Hi Leigh and Anil The concept of "non-moderated" and "moderated" content aligns very well with WE's work on the quality assurance framework. Our current thinking on quality is based on a tiered framework starting from a draft phase of a personal teaching resource ==> featured teaching resource ==> featured collaboration ==> a peer reviewed (or "moderated") resource.
We've made an attempt to capture these phases or levels with a simple graphic: http://wikieducator.org/WikiEducator:Quality_Assurance_Framework/Contribution_Levels I think that its very important for our community to support all educators --- irrespective of the quality of draft materials or individual capability in the community. However at the same time we need to provide incentives and support in helping our community achieve the quality standards of which we'll all be proud! Leigh -- that's a fantastic offer to use Otago Poly examples as a test case to refine our QA and review processes. BIG thank you. We still have lots of work to do in getting this right, not to mention the challenges for a QA framework to support multiple pedagogical approaches. There are also strong linkages between the notion of an OER Transnational Qualifications Framework and mapping of our content developments. I'm very keen to get folk like NZQA involved in our deliberations, so its all important that we do a good job on our WE QA framework. Cheers Wayne --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WikiEducator" group. To visit wikieducator: http://www.wikieducator.org To visit the discussion forum: http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
