The bitter cold and a late bus did not prevent me from attending David Wiley’s IPT692R course today. And though the class period was set aside to choosing “classes” for the rest of the course, several discussions bubbled up that were noteworthy.
Meta-day – “Choosing”
Classes
Artisan (1), Bard (4), Merchant (3), Monk (2)
Guilds
Join by listing your name and class on the wiki. At least one of each class per guild. I’ve settled on Artisan after no one else seemed interested–very feasible (a relief for my stress level, if not the most challenging or applicable class).
Quests
6 quests; Q5 & 6 are collaborative. Loosely based on “updated” Bloom’s taxonomy: remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, creating.
CYOA
New quests may be proposed, and should map into Bloom’s taxonomy. However, Q5 requires pairing; Q6 requires guild.
JMS: How can I match these quests to current UVU OER project? I need an excuse to devote time to the class.
Next deliverable: Quest 1 for character type (Artisan). Report/artifact/blog post. Due 11:59pm a week from Saturday (Feb 7). Jigsaw.
Discussion
What about desires for non-attribution? What if a derivative work reflects negatively on the original creator?
Refer to attribution clause. Requires “a credit identifying the use of the Work in the Adaptation”. Also, derivations “may not implicitly or explicitly assert or imply … endorsement by the author”.
JMS: I think, especially for visual design, a By-ND license is adequate for most uses. Is mere cropping a derivation?
One option: Be “hardcore and serious”: provide a “terms of use” on the site for the license to prevent bad derivations.
Value proposition needed for the institution.
JMS: I should have waited to write that last blog post on sustainability. This topic is too expansive and engrossing for me to summarize in a few hours of reading and writing.
Can a balance of commercial and open products sustain both? Balance as in one-for-one (one commercial, one open), or as in half-and-half (”open” demo and paid full-version, shareware-like). What is the track record for success of this in software?
Justin Johansen’s dissertation study (anyone know Justin’s blog URL?): can opening content increase revenue through conversion model? Students view open content, and then enroll for credit.
If an institution’s “owned” work is either copyright or open, we can ask if it will generate: revenue? pr? good will?
In case of BYU CTL there is no opportunity cost — I think this means that creator wouldn’t have benefited from it through other, non-open means.
Libraries tend to be advocates of openness because of open-access. Randy Olson of BYU library, also Gideon Burton (JMS: Note to self: check out Gideon’s Academic Evolution blog).
Several students expressed skepticism of the deep value of MIT OCW. Seth “pushed back” a bit. My own thinking: Mike Caulfield asserts that transparency is a, if not the key value of MIT OCW. To me, that transparency illustrates potential(s) for the course: What could this course become for MIT? by revealing it’s inner workings and even it’s discrepancies as an online learning resource, how could it be better? And there’s potential with respect to the outside world. Tony Hirst demonstrates some of that potential through his mash-ups using the IMS package as a road map. David Wiley suggested that overlays of MIT OCW might also prove their value, whether that’s through reframing of content as Academic Earth has done, or as linking the path to a degree using OCW as nodes.
The value of these potentials are still confusing to me, and they may simply be “happy accidents” without significant long-term value, but worth noting in conversations that might aim to critique projects like MIT OCW.
University of the People. Not accredited, but inspiring.
- Comments Off
- Posted in education
