[Open-education] Friday Chat: The differences between open (as in access) or open (as in participatory & contribution)

Fri May 30 09:09:23 UTC 2014

It's more division of labour - at my Uni the students notice mistakes all
the time, but they know it is a mistake.
When you lack the education or skills to know that it is a mistake, then it
isn't a mistake.
If the content was licensed and available, then it can be changed, but
also, when most of the content comes from a few sources, their mistakes, or
preferences or bias are amplified.

On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Thieme Hennis <thieme at hennis.nl> wrote:

> not sure if the Heartbleed bug is such a good example: yes - few people
> participate, but code to secure websites is not the same as educational
> content. What if there is a mistake in an online course, in a textbook?
> That's normal, in online, open, closed learning environments or wherever.
> Even in accredited learning environments you might give the impression that
> everything is true and perfect, which IMHO will dumb people down (at least
> make them less skeptic). Learning to create, assess, and share knowledge
> wisely is more important than making every single resource bug-free. Do we
> want to support learners with failsafe learning environments or faultless
> resources, or with the skills necessary to find the right ones, to assess
> or improve on them?
>
>
>
> --
> hennis.nl (→ receive e-mail updates <http://eepurl.com/vWBiL> in you
> inbox) // +31651855220 // Amsterdam, Delft
>
>
> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Pat Lockley <
> patrick.lockley at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think Heartbleed is a great example of open and it's failings, and one
>> of the things open was supposed to prevent - many eyes and so on. Any look
>> at a github contributors graph shows that the majority of the work is done
>> by the few.
>>
>> I worry if we talk access, then the few doing the work already become
>> even more burdened.
>>
>> I think the lacks of tools in OER is a real problem. Access is great, but
>> then what? I don't think we've solved creation yet, but it's old ground and
>> no one likes old ground and trying again.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Danielle Paradis <
>> dani.paradis2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> As Pat has pointed out, there are many (7 in fact) definitions of what
>>> constitutes open educational resources. There's also open-source,
>>> open-access, and I'm probably missing another one. I think the conceptual
>>> idea of open is a big-tent. It really has to be when there are things like
>>> MOOCs, open textbooks, and repositories of OER distributed all over the
>>> web.
>>>
>>> Marieke really touched on something when she mentioned that there are
>>> questions about the focus on being able to access resources rather than
>>> contribute to them. In my experience people tend to fall into one category
>>> or the other. While working on my thesis I found a few people who were
>>> creating the resources and a few people who were using them. There didn't
>>> seem to be a lot of cross-over, but there was a few instances. I believe
>>> the tendency to participate in the creation of OER probably has to do with
>>> familiarity about what they are. It's easy enough to find a free textbook
>>> online and think 'cool, I will use this'. It takes a little more time to
>>> understand the licensing, the repositories, and pedagogy that surround the
>>> concept of open education. Perhaps then as the open education movement
>>> matures we will see more people occupying a dual role of consumer and
>>> developer of OER.
>>>
>>> This reminds me a bit of the Heartbleed bug
>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/19/technology/heartbleed-highlights-a-contradiction-in-the-web.html?_r=0>
>>> which occurred because everyone was using OpenSSL code, but no one was
>>> checking the work. That is, I believe, a cautionary tale for OER.
>>>
>>> Great topic though!
>>>
>>> Danielle
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 5:24 AM, Pat Lockley <
>>> patrick.lockley at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've mumbled about this before re open access as a geography (
>>>> http://www.slideshare.net/Pgogy/open-as-in-oer-and-open-as-in-mooc).
>>>> The analogy I use is in the UK we have footpaths, which the public are
>>>> allowed to walk on - even if say they cut across your land. Whereas in the
>>>> US you might have a national park, which is open but you have to get to it.
>>>>
>>>> Footpaths aren't big, parks are. Footpaths tend be nearer, parks tend
>>>> to be further away.
>>>>
>>>> I think shifting the burden of accessing openness onto developers is
>>>> problematic for two reasons
>>>>
>>>> 1) How could they know what to do? Are we talking a Berners-Lee like
>>>> star system?
>>>> 2) How could taking things to people not seem a bit Victorian Empire
>>>> Missionary?
>>>>
>>>> I would say developing an accessible first (akin to mobile first) style
>>>> of openness makes sense. So make transcripts available for MP3s as an
>>>> example, but again, are we having better forms of open? And can we do this
>>>> and not put people off being bad open?
>>>>
>>>> So you can be open, but at a point of moving your openness onto people,
>>>> do you close things down? Or does it look a little spam like?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Marieke Guy <marieke.guy at okfn.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  Hi Everyone,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry we missed our Friday chat last week - this was due to the Making
>>>>> it Matter workshop (lots of good discussions
>>>>> <http://linkedup-project.eu/2014/05/21/what-we-learnt-at-making-it-matter/>
>>>>> there though!)
>>>>>
>>>>> So on the open design list there was an interesting conversation
>>>>> <https://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/opendesign/2014-May/000390.html>
>>>>> about the differences between open (as in access) or open (as in
>>>>> participatory & contribution)? They were trying to decide which is the most
>>>>> important and if we have, in the past, focused too much on access?
>>>>>
>>>>> I was wondering how this ties in with open education. Are
>>>>> conversations too centered on resources and fail to consider whether people
>>>>> can actually participate. So here a couple of things come to mind:
>>>>>
>>>>>    - Being where people are at - do we often trying to force people
>>>>>    to come to 'a place' rather than going to where they are?
>>>>>    - Language - we continue to use a lot of jargon
>>>>>    - Is open education elitist? e.g. material OER is WEIRD (Western,
>>>>>    Educated, Rich, Democratic), much activity relies on infrastructure,
>>>>>    learning & teaching practice approaches are often tied to cultures.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just a few thoughts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Marieke
>>>>>  If you have an idea for a Friday chat add it to the etherpad
>>>>> <http://new.okfnpad.org/p/Open_Education_Working_Friday_Chats>.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> **
>>>>>
>>>>> Marieke Guy
>>>>> LinkedUp <http://linkedup-project.eu/> Project Community Coordinator
>>>>> | skype: mariekeguy | tel: 44 (0) 1285 885681 | @mariekeguy
>>>>> <http://twitter.com/mariekeguy>
>>>>> The Open Knowledge <http://okfn.org/>
>>>>> *Empowering through Open Knowledge*
>>>>> http://okfn.org/ | @okfn <http://twitter.com/okfn>| OKF on Facebook |
>>>>> Blog | Newsletter
>>>>> http://remoteworker.wordpress.com
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> open-education mailing list
>>>>> open-education at lists.okfn.org
>>>>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-education
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> open-education mailing list
>>>> open-education at lists.okfn.org
>>>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-education
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> open-education mailing list
>> open-education at lists.okfn.org
>> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-education
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> open-education mailing list
> open-education at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-education
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-education/attachments/20140530/8fe2e13d/attachment-0003.html>