On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Wayne Mackintosh <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Everyone,
<< abbrev >> > We extend an open invitation to international agencies like COL and UNESCO > to join us. We extend an open invitation to all formerly registered tertiary > education providers of the world to join us. We expect collaborators to play > by the rules of the game because we are serious about the mainstream > adoption of OER and getting this right. > > Let's make OER futures happen :-). > > Cheers > Wayne > Greetings Wayne -- Your entreaties made for interesting reading. As you may recall, I'm somewhat new to Wikieducator, having committed something from the Oregon Curriculum Network called: Digital Mathematics:<goog_131041536> <goog_131041536>Heuristics for Teachers<http://wikieducator.org/Digital_Math>. When I got started on this project, I was not yet aware of *Mathematics for the Digital Age and Programming in Python * (by Litvins, used in several schools), which is not an OER (order from Skylit Publishing). The two co-exist (the OERs and the texts with a price tag). Likewise I use Free Open Source Software (FOSS) on my Windows computers, and these co-exist as well. However, there's still lots of competition going on in the software "solution space". Cost is an issue, maintainability is an issue, the likelihood of a resource simply going away is an issue. I hope Wikieducator has a long half-life. Anyway, in addition to (1) co-existence, between FOSS and not-FOSS (i.e. OER and not-OER), I am aware of (2) high quality FOSS that's best in show. In other words, in some categories, the free solution is actually also the best. The more expensive alternatives might come with built in support, whereas with the freebie you need to recruit a geek who believes in what you're doing. The latter is what many would rather not try. They need someone to yell at, at the end of the day, even if the commercial off the shelf solution is less capable, more breakable, than the free version. What I'm seeing in STEM education, K-16, is the free sector is often simply better than the pay sector at offering relevant educational materials. OERs rule in some areas. In that sense, they have a double edge versus less worthy more expensive brands. These better free wares may also optionally positively affiliate with some sister brands in the commercial sector. The OER is the flagship, but those wanting to buy extra have that capability. The extra may not mean better, just more of the same (more time at the web site?). The extra may be certification, since that's asking your peers to evaluate your performance, to offer coaching and judgment. There's always an opportunity cost, then. To end with one more concrete example, I mentioned Python the computer language up top. It's a language of choice among geeks around the world, taught formally at MIT, proudly used by Google, NASA and many others. I'm not saying it's the best language as that would be meaningless, just that it fits the needs of many a course in computer science or semantic web. Some of the best alternatives, are also free. Engineering really has come a long way in disentangling from counter-productive intellectual property games. Much of the world does not recognize "software patents" per se (as distinct from "copyrights"). Plus a lot of the best ideas are already in the public domain, even in places where the workers believe in patents, because true innovators got tired of seeing their hard work owned by others (talking about the GNU Project especially -- lots of good lore). My guess is a similar pattern will occur with OERs. (1) the best of the best will float to the top and (2) it will be a mix of pay-per-view (fee-for-service) and truly free. The quality of the free stuff will be very important, as that's how a curriculum will be judged by the public. Only those who sign up get access to the for-pay stuff, and that's much harder to evaluate publicly. Testimony will vary. Some students will be disappointed by how much work it is, now that it's not just on Youtube. These are ancient patterns, unlikely to just go away. Conclusion: it's prudent to have some free content available that is as good or better than most of the for-fee stuff out there. Wikieducator could be a good host for some of that. In some areas, such as STEM, this is actually happening i.e. the free Web is doing a better job than any of the costlier sources. Kirby PS: in the meantime, there's a lot of push back from mediocre writers and publishers spinning myths about the free stuff. Check out this poster from a local high school. I'd say these are outright lies in some cases, plus the message is all too clear: because the free web is free, we will say lots of bad things about it, because free scares us. http://www.flickr.com/photos/17157...@n00/5236862304/in/photostream/<%20http://www.flickr.com/photos/17157...@n00/5236862304/in/photostream/> http://www.flickr.com/photos/17157...@n00/5236861850/in/photostream/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/17157...@n00/5236269713/sizes/o/in/photostream/ -- 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]
