Once again, I am sorry for the delayed response. Jsener, I think that many of your observations and points are pretty accurate (and shared). The OER/FLOSS/FOSS/OSS/Open Education/etc. “community” does seem to function as a rather loosely related collective. One has suggested that OSS projects develop because an individual or organization has a need that can be met with the development of some software (they have an itch to scratch) and they decided to pursue development and/or distribution using an OSS licensing model, frequently for rather pragmatic reasons. When they make this decision, no matter the reason, they are committing to a certain level of access.
I think that the “magnetic north” might be similar for OER. What if we just suggest that for starters we are agreeing that more access is better than less access. So when we decide to create and or use OER we try to do it in such a way that it enhances access. If we keep this in mind we will consciously do things like using licensing that supports the widest opportunities for distribution, using file formats that do not require proprietary software clients to read and edit the files, store content in places that are readily searched and are open to all, etc. These examples point to a few realities that reduced access (licensing, economics, and physical access) - there are of course others.
As a side note, the existence of WikiEducator, OCWC, Connexions, OER Commons, EduCommons, etc. point to the fact that a lot of work is being done around access, and that events like the COSL sponsored OpenEd meeting point to a growing community of practitioners.
Access does not address all of the issues that jsener has raised, but it is a start. It at least allows us to think operationally about the many decisions that must be made. It helps us to slowly and incrementally move North. We might then say, not only should our OER be accessible, but they should also be Usable. We might then start asking ourselves why would folks want to use and reuse our OER? If we assume that they will actually be used for teaching and learning purposes, we might want to start making decisions that relate to “quality,” ease of customization, etc. For many applications being able to track the work back to the original authors (and contributing authors) will enhance the “usefulness” for teachers that might have questions about the content that are not obvious.
If we use basic notions such as “access” and “ usability” as our touchstones for OER we do not have to worry so much about if they are intended for formal or informal educational purposes, or if they are going to be used for relieving human suffering, home schooling, personal development, integration into a traditional university curriculum, etc. The point is that they are available, and right now, as it has been pointed out, there is a lot of content available. Could it be made more accessible or useful? Can we do anything to help teachers and learners use and modify OER in ways that make sense for them given their needs?
- 762 reads
