Thanks for a fascinating discussion, and sorry for jumping in so very late . . .
Richard, I really liked your short summary of why NC does not make sense. I have been arguing this point for a long time, but don't think I have been able to explain it as well as you do. Thanks!
A few points that were brought up seem related to the perspective we are considering, either that of the teacher/lecturer or that of the students. I find that once we start looking towards students as the sources for content and innovation in education, some things we are still struggling with might start to fall into place more naturally.
- Wayne said something about still having to crack the nut of getting teachers to remix lectures
I propose changing the nutcracker, and getting students to remix the lecture content instead (or in addition rather). They are doing this already on flickr and myspace and facebook - as was pointed out - and the social feedback mechanisms seem to be more powerful incentives for students than for lecturers.
- The users of our software want quizzes, tests, etc.
This is true, only if you ask the lecturers. I would argue that we have not seen a great deal of innovation in teaching and learning, because we have relied on the lecturers to innovate - and they lacked the right incentives. If we want innovation, I think we need to turn to the students. A comparison of free software development models also makes a lot more sense if you include students as “developers” of open education.
A friend and I just started blogging about applying some of the incentive mechanisms from software to other fields. Have a look for the grumpy old guys from the muppet show over at icommons.org if you are interested, and join the conversation.
/Philipp (Freecourseware Project, University of the Western Cape)
- 801 reads
