
>

-- 
Signature 	Stephen Downes
Research Officer, National Research Council Canada
100 rue des Aboiteaux, Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada E1A 7R1
Website: http://www.downes.ca ~ Email: stephen at downes.ca 
<mailto:stephen at downes.ca>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://deimos.cs.athabascau.ca/mailman/private/oer-community/attachments/20101014/41a8fa80/attachment.html