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

Fri May 30 10:31:21 UTC 2014

I think it would be great if tutors could embrace open licences and collaborating with students in them but I don't think many would have the facilitation or confidence to do that even if they saw the value. 

On May 30, 2014 10:09:23 AM GMT+01:00, Pat Lockley <patrick.lockley at googlemail.com> wrote:
>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
>>
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>open-education mailing list
>open-education at lists.okfn.org
>https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-education

-- 
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-education/attachments/20140530/8d4efdf6/attachment-0003.html>