Here is a good paper on why it is important for students to be the
content developers. Should we have the students work through the L4C
workshops and have a similar course to help educators to facilitate
the creation of student generated content?
http://www.e-mentor.edu.pl/_xml/wydania/21/467.pdf
Hi Peter,
Not too mention the educational value of community service. I have
children in both elementary and high school here in BC and at both
levels there are community service hours built into the curriculum.
Linking student-generated content with community service is a great way
to combine
Hi Peter,
I totally agree. I will be encouraging grade 11 and 12 high school students
at Ort Gutman http://www.wikieducator.org/Ort_Gutman_High_School to be
adding content on WE. I hope other WE members can join in and give a hand.
Thank you.
Nellie
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 8:03 AM, Peter [EMAIL
Wayne,
Count me in!
Nellie
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 8:19 AM, Wayne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Peter,
Not too mention the educational value of community service. I have children
in both elementary and high school here in BC and at both levels there are
community service hours built into
MIT keep missing the issue with their licenses!
http://mitpress.mit.edu/opening_up_education/
--
--
Leigh Blackall
+64(0)21736539
skype - leigh_blackall
SL - Leroy Goalpost
http://learnonline.wordpress.com
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because
How ironic!
Someone should write an opinion piece in a highly regarded publication to
draw attention to the irony, and some might say, hypocrisy.
- Randy
On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 3:29 PM, Leigh Blackall [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
MIT keep missing the issue with their licenses!
Yeah Leigh, I don't get either :-(
I would love to hear the rationales from these leading OER advocates who
publish works on the topic of OER under a ND license.
Over the last year I have received two invitations to publish research
articles/chapters in special editions dealing with the topic
Wayne wrote:
Yeah Leigh, I don't get either :-(
I would love to hear the rationales from these leading OER advocates
who publish works on the topic of OER under a ND license.
I would guess they have a commercial distribution deal with Scribd. That
would explain the ND - they don't want a
On Wed, 2008-09-17 at 20:30 -0300, Stephen Downes wrote:
I would guess they have a commercial distribution deal with Scribd.
That would explain the ND - they don't want a (more usable) HTML
version out there diluting the marketing impact.
If I was a betting man -- you'd have my bet :-).
Hmm, its a big problem my end, because if and when some of my colleagues see
the use of this and other restrictive licenses, all they see is that its
Creative Commons and think that equates to OER... I am sensing a rise in the
use of restrictions as the 2nd wave of OER comes on board without fully
Hi Leigh,
That's a real challenge -- but surmountable through good education and
advice to help folk take an informed decision.
By setting a leading example and remaining true to our values -- we'll
win many over to our side :-).
Cheers
Wayne
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 11:34 +1200, Leigh Blackall
o oh.. I can feel us going back into that largely unresolved battle we had
last year.
http://wikieducator.org/User:Leighblackall/Open_educational_resources_and_practices#Copyright
I think my words from last year address some of my issues that still
stand... but specifically to moral tone, in the
Isn't that the page that all the great discussion got lost in the move to
Liquid Threads?
brent.
ps. I agree with you. That paragraph is awful and you should remove it
immediately. They have regular discussion pages over there too so you might
even be able to get into some good discussion on
The wording today was introduced here:
http://freedomdefined.org/index.php?title=Definition/Unstablediff=2254oldid=2251
It's definitely more radical than it needs to be, and I'd be
comfortable with toning it down a bit - Leigh, why don't you start
this discussion on the freedomdefined.org site
Erik, there was already a discussion about this, but no action:
http://freedomdefined.org/Talk:Definition#.22god-like_creators.22.3F
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 2:45 PM, Erik Moeller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The wording today was introduced here:
I've rebooted the discussion and invited some of the contributors to
the definition to participate:
http://freedomdefined.org/Talk:Definition#Preamble_for_1.1
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Hi Leigh,
That's a good point -- I do agree that paragraph is somewhat radical,
particularly to the uninformed and the document needs to be refined. As Erik
suggests let's get involved on the discussions to refine this paragraph over at
freedomdefined.org. Fortunately its an open community
Thanks Erik,
I've posted some feedback on the preamble here:
http://freedomdefined.org/Talk:Definition#Preamble_for_1.1
Appreciate your speedy response in opening up the discussion again. A testament
to the open approach. Lets hope that the WikiEducator community will be active
in helping
Have also added my bit to the discussion page... seems pretty cut and dry
though. Not sure what needs to be discussed, but let's see and I guess its
only polite.
Randy said: How ironic! Someone should write an opinion piece in a highly
regarded publication to draw attention to the irony, and
Good question,
I'd suggest posting that on the freedomdefined site and lets see how they
respond.
Cheers
Wayne
-Original Message-
From: wikieducator@googlegroups.com on behalf of Leigh Blackall
Sent: Wed 9/17/2008 10:36 PM
To: wikieducator@googlegroups.com
Subject: [WikiEducator] Re:
20 matches
Mail list logo
