Seems to me there are some major gaps in the whole OER movement related to scaffolding straightforward (agile) process for creation and reuse in a manner that makes the processes feasible/accessible to instructors. Currently the pain-for-gain threshold seems way too high.

I’ll read your paper, Peter. Thanks for providing the link..

Thanks for modelling such an effective tool, Grant.

d.

Openness — open thoughts published in twitter, emails, and other avenues can be reused, adapted and modified without restriction. With each iteration they get better.

Have fun and look forward to the next wave of inspiration!

Cheers
Wayne

Great morning, and wonderful meeting you and sharing ideas. Thanks for those helpful links. I’m going down one of those rabbit holes right now.

Saludos.

d.

Wonderful meeting you today. For adventure of a creative sorts, have you heard of morning pages or the artist date? http://www.theartistsway.com/the-basic-tools

And I remember seeing a list of 100 blog post ideas – wrangle some of these to the ground and share ‘em here: http://www.chrisbrogan.com/100-blog-topics-i-hope-you-write/

Cheers,
@AmandaFenton

I wasn’t really trying to be a “BC booster,” although I love this province. I just got caught up in what was a confluence of synergies – clear day, perfect flight path, window seat and my iPhone in my pocket. I had to wonder how many times in life you get this fortunate doing your job.

Mary

@MMaryMcKenna

However, I think the diagram describes more than an IP clearance process. Embedded within it are processes called: creation, quality control and technical. I know I have heard you speak (lament) on the quality control (or lack thereof) item at various stages of OER development processes.

These are macro process categories, that while not described in any detail, announce that there are multiple steps in the OER creation and reuse process that also need to be further described and/or built-out in a more convivial manner.

For me, this diagram represents a high-level view that could form the basis for a more detailed “how-to,” or form the basis of a workshop series that explored all of the *actual* behaviours and practices you note. It might then begin to frame the optimal processes in a *useful and usable* set of resources that could attract more instructors to both create and reuse in whatever manner seemed most efficacious *to them.*

d.

We definitely need to plan for the inclusion of mobile and laptop technologies as a new way of approaching the classroom dynamic. Better to use it as a positive part of the experience, rather than fighting the exclusion battle.

d.

Agreed. I also like to build in a mechanism for action research / learning, so that the stakeholders are observing and reflecting, and incorporating their learning (on many levels) to benefit the project’s success (and themselves, of course!). It’s a key piece of ‘agile (OER) community engagement’.

When you’re so immersed in a project like WE it’s not easy to get objective views about how we are fairing. Your insights are extremely useful, particularly when measured against the calibre of your experience in ICTs for education.

I look forward to reading your insights on agile OER workflow. I have a keen interest in the topic and this is a priority area for OERF and the WikiEducator project.

OER is too important to get wrong — and we’re very receptive to feedback in helping us get this right!

You raise a valuable point with respect to the experience of students in this course. We’ve heard a lot of grieving for the structure and confines of WebCT in the initial weeks of each offering since we migrated away from Blackboard. After a while, students have then commented on the liberating nature of the experience.

In our view as instructors, we have to keep the course content and delivery style fluid to suit the nature of an exploration of “ventures in learning technology.”

d.

It’s rather interesting to read your post regarding the course we are currently enrolled in. It really gives a different perspective of how I see my learning. This is my 7th MET course and Webct was the routine for most of the courses I have taken. Going from that to this course was at first very intimidating because I did not realize the intent on making it an “open” method of presenting and teaching. Rather than seeing the “openness”, I saw the chaos. With this realization, I appreciate the layout and form of the course. I am starting to see how it is different and appreciating it because it is different and seeing how different elements start to play out because it is in this form.

The question of “Are you open enough?” is a good one. I don’t think I was open enough until I realized the rationale in your post. Now, I am embracing the course in a different way and from a different perspective. I am glad I clicked away.

Iris

–

Your prod at my original question turns it around for response. Thanks.

I see the issue of target audience bounded by three primary factors at the Me level (personal, instructor, faculty, teacher level):

▪ Pain for gain threshold (resonant value proposition)
▪ Making my teaching life easier and/or more rewarding
▪ Making the learning experience for my students more engaging and empowering

Alan Levine’s Amazing Stories of Openness gets at some of resonant value aspects, and the really visceral “why would I do this” terrain. But it may not be enough for some who will be asking more about the reward system generally for participation. It really is a personal choice for faculty, teachers and instructor whether to engage. Some will want to, so the process of engaging has to be smooth and elegant as an authoring and reuse workflow.

Brian Lamb’s post prior to the OpenEd 2009 conference that asks, Are You Open Enough? is instructive and is a great starting point for working with folks who opt in, or who are on the cusp of opting in.

Heck, it is the agenda for an agile training program that models straightforward open practices across various disciplines, and provides a viral, convivial pass-along mechanism for working with colleagues.

The part about making the learning experience for students more engaging and empowering is more like an outcome that instructors might use to test the open strategy to see whether it works or needs further adjustment.

All of this lives in a larger context that looks something like:

Me –> my working colleagues –> my peers –> my institution –> my systemic academic orbit –> the world

There needs to be an implementation strategy for all those circles as we move outward. We saw at least one country-wide strategy on the systemic academic orbit level from Fred Mulder, from Open University of the Netherlands. I’m sure there are others out there, too.

Cracking the Me level participation seems to be on the critical path. Demonstrating simple, powerful and resonant ways of getting there is what needs to be solicited and shared. And, I don’t think the proponents of the open movement need to do this all by themselves, either.

d.