Wow, Alex, Anil, Leigh & COL... I really like where this thread is going. For I see a discussion about what is seen as assistance and who controls a "partnership" when it comes to providing "services" or developing sustainability. In particular, we are talking about developing countries helping themselves without any barriers. Are barriers starting to form? I am certian the barriers aren't forming conciously... an interesting issue. I see the spirit of Goal 8 from the MDG was to break down any barriers to access; http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/global.shtml
What do others think??? Cheers, On Oct 29, 11:51 am, "Alex P. Real" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Leigh, > > Thought-provoking thread! Why did the COL rep had objections? Not being a > Commonwealth citizen I’m not the best to speak, but I’d have thought WE > would be ideal grounds for a different approach to framework development and > assessment rather than more traditional approaches which may not take into > account educators and students. Formal education and NQF are regulated, > and as such, associated to national political interests and likely to become > an intervening factor in “negotiating” any TQF as happened with the European > Space for Higher Education (ESHE). At the same time, if enforced, countries > and institutions may be prone to introduce “cosmetic” changes and avoid a > proper full reform, or simply align existing qualifications/levels to the > new framework, frequently the case with CEFR, and thus reduce it to > comparison/equivalency purposes. > > I can see why some are happy to have some sort of open curriculum and speak > about “a” maybe in the sense of “one” to spread access, and at the same time > share your concern for one-dimensional readings. Could you please expand > your argument on colonization and globalization? Why do some of your people > think that about WE? Missing background info there! > > Sorry, not acquainted enough so this may be a silly question but is this > TQF the same as VUSSC’s? If this is the case, then maybe WE should aim at > complementing efforts/focusing on educator-specific issues (??). > > Cheers, > > Alex > > De: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] En > nombre de Leigh Blackall > Enviado el: miércoles, 29 de octubre de 2008 6:38 > Para: [email protected] > Asunto: [WikiEducator] Re: !!RE: [WikiEducator] Re: Another Milestone > > Anil, I see the TQF project as quite separate from the idea of a single > curriculum. TQF (to me) is primarily about assessment and qualifications > that have currency accross borders. Curriculum is about what and how we > teach and learn. Admittedly, assessment and qualification frameworks have > very heavy influences on what and how people teach and learn, and so the TQF > project would need to be very cautious of this fact. > > The TQF discussion was progressing into some quite interesting territory, > but we saw that a key person in COL had objections to it progressing in > Wikieducator. I'm afraid I would have objections also now (for whatever that > is worth), but for very different reasons to that COL representative. I > think Wikieducator would need to do a lot more to clarify its position (or > even awareness!) of issues relating to colonisation and globalisation and to > distance itself from anything that associates with such ideas, or practices > that unwittingly lend a hand to such ideas. > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 6:23 PM, Anil < <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Leigh, > > My view is that TQF need not necessarily mean replacing of NQFs, > where as we can further strengthen the NQFs by identifying learning > outcomes etc which would be internationally accepted and that could > naturally establish healthy bonds between TQF and NQFs. Here TQF will > function as a meta-data model. > > Moreover, in education, every thing is connected, but the connections > may be some times very complex and may not be easily understandable by > learners, teachers and other stakeholders especially the labour > market. Therefore, I think, one of the major tasks of Educators > involved in TQF is to streamline these connections regularly to ensure > that they are connected in most systematic/logical way. Possibly you > can talk more facts about it from OP experience. > > In fact, this kind of a protocol is already in practice as part of > Transnational or Borderless Education being promoted by many > internationally accepted academic bodies/institutions and even > business firms as well. > > Anil > > On Oct 29, 12:21 am, "Leigh Blackall" < <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Thank you for your perspective Anil, I hope more will share theirs on > this, > > however briefly if it is seen as a time wasting thread. It is helping me > to > > think things through on a bigger picture level, even though I have gone > > ahead and edited the Wikipedia entry so it is consistent with other > entries, > > and see that other edits have followed. > > > I am not apposed to mentioning Wayne as the founder - nor including > > reference to COL, UNESCO and HF. I was apposed to the significance those > > pieces of information had over and at the expense of any other information > > about the project. > > > To me, the idea of a single curriculum is of grave concern - and I always > > took it as just careless language (haven spoken to Wayne personally about > > it) and that it would be rectified sooner than it has. In countries where > > colonisation is a very sensitive issue, such as Australia and New Zealand > > (but certainly not limited to those as you know), such a statement of > > singularity would be the very thing that prevents engagement. Indeed, it > is > > associations like this that is one of the reasons that most my network > > (prior to participating in the Wikieducator project) has not followed me > > into Wikieducator. This has troubled and perplexed me for a long time, > > thinking it to be mere technical or usability issues. > > > While I have come to appreciate some of the new connections that the > > Wikieducator project has given me, I think my history in this email forum > > shows a great many issues I have brought up that have exhausted a huge > > amount of everyone's time in debating here, not the least my own. Almost > all > > of these issues have largely remained unresolved. The only good that I can > > see coming out of argument is the opportunity to clarify the expression of > a > > position, but to what end? > > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 9:51 PM, Anil < <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi friends, > > > > There is nothing wrong in mentioning the founder in the very beginning > > > of the topic, you can see thousands of such articles that are well > > > read on www. Nothing that is man-made happens in the world without a > > > sparkling thought in somebody's mind who has the initiative to trigger > > > action for making it a reality. It is such initiators who become > > > founders. Let us accept this fact and deliver the beauty and worth of > > > mutual trust, recognition and consideration that are the crux of the > > > very existence of human societies. . > > > > Founders can bring in the support of very big institutions into the > > > project. Neither it prevents any one from placing a reference or photo > > > of the founder at the opening of the article about the project nor it > > > any way reduces the importance of organizational partners.These are > > > the ways societies express its gratitude to those who provide valuable > > > social services. > > > > ''WikiEducator is a community project working collaboratively with the > > > Free Culture Movement towards a free version of the education > > > curriculum by 2015'' is a well accepted vision statement of the > > > project. We are all attracted to the project via that vision. I don't > > > see any reason to dispute it now. Let us not disrupt the decorum for > > > no reason. > > > > Finally about the anxiety over the curriculum, I think, since it is a > > > wiki project, there may not have any restrictions in thinking about > > > different national curricula and connecting them to an international > > > movement. Let us itry to see the faces of billions and billions of > > > poor to whom the free and open educational material that we are > > > developing would become godsend...then the trivial issues may > > > disappear in void for we have no time to waste. > > > > Anil > > > > On Oct 28, 1:03 pm, "Leigh Blackall" < <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Offense most certainly taken, and thank you Patricia, things are much > > > > clearer now. I'm sorry you see my concerns as destructive and > personally > > > > motivated. For the record, I have made no such accusations of Wayne > but > > > > acknowledge that it is very difficult not to. As long as Wayne is the > > > > central figure complete with thumbnail image, I suppose my criticism > of > > > the > > > > message that is out there about Wikieducator (such as the Wikipedia > page) > > > > inevitably becomes personal. > > > > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Patricia Schlicht < > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > ……Or could it be that I am completely out of touch with > Wikieducator > > > and > > > > > need to… > > > > > > No offense intended, Leigh, but I think you seriously need to find > the > > > true > > > > > essence of the project again, so you don't only talk and completely > > > > > overanalyze anything and everything, seeing things were there are > none, > > > > > making assumptions and coming to conclusions that are completely out > of > > > the > > > > > sky. > > > > > > You seem to become what Open Educational resources formerly gave a > bad > > > > > reputation. While your intentions might be well-intended, you are > > > reaching > > > > > the opposite of what you are trying to achieve. You don't raise > issues, > > > > > rather eye-brows and not the first time. > > > > > > Your unfounded and completely ridiculous accusations of Wayne's > > > intentions > > > > > only goes to show that you have absolutely no idea what is involved > or > > > what > > > > > the goal of the project is. It seems to me that you are only out to > > > > > discredit the good that has been done and in such a way that the > rest > > > of us > > > > > can only shake their head and credit it to your youth. > > > > > > I think you are personally motivated and/or threatened which is why > you > > > > > want to ensure you get to ruin the project by inflicting nonsense > into > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
