@AlanMJones, the “quality-increasing pressures of peer review” don’t occur because faculty spend time reviewing one another’s courses. They occur because before a faculty posts their information they are forced to self-reflect on the quality of their own materials before putting them out where everyone can see them. It is very common for a participation pitch to end with the faculty members saying, “Sure, I’d love to put my stuff up. Just give me a few months to clean it up first, ok?”

@Jeremy I agree with you as well on both points.

1. If I’m reading you right, I think this goes back to the argument of “free” vs “open”, and what David Wiley cued me into re. the differences between CC By-SA and CC-By. I mentioned this in

2. On the surface the increased scrutiny could leave to quality improvements. But in reality this is the primary reason most faculty and teachers will object–even if they deny that that’s the reason. But while this may inhibit a large number of instructors, it won’t inhibit all instructors. And there is the idea that this could be tempered by allowing for collaborative editing (amongst peers or amongst the general public).

However, I will also say that I’ve seen (in a small sampling of 2 Utah institutions ) an increasing demand for “transparency” both in service and academic departments from the top-down. So it’s conceivable to me that this direction could be mandated! Is that good or bad? I’d say bad, as part of the critical liberty in openness may be the freedom to not be open. You can see, then, why I am personally leaning toward CC By and not CC By-SA

I saw this as a slahdot sig once: “Information wants to be anthropomorphized!!”

I take issue with the “should” component in this shared conviction, as it implies that all people, regardless of their world-view, *should* participate in the movement. I prefer the “as for me and my house,” approach, wherein *I* will say what *I* will do, and *I* will share my motivations for so doing. But it is not my right to tell others what *they* *should* do with their creations.

2. “exposes teaching to the quality-increasing pressures of peer review.”

I train public school teachers. If there is one thing that will kill a movement, it is this. I don’t believe this statement should be considered while ignoring its political ramifications.

I’m responding to this post via a link on Stephen Downes website.

Regarding the points under: Pedagogic – the utlization of new technologies may enhance educational engagement amongst learners – I think that there is also an emphasis among educators themselves, in terms of their own use of new technologies, and the control that results because of that experience.

That’s what I have observed and experienced in WikiEducator – http://www.wikieducator.org

It’s also what I have written up, as the first part of my Masters Project (MA, Organization Management and Development, Fielding Graduate University).

“On an individual, self-managing basis, these educator-authors are choosing to develop OERs on WE to satisfy their own needs for power, achievement and/or affiliation. (McLelland, 1976) Part of what makes WE so compelling to educator-authors is how they are able to control their own destiny: with a freedom to experiment and learn, succeed and fail, and share the experience openly in a way that (1) serves their own private and professional interests; and (2) that their employers may or may not support. Experimentation, observation and reflection in a supportive environment, are seeding individual innovation, creativity and connection.”

The full paper has been written and published on WikiEducator as CC-BY-SA. I am interested in seeing how it contributes to this dialogue about open education and motivation, and generative learning experience.

The paper can be accessed at: http://www.wikieducator.org/User:Randyfisher/MP/Final_Paper

- Randy