26.1 Evolution to education 3.0  (Page 10/19)

Thanks Derek for an inspiring contribution.

14. richardwyles - june 3rd, 2008 at 7:11 pm

Fantastic thread - Pat, I’m late on this one ;-). When leading the NZ OER project we grappled with this concept of accreditation of content quite a bit. A key consideration for us was that we produced OERs of high quality (in an e-Learning pedagogy sense) and fit for purpose to address a particular curriculum need. So while not formally stamped with anyone’s approval I can see this approach evolving to where a Moderator group “approves” a specific version of content for use in a particular field of study much in the same way as prescribed text-books. However it could never be some over-arching body like UNESCO - I agree the notion is absurd. However, content moderation is a parallel of what happens in the FOSS world - “benevolent dictatorship” is what Linus Torvalds once referred it to as. There’s also an undercurrent that true OERs need to have the lowest barriers to entry. Unfortunately I see this often leading to lowest common denominator approaches that fail to inspire the learner. Media neutral source files can alleviate that tension but this can also raise the bar in creation. Sure, wikis are part of the solution but in a Web 2.0 OERs must be much more than that.

Derek, on another note you might want to check out (External Link) - early stages of a PLE project&at (External Link) an attempt with Mahara to break down institutional barriers.

15. wayne mackintosh - june 4th, 2008 at 12:07 am

Hey Richard, Great to touch base in the forum.

I’m not sure whether I understand your suggested correlation between lowering the barriers of entry and quality. Quality is both an elusive and complex concept. Quality means different things to different people That said, I think quality is equally important for both open and closed authoring approaches in education.

What do you mean by: ” Media neutral source files can alleviate that tension but this can also raise the bar in creation”? and how does this relate to quality?

Cheers, Wayne

16. richardwyles - june 4th, 2008 at 12:37 am

Hi Wayne,

What I’m suggesting by the “lowest common denominator” comment is that rich media and interactivities commonly associated with LMSs can be over-looked in the desire to keep perceived barriers to the content as low as possible. In terms of reusability it is fair to say there are shades of openness as more complex learning objects will require more technical knowledge for reuse. That is not a comment on quality per se, more a comment that engaging use of MM or interactivities can be overlooked and that can lead to less engaging outcomes. That tension can be alleviated by standardising on open formats (e.g. XML) for source materials but like open source, I still see the need for skilled artesans for good eLearning experiences to be developed on top of that - it’s asking a lot from the learner otherwise. Polansi (2003) suggests that an ideal situation would be to develop several interface and stylistic environments that are user-controlled, which would enable the user to choose the most suitable form of interacting with and exploring the knowledge. That still requires initial creation which can be complex hence shades of openness. In eLearning to me, there’s a spectrum between technology and content - we operate at that nexus. PLEs, wikis, ePortfolios and multi-user virtual environments like Second Life make it possible to move in Polansi’s direction to some degree but I’m also of the view that even if architectural drawings were open content I still might like to hire a builder - the lowest common denominator approach won’t meet all needs.