Downes, Stephen (2007). Models for sustainable open educational resources. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects. 3, Retrieved July 5, 2007, from http://ijklo.org/Volume3/IJKLOv3p029-044Downes.pdf
One section of the article by Downes (2007) mentions the issue of sustainability and the costs of providing the resource for free to the consumer. On page 34, he states that "'sustainable' in this instance may mean not merely financially cheaper, but capable of promoting wider objectives."
This made me think about the U. C. Berkeley's new YouTube initiative. An announcement for this project appeared in the October 4, 2007 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education. On Berkeley's YouTube channel, selected courses, special events, and lectures will be available for free to the public. One thing that has been a discussion topic on some library listservs is the long-term viability and sustainability of this project. According to some list members, there is no guarantee that what is posted will not disappear without warning. While I'm not familiar with the type of long-term arrangements Berkeley has made with YouTube in terms of preservation, it does add another dimension to the discussion of sustainability presented by Downes.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Open Educational Resources
Johnstone, S. M. (2005). Open educational resources serve the world. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 28(3), 15-18. Retrieved November 18, 2006, from http://www.educause.edu/apps/eq/eqm05/eqm0533.asp
One thing that Iiyoshi, Richardson, & McGrath (2006) emphasize is that their work on the KEEP toolkit is that their belief in it as an open source resource is one that is aligned with the mission of education in general - to share knowledge. This sense of sharing also comes through clearly in the article by Sally Johnstone. Not only does she advocate for the sharing of materials by educators in the U.S., but she also believes that this can work on a more global level. In addition to the interest in making resources and "knowledge chunks" available world wide, Johnstone also discusses some of the issues and concerns that faces these initiatives.
First, there are multiple definitions of a resource. What is included? What is not? (This is a concept that is elaborated on in the article by Downes (2007) - Models for Sustainable Open Educational Resources.) In some cases, OER includes learning resources, resources to support teachers, and resources to support quality education. Others, like those involved in the Connexions project, place a greater emphasis on collaboration. The creation of community, like that associated with Open Learning Support (OLS), is yet another feature that is present in some OERs. In these communities, self-management and self-policing become important aspects.
Even though this is a rather short article, Johnstone is able to convey the breadth and depth of OER projects that are currently underway. Maybe it's the librarian in me, but one thing I thought would be extremely beneficial for educators would be to create some type of repository that would enable individuals to access all of these rich resources from one central location. Not only would that make it easier to see what others are working on and where the gaps are, but it would also make it easier to access (or contribute to) the materials in the various collections. In the words of Johnstone, this type of repository would further enhance efforts to "help people help themselves" (p. 18).
One thing that Iiyoshi, Richardson, & McGrath (2006) emphasize is that their work on the KEEP toolkit is that their belief in it as an open source resource is one that is aligned with the mission of education in general - to share knowledge. This sense of sharing also comes through clearly in the article by Sally Johnstone. Not only does she advocate for the sharing of materials by educators in the U.S., but she also believes that this can work on a more global level. In addition to the interest in making resources and "knowledge chunks" available world wide, Johnstone also discusses some of the issues and concerns that faces these initiatives.
First, there are multiple definitions of a resource. What is included? What is not? (This is a concept that is elaborated on in the article by Downes (2007) - Models for Sustainable Open Educational Resources.) In some cases, OER includes learning resources, resources to support teachers, and resources to support quality education. Others, like those involved in the Connexions project, place a greater emphasis on collaboration. The creation of community, like that associated with Open Learning Support (OLS), is yet another feature that is present in some OERs. In these communities, self-management and self-policing become important aspects.
Even though this is a rather short article, Johnstone is able to convey the breadth and depth of OER projects that are currently underway. Maybe it's the librarian in me, but one thing I thought would be extremely beneficial for educators would be to create some type of repository that would enable individuals to access all of these rich resources from one central location. Not only would that make it easier to see what others are working on and where the gaps are, but it would also make it easier to access (or contribute to) the materials in the various collections. In the words of Johnstone, this type of repository would further enhance efforts to "help people help themselves" (p. 18).
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Second Life Survey
The Friday, October 5, 2007 issues of the Chronicle's "The Wired Campus" included details of the Second Life Educators survey conducted by the New Media Consortium. Their findings show that educators are divided on the future of SL for educational purposes. The survey results and the appendix are freely available at:
http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2007-sl-survey-summary.pdf
and
http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2007-sl-survey-summary-appendix.pdf
Some of the interesting nuggets from the respondents include:
*80% of the respondents were between the ages of 36-55+
*43% took a class held in SL
*91% have engaged in random wandering; 77% have used SL to meet new people
*46% have designed their avatar to resemble themselves
*45% indicate that rich interactions, meeting new people, expanding networks, and generosity of community have been their most positive experiences; 36% say that their most negative experiences are due to technical issues/using SL
*SL characteristics that ranked high were engaging, interactive, social, and global; ease of use and realistic were lower in comparison
*46% consider SL to have great potential and is a taste of the 3D future
http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2007-sl-survey-summary.pdf
and
http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2007-sl-survey-summary-appendix.pdf
Some of the interesting nuggets from the respondents include:
*80% of the respondents were between the ages of 36-55+
*43% took a class held in SL
*91% have engaged in random wandering; 77% have used SL to meet new people
*46% have designed their avatar to resemble themselves
*45% indicate that rich interactions, meeting new people, expanding networks, and generosity of community have been their most positive experiences; 36% say that their most negative experiences are due to technical issues/using SL
*SL characteristics that ranked high were engaging, interactive, social, and global; ease of use and realistic were lower in comparison
*46% consider SL to have great potential and is a taste of the 3D future
On Wednesday (10/3), Curt sent the class a link to an article in USA Today about the 23 year old owner of the social networking software, Facebook. In today's (10/6) New York Times, Alice Mathias (a 2007 graduate from Dartmouth) talks about Facebook as online community theater and a form of escapism. Check it out at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/06/opinion/06mathias.html?th&emc=th
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/06/opinion/06mathias.html?th&emc=th
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Wheeler Revisited
When I was looking for an article on an unrelated topic today, I stumbled up a Jan/Feb. 2007 EDUCAUSE Review article by Brad Wheeler:
http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0712.pdf
In this piece, Wheeler reflects upon his 2004 article that also appeared in EDUCAUSE Review (Open source 2007: How did this happen?), and notes that a "major shift occured in the conversation about open source" (p. 50).
http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0712.pdf
In this piece, Wheeler reflects upon his 2004 article that also appeared in EDUCAUSE Review (Open source 2007: How did this happen?), and notes that a "major shift occured in the conversation about open source" (p. 50).
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
What is free?
What does the word "free" mean in connection to open source software? Two of the articles I read for this week - one by Stephenson and the other by Lessig - discuss the definition of this word. Both point to the work of Stallman who founded the Free Software Movement. [Side note: A video of Stallman talking about free software is available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3uX5XwdN_8.] According to Stephenson and Lessig, Stallman believes that the term "free" in free and open source software (FOSS) means free "as in free speech, not free beer."
I had not really thought about this term before and what it meant in relation to software, but this discussion about freedom made me question the use of this term. Perhaps "free" was not the best choice of words and has led to many thinking that free means free software instead of the freedom to run, study, improve, and share programs. However, in thinking about FOSS and its connection to the hacker culture (see Pan and Bonk, 2007), it is possible that the "confusion" surrounding the term "free" was part of the plan. As Pan and Bonk note, the hacker culture has a history of "cooperation and knowledge sharing." So, in this sharing climate, when/how does free shift from the "free speech" concept to the "free beer" version? Is it a matter of if you take you also have to give back (i.e., gift culture)?
I had not really thought about this term before and what it meant in relation to software, but this discussion about freedom made me question the use of this term. Perhaps "free" was not the best choice of words and has led to many thinking that free means free software instead of the freedom to run, study, improve, and share programs. However, in thinking about FOSS and its connection to the hacker culture (see Pan and Bonk, 2007), it is possible that the "confusion" surrounding the term "free" was part of the plan. As Pan and Bonk note, the hacker culture has a history of "cooperation and knowledge sharing." So, in this sharing climate, when/how does free shift from the "free speech" concept to the "free beer" version? Is it a matter of if you take you also have to give back (i.e., gift culture)?
Wheeler and Open Source
Wheeler, B. (2004). Open source 2007: How did this happen? EDUCAUSE Review, 39(4), 12-27. Retrieved July 4, 2007, from http://www.educause.edu/pub/er/erm04/erm0440.asp or http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0440.pdf
In comparison to many of the other readings for this week, I walked away from this article feeling very pessimistic about the open source movement. Two areas that Wheeler suggests are problematic are licensing and support. Starting with licensing, Wheeler contends that the licenses are inconsistent and many institutional technology transfer offices have prevented viable tools from being used because of different licensing terms. While templates created by EDUCAUSE have helped, it will still take years to rectify the situation. Support is another issue. According to Wheeler, "not all vendors are choosing to support a range of open source applications" (p. 16).
Wheeler is not optimistic about the future of open source, and he outlines factors such as failure to agree and inability to leverage as evidence of the failure of open source. In contrast, Pan and Bonk are much more optimistic, and state that "research on 'free and open source software' (FOSS) development is now flourishing and across disciplines." So, the question is: What happened from 2004, when Wheeler's article was published, to 2007, when the Pan and Bonk piece surfaced? Is it merely a matter of a difference of opinions, or is something more at play? Has the emergence of Web 2.0 technologies (and the participatory nature of these tools) revitalized the FOSS discussion?
Other topics that are discussed in many of the open source articles for this week are collaboration and community. The words collaboration and community have such positive connotations that it is difficult to think of them negatively, but Wheeler's argument is skewed in that direction. Like many other authors, (e.g., Kapor), Wheeler mentions the importance of community building and collaboration in the FOSS movement. While Kapor believes that open source is "a more efficient as well as a democratic way of developing software" (p. 73), Wheeler is more cautious in his assessment. In examining interviews with members of open source projects, Wheeler found that many reported that the team members "just couldn't agree."
One thing I noticed as I was reading through Wheeler's piece is that he uses the terms open source, home-grown systems, and community source models as if they were synonymous. Are they the same or do these terms refer to different things? The other authors we read for this week didn't shift their terminology as frequently, which made me question Wheeler's word choice.
In comparison to many of the other readings for this week, I walked away from this article feeling very pessimistic about the open source movement. Two areas that Wheeler suggests are problematic are licensing and support. Starting with licensing, Wheeler contends that the licenses are inconsistent and many institutional technology transfer offices have prevented viable tools from being used because of different licensing terms. While templates created by EDUCAUSE have helped, it will still take years to rectify the situation. Support is another issue. According to Wheeler, "not all vendors are choosing to support a range of open source applications" (p. 16).
Wheeler is not optimistic about the future of open source, and he outlines factors such as failure to agree and inability to leverage as evidence of the failure of open source. In contrast, Pan and Bonk are much more optimistic, and state that "research on 'free and open source software' (FOSS) development is now flourishing and across disciplines." So, the question is: What happened from 2004, when Wheeler's article was published, to 2007, when the Pan and Bonk piece surfaced? Is it merely a matter of a difference of opinions, or is something more at play? Has the emergence of Web 2.0 technologies (and the participatory nature of these tools) revitalized the FOSS discussion?
Other topics that are discussed in many of the open source articles for this week are collaboration and community. The words collaboration and community have such positive connotations that it is difficult to think of them negatively, but Wheeler's argument is skewed in that direction. Like many other authors, (e.g., Kapor), Wheeler mentions the importance of community building and collaboration in the FOSS movement. While Kapor believes that open source is "a more efficient as well as a democratic way of developing software" (p. 73), Wheeler is more cautious in his assessment. In examining interviews with members of open source projects, Wheeler found that many reported that the team members "just couldn't agree."
One thing I noticed as I was reading through Wheeler's piece is that he uses the terms open source, home-grown systems, and community source models as if they were synonymous. Are they the same or do these terms refer to different things? The other authors we read for this week didn't shift their terminology as frequently, which made me question Wheeler's word choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)