Response to David/opencontent:
Like Richard, I think that there is benefit in hearty and respectful exchange of opinions, but I am really turning to the likes of Rice, USU, MIT, etc. for guidance as early adopters, innovators, and thoughtful practitioners. Although we are just starting to dabble in OER/OCW at Penn State, I believe that there is an enormous watershed of interest in OERs. In fact, I know that there is. My concern is that we turn uncritically to the larger community and just do what the early adopters did. After all, if it is good enough for MIT, USU, CMU, and Tufts surly it is good enough for us. I am in the process of generating a dialog around the importance of:
- Adopting a standard CC license instead of creating one that is unique to Penn State.
- Adopting a license that is as open as possible and does not restrict commercial use.
- Considering how we design materials in such a way that they are most useful to the broadest audience possible (level of granularity, ease of localization, bandwidth challenges, etc.)
- Thinking about open educational resources that are not courseware.
In any event, it is critical for me, and I think other later adopters, to be able to get insights into what is working well and what is not working so well. How we can improve on what is being done, how to avoid some of the pit falls, and how to take advantage of lessons learned. In doing so we are turning to the early adopters in the hopes that they will be reflective and transparent. As Wayne mentions above, it is part of the tradition of standing on the shoulders of giants.
- 瀏覽次數：1127
