Talk:Open educational resource/Archive 1

Archive 1

Help

I am PhD student (Veterinary Microbiology) and interested in the Open Education Resources. I want to develop the multiple choice questions for student evaluation for Biology. Can you please suggest a software/website to create them? Nirajrm Δ | [sign plz] 21:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Definition can not be confirmed in mentioned source

Thats the wrong source: Geser, Guntram (2007-01). "Open Educational Practices and Resources. OLCOS Roadmap 2012". Salzburg, Austria: Salzburg Research, EduMedia Group. p. 20. Retrieved 2010-11-06.

E.g. the term "API" does not appear on the linked website. The website by it self makes no contribution in finding a well definition. In contrast it could be seen as advertisment for a certain campaign or group of researchers who do want to stand in the light of providing a definition. There are two other PDF resources linked where the provided definition does not appear neither. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nise81 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Open educational resources projects

removed section per Wikipedia is not a directory. Wikipedia is not a repository for lists, directories or Advocacy of commercial products and/or websites. NPOV requires views to be represented without bias, this applies not only to article text, but to companies, company lists, products, external links, or any other material as well. --Hu12 15:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This reads like an advertisement. Not that anyone's against OER. Just saying. 67.161.190.82 (talk) 05:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[User:ArmyOfFluoride]

Why QTI is uniquely important

There are hundreds of open formats and microformats for educational documents of all kinds, but QTI is the only thing coming close to an open standard for assessments. To see why this is important, please look through any of the "free" and "open" courses on http://oli.web.cmu.edu/openlearning/forstudents/freecourses and note that they all exclude quizzes or any other sort of assessment. 75.55.199.5 (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

OER must be Accessible

Hi all, since OER is intended to be shared (hint: the open license), let's make sure the intro paragraph of this article is accessible! It would be great to more concisely define OER and use simpler language. Further, I think some of the more technical jargon can be integrated into the Definition section.

Let me know if anybody has strong thoughts here!

Mattsenate (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Definitions of Open Source and Shared Source

I do not agree to the statement about the definition of Open Source versus Shared Source, given at the end of "Other Definitions". But I am not an expert in this, so I do not delete it by myself. Ulisp (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hewlett definition

The Hewlett definition has changed. The change is one word, but the word is a conjunction ("or" to "and") so is not trivial in meaning. I edited the article to reflect that. My concern is that the section is now more verbose than it has to be; however, I was hesitant to remove the previous reference to the old definition seeing as it was a publication with multiple authors while the current reference is a simple webpage where Hewlett has defined OER in a small paragraph. --Janeatcc (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the important update, Jane! I have no strong preference about whether or not to include the old definition, but I think your approach is well reasoned. -Pete (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that there's far too much detail about the Hewlett definition there. The difference between conjunction and disjunction is obvious, and since the article is about OER rather than about what Hewlett thinks OERs are, I'd prefer to leave out the details. I'm going to take them out now, but of course, if you disagree, let's discuss!192.160.216.52 (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree to tone down the reliance to Hewlett's definition.. I'm trying to find a cite-able definition that encompasses format as well as license. It seems to me to be a major oversight by the leading proponents of OER, as format prevents access and reuse just as often as copyright does. I realise they might like to keep it simple so as to encourage adoption, but without at least mentioning it, it seems to me the rest can quickly become meaningless. While on this horse, I'm surprised that a stronger association to free culture licenses isn't insisted on in OER. Non Commercial and No Derivatives are in direct contradiction to ideas of reuse in just about every space that derives from the concept of open. Leighblackall (talk) 04:59, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Well-endowed universities

I mistakenly stated in my edit summary that there wasn't a source to say that the supporters were well-endowed. The NYT article from which this sentence was (a little too closely) paraphrased does say that the early supporters were "wealthy" institutions. However, I still think the adjective should be left out for the other reasons I gave in my edit summary. This is the diff in question.208.54.4.205 (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Aspirations of OER proponents

This sentence: "The aspirations of OER proponents range from a desire to reshape the captive market of textbook publishers[5] to the aim of creating "a world where each and every person on earth can access and contribute to the sum of all human knowledge."[6]" from the "Aspirations" section is not properly sourced. Each of those two aspirations is sourced to a person whose aspirations they are. That makes those primary sources for the claims. The sentence itself, about the range of the aspirations of the proponents, is not reflected in the sources, neither of which specifically discusses the range of such aspirations. I'm going to remove it now, but there's more to explain than I can fit into an edit summary. 208.54.4.205 (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

This deletion seems like the right choice to me, thanks for that effort. It seems like the kind of synthesis of primary sources that is discouraged here. I do think it would be worthwhile to summarize the Cape Town Declaration and include something about its aspirations here, but this was not the right way to do it. -Pete (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Collecting definitions of OER

The Creative Commons wiki has a great collection of the varying OER definitions - Hewlett, OECD, more.

• http://wiki.creativecommons.org/What_is_OER

Is the article adequately capturing these? - Snarfa (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a good collection of sources of OER definitions. It should be updated with the Paris 2012 declaration. Also, it would be interesting to derive a draft definition that captures the core of these differing definitions and the areas that differ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.12.39.60 (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Great -- there's also a page on WikiEducator that collects and compares various definitions, which may be useful: http://wikieducator.org/Educators_care/Defining_OER

Of course, the Creative Commons and WikiEducator lists are both wiki-based, which makes them less-than-reliable sources per Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline. But these can at least be a good place to start in collecting ideas, and finding links to more reliable sources. -Pete (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Re-working Structure of Main OER article

<Paul Stacey's review moved back to the main talk page, as much of it is still relevant -Pete (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)>

UNESCO claim over OER

Any comment on this?

"The term "open educational resources" was first adopted at UNESCO's 2002 Forum on the Impact of Open Courseware for Higher Education in Developing Countries funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Open educational resources are educational materials and resources offered freely and openly for anyone to use and under some licenses to re-mix, improve and redistribute. Open educational resources include:

• Learning content: full courses, course materials, content modules, learning objects, collections, and journals.
• Tools: Software to support the creation, delivery, use and improvement of open learning content including searching and organization of content, content and learning management systems, content development tools, and on-line learning communities.
• Implementation resources: Intellectual property licenses to promote open publishing of materials, design-principles, and localization of content."

Troll site?

Is the site referred to here at cross purposes with the stated mission? California Open Source Textbook Project links here and the content suggests this may be a front for individuals who are opposed to the idea of open textbooks, possibly running interference and even collecting government money using plausible arguments. I would like more people to look into the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.68.193 (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The above concern seems to be referring to the California Open Source Textbook Project web site. The first paragraph does link here and reads: "The California Open Source Textbook Project (COSTP) began in 2001 as a collaborative - a public/private undertaking; it was the first organization created to address the high cost, content range, and consistent shortages of K-12 textbooks in California. The latter goal is currently well on its way to being accomplished. COSTP has evolved over recent years to establish and spread the Open Textbook, Open Educational Resource (OER), Open Courseware, and Open Education memes to K-12 and postsecondary educational institutions, worldwide..." (I don't think it is accurate to refer to OER as a meme, but we can't control that here.) The Open educational resources article doesn't appear to have any references to COSTP. Perhaps this concern should be retired? Christine Bush in Mountain View, CA 20:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Government sponsorship

Why aren't open educational module being developed by the state's Departments of education? Tax dollars pay for the creation of curricula, so that curricula should be licensed (owned) by the state and made freely available via the internet.

Are there any movements to open American curricula?

Yes, and you can find several. However, sometimes the low-level curriculum is tied to bits of proprietary information (textbooks). Michigan has Open Michigan and Indiana is adopting Moodle with other content statewide. In Ohio, there are lots of people thinking about it, but I know of know active projects.

I disagree with the poster who said "wikipedia is not a directory". I believe that those lists of projects by state should be mentioned on the main page.

Wikipedia as a whole is not a directory, it is an encyclopedia. Individual articles within WP may be enhanced by including relevant listings. (You're both right.) Christine Bush in Mountain View, CA 20:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way to get first class lectures on algebra and calculus as free video on demand?

Who are the opponents to open curricula? What is keeping the states from doing this?

OER policy paragraph

I started a paragraph on OER Policy at the edit-a-thon in Nottingham. It's short and a draft and I am so exhausted I can't take it further. Please have a look User:Snarfa/sandbox but discuss it on the WP:COMMOER TALK page. Thanks! - Sara FB (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

See Also section question

I'm not sure I understand criteria here. Inclusion of Project Gutenberg and Internet Archive lead me to believe that everything on List_of_digital_library_projects could be included, although that list seems to be quite incomplete itself.Rulew (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a valid question. It speaks to what I perceive as kind of the vague and large scope of OER. I listed Project Gutenburg and the Internet Archive because I think they are particularly useful, monolithic, and significant resources in an educational context (unlike the OSGeo item which I have just removed based on the cogency of the above observation and the fact that it falls under the umbrella topic of FOSS.)

I think pointing to indexes, such as List_of_digital_library_projects in the See Also section is generally a fair and efficient solution. Christine Bush in Mountain View, CA 19:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

But should we be differentiating open access resources, such as List_of_digital_library_projects from open educational resources? I'm not clear about defining differences in a useful way. This post which I just saw this morning gives even more food for thought on See Also and External references section: https://oerqualityproject.wordpress.com/2012/10/22/directory-of-oer-repositories/ Rulew (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this blog post from Javiera Atenas. As a postmodernist, I always work from the assumption that it is epistemologically preferable for an entity to be rigorously cross-referenced, i.e. to have numerous tags or nodes of association rather than fewer. Differentiation is an inherently analytical process which it seems to me can serve more to complicate than clarify the writing of encyclopedic summaries. This approach is my own and is not offered as a prescription but an explanation. Christine Bush in Mountain View, CA 15:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

My review of this article

I am a staff member at Creative Commons.

I am reviewing this article according to the instructions at WP:Communicate OER.

I suggest changing the article in the following ways:

• I don't see how referencing social media at the end of the first paragraph is particularly relevant, especially without discussion that 'OER' itself is a branding of a wide swathe of openly licensed materials.
• In fact, I think the article should address the branding efforts/element. OER is defined as a thing from the opening sentence, but IMHO OER is more descriptive of a movement and a brand.

I don't think tossing about the notion of "branding" is in the spirit of WP:NPOV. Branding has lots of implications, most of which are not relevant and generally negative. But it just isn't accurate. A brand is something created to identify a commercial entity with associations in the mind of consumers. OER is an expansive concept, which is why I argue that it should be a WikiProject (see below). But there are far too many divergent interests and parties to the topic for it to be a brand. They don't even all the use the same logo, so I would encourage dropping this term from further discussion. Christine Bush in Mountain View, CA 03:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• "OER include different kinds of digital assets." I take issue with the fact that OER is limited to digital assets. Of instance, if a physical product, eg. an educational handout, carries a CC BY license notification on it, is that not an OER?
• OER Initiatives section is not comprehensive and it seems rather arbitrary the projects chosen to be highlighted there. Perhaps we should consider all OER related projects and revise that section with community consensus. Here are some more listings of initiatives: http://creativecommons.org/education, http://wiki.creativecommons.org/OER_Case_Studies, http://wiki.creativecommons.org/OER_Case_Studies/United_States.
• Licensing section is a bit obtuse and could be simplified for better understanding (by a lay reader).
• Institutional support section should be updated with new supporters of innovation in education especially around open
• International programs should also be updated with consideration of input from community, eg more initiatives documented at http://wiki.creativecommons.org/OER_Case_Studies'
• Criticisms - one that can be added is the criticism that having another term for people to understand (OER versus just open and free content) is just another hurdle for people to go through. Why not just open or free education or knowledge, research, etc.? Why a movement around an acronym?

Thank you for your attention. Janeatcc (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding the social media sentence, which I've removed. Even worse than its irrelevancy was the fact that it was cited to a source which didn't support it. Stating that some OER users are involved in social media requires a source that says that some OER users are involved in social media. A source which says "hey, we use OER and social media" is a primary source for the statement that was in there and its use for this purpose constitutes original research.208.54.4.205 (talk) 16:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

OER History section resources

I'm starting a collection of links to materials covering the history of the OER movement (and the way it draws on earlier movements within open and technology enhanced education.) I think a good definition and a good history will be the two keys to improving this article.

I wanted particularly to offer this paper http://repository.jisc.ac.uk/4915/ (as lead author) for use as source material: it is already available under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. It is UK and policy focused but may be of use in developing a wider article.

Others:

WikiEducator Timeline: http://wikieducator.org/OER_timeline

JISC CETIS Timeline: http://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/20774/OER-and-JISC-CETIS/#vars!date=2000-09-03_07:58:38! (UK focus, available CC-BY-NC-SA according to http://loumcgill.co.uk/timelines/ )

This one on XTimelines by jbaker (no license given): http://xtimeline.com/timeline/Open-Educational-Resources-Movement

Creative Commons "Learning Guide" http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Free_to_Learn_Guide/A_Short_History_of_OER (CC-BY)

David Wiley mentioned in #wikisoo a preprint of an article he has written, a literature review of OER (would be great for references) http://opencontent.org/docs/oer_literature_preprint.pdf

178.197.254.4 (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Issue of Reusability/Adaptability

Someone at the Open Ed 2012 conference pointed out that "reusability" (or "adaptability") of content is often the point of contention re whether OER is in fact "open" - but this article hardly addresses the issue, and a previous OER reuse article (whether aptly named or not) has been redirected to "OER" by an anonymous user. I'd encourage those with more expertise in this area to look at this. - Snarfa (talk) 23:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC) with WP:COMMOER

I have made an initial integration of this concept into the text of the article under Open educational resources#Defining the Scope and Nature of Open Eductional Resources. It reads: "Descriptions of OER may vary in their inclusion of the capability for users to reuse them. Furthermore, there is not commonly agreement on whether OER are fixed resources which may be freely and openly available, dynamic resources which change over time in the course of having knowledge seekers interacting with and updating them, or a combination of these uses." Christine Bush in Mountain View, CA 02:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristineBushMV (talk • contribs)

Proposal to Develop a Portal for this Topic

I solicit your feedback regarding a proposed Tabbed format for this article. You can see a working prototype here. The "OER Stack tab" will feature a graphic and corresponding explanation of it. The stack is a software architecture concept that I think could be usefully applied to OER. The OER stack consists of elements such as: knowledge, software, words, images, structure, educators, distribution, etc. Christine Bush in Mountain View, CA 18:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Christine, you've done some great work in organizing the concept. I especially like how the "examples" are de-emphasized, reducing the amount of attention directed to specific projects at the expense of general information about the topic.

Pete, I was planning to build this section out a bit, but I'll keep your observation/guideline in mind. Christine Bush in Mountain View, CA 03:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

While I personally like the format and think it has benefits worth considering, I should point out that this kind of format would be a major departure from how Wikipedia articles are structured, and thus probably wouldn't survive too long. We haven't discussed the Manual of Style much in our class, but it's the main authority on the style of how articles should be structured and formatted. You may want to look through it a bit.

I will give the Manual of Style a careful review. This might be something really useful to include in a class. At least a link to it on the course page seems due.Christine Bush in Mountain View, CA 03:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe you borrowed the tabbed interface from our Communicate OER pages, which is normally a very understandable, and normally highly encouraged, Wikipedia technique! Copying the formatting from one article to another is a great way to build on the work of others, and to learn new techniques. In this case however, you have taken something from the "Wikipedia" namespace -- essentially, a WikiProject -- and applied its formatting to an actual article. Articles generally have a very conservative and consistent structure. There are many reasons for this -- one of them is ensuring that an article will display well not only in a regular web browser, but on a mobile phone, in print format, etc.

Pete, I invited this particular criticism by not signaling my understanding better in the section's header, which I have now revised. Your feedback on this point is both accurate and appreciated. However: I think the article should in fact be broken into several, so I undertook building out this prototype knowing that it would be a departure because I want to invoke a discussion of the idea that OER should be a WikiProject. The tabbed format isn't some weird variant of a standard article, it is just a way to associate different articles. (I don't think most people appreciate this.) In this way, it is a natural fit for WikiProjects. It has been suggested to me that the notion of making the topic of Open educational resources itself a WikiProject is "controversial," but I haven't been told WHY. Perhaps someone could explain this further here? Christine Bush in Mountain View, CA 03:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Your general thinking about the structure is quite sound. If you haven't already, I'd suggest taking a look at Paul Stacey's comments about structure a few sections up; and bring all your ideas to tomorrow's class, where all of this will be highly relevant! -Pete (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Christine, I think we have a disconnect, and I think I see what it is. And I think we are very closely aligned in our thinking, but stuck on a bit of terminology -- basically, the nature of a "WikiProject." (If I've missed the mark, let me know!)

Wikipedia's articles are regarded as being totally separate from everything else on Wikipedia (including WikiProjects, user pages, talk pages, categories, etc.) The articles are the body of work that is the encyclopedia, while everything else is there to support the creation of the encyclopedia.

A WikiProject's intended audience is not the general public, but Wikipedia editors who are interested in collaborating to improve the articles. (I think an example of a very mature, well developed WikiProject might help here -- you might take a look at WikiProject Military History.) So it doesn't quite fit with the idea of a WikiProject to include so much information about the topic itself; I think what we really need to do with that is to move it into the article, in a more standard encyclopedia format.

So, while it doesn't quite make sense to transform the article on OER into a WikiProject, we can certainly build a supplementary WikiProject to support the improvement of the OER article (and related articles). This is actually something we are very interested to do!

As it stands, there are currently two "WikiProject-like things" in this area: WikiProject Open Access, and our Communicate OER pages. Since CommOER will formally be done by the end of the year, we need to find a way to move to something more self-sustaining.

I think it might be best to work with WikiProject Open Access to build a single project, perhaps called simply "WikiProject Open." This would provide a central place for all editors interested in these closely related areas (as well as others like open science, open data, open source…) What do you think of that idea? Does it make sense to you? -Pete (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Pete, you are right. I missed this distinction. Thank you for clarifying. There should be some very clear instructions on the Template underscoring this point. (Perhaps making sure a clear understanding of the role of the Wikipedia: namespace is a key learning objective for the CommOER Course would be a good idea.) I have mixed feelings about your WikiProject Open suggestion. I agree with the spirit and motivation with which you make it, but that feels like going in the wrong direction, i.e. taking one really large topic and adding it to a bunch of others.

I see that the OER article is part of something called the Education Portal (even though neither Open education nor Open educational resources seem to be included on its landing page). This feels as if it might be quite similar to what I've been groping at here, and Portals appear to exist in the main article space. Perhaps this would be something that could get traction? According to the Wikipedia Portals home page: "Portals complement main topics in Wikipedia, and expound upon topics by introducing the reader to key articles, images, and categories that further describe the subject and its related topics. Portals also assist in helping editors to find related projects and things they can do to improve Wikipedia, and provide a unique way to navigate Wikipedia topics." Christine Bush in Mountain View, CA 01:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject/Portal Thread Closure

I appreciate the feedback provided on this thread. I am no longer advocating for either Portal or Project, but would like to see greater presence for Open educational resources and Open education on the Education Portal. After additional offline discussion on April 19, 2013, I support Pete Forsyth's reasoning for including OER in a proposed WikiProject Open working group. Christine Bush in Mountain View, CA 15:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

suggestions for the lead

I just did some reworking of the lead, which was a bit disconnected from the rest of the article. For the P2PU editors working on this, I encourage you to try to keep the lead as closely aligned as possible with the body of the article. The lead should, in several paragraphs, summarize the key aspects of the rest of article. A reader should be able to learn pretty much everything presented in the lead by reading the rest of the article without the lead. It's nice to see this article progressing! Keep up the good work!--ragesoss (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the rationale you have provided for these changes. I'm sure that many beside myself welcome having some more activity on this article.

A bit of (recent) background. On Tuesday April 23, 2013, a keynote speaker at the Connexions Conference held in Houston, Texas at Rice University observed to a member of the CommOER team that they felt the use of the word “contested” was negative and should not appear in the first sentence of this article. As the author of that sentence, I provided a citation from the journal of Arts and Humanities in Higher Education that supported my use of this term to describe OER. The Wikipedia article for Essentially contested concept explains: “Essentially contested concepts involve widespread agreement on a concept (e.g., "fairness"), but not on the best realization thereof.” This seems to strongly correspond with reality. If one feels it does not, I will also point out that I included the adjective "contested" in the lead paragraph because it is a conclusion supported by the state of this article as I found it, with multiple definitions and various tensions in place.

You do not provide a rationale for also removing the characterization of OER being an "active" area of research for which I also provided a reasonable citation.

I respect that this sentence need not be the opening sentence. However, I do wish to defend the aptness of both of these characterizations. For this reason, I will be returning this sentence to the article but will replace the single word "contested" with a link to essentially contested concept in hopes that others will appreciate how the phrase is used as a technical term in various academic disciplines such as sociology, history, philosophy. I will leave the sentence below the initial description where you have placed it. ChristineBushMV (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Having made the updates just described, I am going to step away from this article for a few days and work on the articles for commodification of knowledge and educational paradigm which you have helpfully shown to not yet exist. I hope that my efforts in doing so will continue to find referents in this article. ChristineBushMV (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed the "active" and "contested" bits because they weren't explained enough to be useful to readers, and those points weren't fleshed out in the rest of the article. I don't doubt that the concept is contested. It just needs to be explained in the article how it's contested. Similarly, the active bit just didn't seem relevant to the lead on its own, in my opinion, without a bit more context about that activity.--ragesoss (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I see. Perhaps a "citation needed" or similar inline flag would have better conveyed this than just redacting it with an edit summary asserting it isn't useful? (How does one know something isn't useful?) I hoped that you might find linking to the article which discusses the term sufficiently useful. Do the three paragraphs which discuss the various tensions in OER not meet this threshold? We have a section indicating Criticisms exist as well, but being criticized is not the same as being contested in this sense. ChristineBushMV (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The essentially contested concept link is helpful as a start. Maybe tying the lead a bit more explicitly to the other sections would help, e.g., by going into detail in the body about how it is contested and citing the same reference.--ragesoss (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I am also trying to understand the basis for the inclusion of the "essentially contested concept" idea in the lead in. It seems to me that this is an opinion about the controversial nature of Open Educational Resources and would be better expanded upon in controversy section in the body of the article. I am going to remove this and suggest that it be added further down in the article.--Daniel Williamson (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a reasonable suggestion, but an unreasonable action. Why delete instead of move? Please think twice before opting for a destructive edit when simply moving the content will not undo what, in this case, represents a lot of work. I will put it back -- but where you have suggested. ChristineBushMV (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, let me say for the record that this statement is not an "opinion", it is an observation which is supported by the abundance of perspectives found in the citations for this article. Opinions do not belong in a section on Criticism or any other section of an article. I am impressed at the resistance to this observation and point to this very resistance as evidence that OER are essentially contested. ChristineBushMV (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

OER policy section!

Delighted to announce that we now have an OER policy section in this article - and a fuller article underway at open educational resources policy. Check it out and see what you can add, if you think it belongs in either place... - Sara FB (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this contribution. Just curious: what is the best practice for indicating/determining the relationship between the OER policy section of this article and the full article? If this section has its own article, do we still need a section here? ChristineBushMV (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably best to use summary style -- hopefully the essay at that link helps! -Pete (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Got it. I was looking for the WP:SYNC guideline; thanks for the pointer. ChristineBushMV (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

It's tricky business, to be sure. Good question, and glad that got you off in the right direction. -Pete (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Is it bad form to remove exclamation marks from section headers? ;-) ChristineBushMV (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

¿¿¡¡On a talk page!!?? :) It'd strike me as a little…what's the word…tendentious. I'd suggest you name your new sections however you see fit, and fight the urge to nitpick those of others. Unneeded opportunities for hurt feelings and drama, etc. etc. -Pete (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Good advice, keeping in mind WP:AVOIDYOU, too.

End off-topic banter. ChristineBushMV (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding use of bold text to call out key information

Regarding the edit on 2013 May 11‎ by User:Aschmidt (→‎History: -bold; unusual markup), I wanted to invite feedback on whether others thought it was "unusual" to use bold formatting so that readers could more easily find a key piece of information, namely that: "The term 'open educational resources' was first adopted at UNESCO's 2002 Forum on the Impact of Open Courseware for Higher Education in Developing Countries." That was the intention which I hoped was obvious but, apparently, it was not. For now, we'll let them rummage I guess. ChristineBushMV (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Boldface. In short, my interpretation of past discussions on this topic: I think pretty much everybody agrees that emphasizing key information is valuable and worthwhile; but the approach that is generally preferred is to find ways to do that in the construction of the prose as much as possible, and only resorting to formatting where truly necessary. -Pete (talk) 19:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources for outstanding examples of OER

(Section title revised) ChristineBushMV (talk) 19:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems like this article should have a section which highlights several outstanding examples of OER. ChristineBushMV (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

A very good idea. I think finding a good book or journal article that identifies some high quality OER repositories to use as a source would be the best path to that. (In addition to Wikipedia's guidelines around sourcing, there's a practical reason -- over time I would not be surprised if many people come along wanting to add the project they have worked on to such a list; establishing a clear standard for inclusion early on will be helpful in making choices down the road about what does or doesn't get included.) Anybody know of such a source, that has compared repositories or collections? -Pete (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for this wisdom. I've adjusted the section title here to reflect this adjustment to our focus. I'll begin looking through the various resources we've already referenced. ChristineBushMV (talk) 15:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Check out this new publication! Perspectives on Open and Distance Learning: Open Educational Resources: Innovation, Research and Practice - bound to be lots of good stuff here. - Sara FB (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Also looks good: presentation from Europa, Jan 2013 - Sara FB (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Article Review: Open educational resources

by User:ChristineBushMV

I am a writer and independent researcher who has made recent contributions to this article as part of the CommOER project. You can find an overview of my thinking and contributions about OER here.I am reviewing this article according to the instructions at WP:Communicate OER.

This is a challenging article because the OER space is very active at present and includes a wide scope of ideas, institutions, policies and interests. Furthermore, many of the implementations of OER tend to fit more naturally into other topics such as Open education or MOOCs which are themselves rather convoluted areas of educational study.

Changes made to this page are likely to be noticed, especially the lead section. If you decide to work on this article (and it does need work) the best way to get started is to read through the various materials linked in the "See Also" section. Then familiarize yourself with some of the secondary sources provided in the "References" section. Paul Stacey's comments about the structure of this article have also been well received so review those as well. This will provide you background if you are new to the OER space.

In general, you will find it more feasible to select a section and focus on giving the existing content increased clarity, more citations, and context as it relates to the other sections.

This article provides good theoretical and high-level information, but is not grounded and may overemphasize the role of institutional support at the expense of clarity regarding how OER actually work. I think that this article could be improved by adding a section that briefly describes several outstanding examples of OER. See Sources for outstanding examples of OER for some leads.

This article is also historically unfocused with different timelines in different sections which may result in a disoriented or unfocused experience for the casual reader. The article may benefit from having the sections on "Institutional Support", "Initiatives" and "International Programs" summarized or transformed into a single section with a single timeline.

Note that there is now an article dedicated to Open educational resources policy and that the section about policy on this article should use summary style.

I intend to contribute some material to the section on Critical Discourse about OER referencing the work of Stephen Downes who makes some interesting claims regarding the benefits of OER going more to those who create OER than to those who may use them. I also intend to contribute a paragraph about Beall's List to the section on external criticism and reference a recent article in The Chronicle of Higher Education. I might provide a contrasting perspective to Jeffrey Beal with the late Aaron Swartz who (among many other accomplishments) was a lead developer of Open library project.

I would also like to see some named references (see Citing sources) used in this article if you would like to collaborate on or undertake that improvement.

ChristineBushMV (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Placement of OER logos

There has been a bit of churn regarding the placement of various OER logos in this article. In order to eliminate competition among logos for placement at top of the article (which seems to result in the occasional inclusion of the same image multiple times), I have removed all logos from the lead section and distributed them through the article which makes for more appealing layout. Before adding more OER logos to this article, please check to see if they are already displayed somewhere on this page, thank you. ChristineBushMV (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Re-working Structure of Main OER article

Note: I just set up automatic archiving of this talk page; unfortunately, the review below by Paul Stacey was archived, even though a number of students in our Wikipedia class are actively referring to it. So I've manually moved this from the archive back to this main talk page. -Pete (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Pete Forsyth provided the Creative Commons Education team an overview of the Communicate OER project yesterday. As part of that session Pete emphasized the need for some context setting for the OER article overall. Certainly the existing OER article needs to be reworked and made more comprehensive. Rather than trying to edit a small piece of the article I thought I'd make a stab at suggesting a more comprehensive overall structure for the article. Once there is some agreement on what that is we can begin the process of authoring editing the sub-sections. Here's what I suggest as an overall structure:

History - origin of the term, relationship to open education, relationship to reusable learning objects, relationship to DIYU (iTunesU, P2Pu, Khan Academy, …).

Principles - underlying principles and similarity to other open initiatives such as open source software and open access, OER declarations, UNESCO OER Guidelines

Economics - the financial business case for OER. Public funding results in a public good. Private sector OER business models.

Legal - OER in context of copyright and fair use. Licenses used for OER.

Policy - international, national, and regional examples of policy that authorize and encourage OER use and development.

Technology - open file formats, interoperability standards, meta data, repositories

Content - open content (open licensed text, images, audio, video) used as assets in creation of OER, OER by field of study and grade level - K-12, post secondary, vocational, OER types - open textbooks, open courseware, open assignment banks, ...

Authoring OER - instructional design considerations, online/hybrid/on campus considerations, licensing strategy, authoring solo vs. authoring collaboratively (authoring hackathons), continuous improvement strategy, students as authors

Finding OER - use of search engines, referatories, repositories, and other web sites

Reusing/Remixing OER - open license terms, derivative works, attribution

OER Challenges - discoverability, quality, measuring usage and ROI

Open Practices - instructional design, pedagogy, sharing, reuse, remix, quality

World Wide Initiatives - OER development/distribution initiatives, OER research initiatives

Pstacey (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)Paul Stacey

Article reassessment

I have increased this article's quality rating from Start class to C class. I'm teaching a class on Wikipedia writing, and the work Christine (a student in the class) has done prompted me to reevaluate the article. In particular, I would note the expanded lead section, the efforts to provide more context around OER's definition, and the efforts to find the right way to incorporate various logos as significant steps forward in article quality. For comparison, here is a link to the article prior to Christine's involvement. -Pete (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

My review of this article

I am currently participating in "Writing Wikipedia Articles: The Basics and Beyond (P2PU School of Open)" (WIKISOO: 2013 Q2). I am a former student at the Open University, specifically with IET (Institute of Education Technology); although I did not study the module referred to below. I am reviewing this article according to the instructions at WP:Communicate OER.

I suggest considering changes to the final paragraph of the opening section, Open educational resources#Defining the Scope and Nature of Open Educational Resources:

Since OER are intended to be available for a variety of educational purposes, organizations using OER presently neither award degrees nor provide academic or administrative support to students seeking college credits towards a diploma from a degree granting accredited institution. In open education, there is an emerging effort by some accredited institutions to offer free certifications, or achievement badges, to document and acknowledge the accomplishments of participants.

I think that the encompassing assertion that organisations using OER presently neither award degrees nor provide academic or administrative support may no longer apply.

In 2013, The Open University (UK) featured one of it's first MOOCs as part of an accredited Masters module. This seven week block was also open to informal learners and was released under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA licence

However, I consider that the details of this practice are perhaps better suited to the page on Open Educational Practices

These sources support the above statement:

Open University, The. "Free online courses in Education Technology (IET) at the OU | Platform". Retrieved 28 May 2013. http://www.open.ac.uk/platform/news-and-features/free-online-courses-in-education-technology-iet-the-ou

Open University, The. "Open education". Retrieved 28 May 2013. http://www.open.edu/openlearn/education/open-education/content-section-0

Open University, The. "Intellectual property - OpenLearn - Open University". Retrieved 28 May 2013. http://www.open.edu/openlearn/about-openlearn/frequently-asked-questions/intellectual-property#faq_116

Thank you for your attention. C01Clem (talk) 02:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Recommended External Link

These seem like appropriate additions: OER Commons.org,POERUP. -ChristineBushMV (talk • contribs)

This one, too: Exemplary Collection of Open eLearning Content Repositories Nafpaktitism (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this paper: Open Educational Resources and Collaborative Content Development: A Practical Guide for State and School Leaders http://www.inacol.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/inacol_OER_Collaborative_Guide_v5_web.pdf Patricia.Loeblein (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Another possible paper: International Association for K-12 Online Learning (iNACOL) - OER State Policy in K-12 Education: Benefits, Strategies, and Recommendations for Open Access, Open Sharing - helps policymakers promote collaboration and deeper learning with open educational resources (OER). Authors TJ Bliss, Ph.D. and Susan Patrick demonstrate how policymakers are helping teachers to build resources, share educational materials and personalize instruction by permitting publicly funded learning materials to be shared openly as OER.128.138.65.149 (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Finding OER added

Find OER was added to External links, because it is a curation of search pages to make open-licensed media elements and education content freely available to the public. These open education resources are from "grantees of the $2 billion Trade Adjustment Assistance Community College & Career Training (TAACCCT) grant program from the U.S. Department of Labor," and the curation service is freely provided by the Open Professionals Education Network (OPEN). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litjade (talk • contribs) 11:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me -- I had not heard about that site, but the TAACCCT program is a pretty big deal in OER in the US. Speaking of which, I wonder if a "timeline" section might be a worthwhile addition -- noting events that have been significant in the history of OER? (There's a tool, which could be one way of going about this, documented here: Help:EasyTimeline syntax But a basic bullet list might do the trick just as well, along the lines of what we have at Land use in Oregon…) -Pete (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The timeline idea could: (1) span not only the History but also Institutional support, Initiatives and International programs sections; (2) be an effective, at-a-glance companion to the somewhat dense text; and (3) function, by extension, to help shape the lead section (which now seems more intro to than summary of the article). --Litjade (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

For inclusion in Institutional support, Initiatives or Programs

Under the US Dept of Energy's Weatherization and Intergovernmental Program is an open source platform called The National Training and Educational Resource (NTER). A description of NTER can be found here; the training portal entrance, here; and the site, here. It seems mention-worthy in this article, but where? --Litjade (talk) 08:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Another example is the World Bank's Open Knowledge Repository. From the site's About page: "Through the OKR, The World Bank collects, disseminates, and permanently preserves its intellectual output in digital form. The OKR is interoperable with other repositories and supports optimal discoverability and re-usability of the content by complying with Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) standards and the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH)." The World Bank also has a policy paper "Open Access Policy for Formal Publications" which can be accessed here and may be of interest to this earlier Talk page discussion. --Litjade (talk) 09:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

"related concepts" section?

In today's class (which focuses on OER and related concepts), we discussed adding a section on "related concepts" such as open education, open learning, distance education etc. Any thoughts on how to go about this? (Neil Butcher's book, wikisource:A Basic Guide to Open Educational Resources/FAQ, may be a good reference for this.) -Pete (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, at least an intermediate step was taken: adding the {{Open navbox}} template. --Litjade (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Develop this article Friday 19 September 2013

Hello! On Friday 19 September 2013 some attendees at OKCon, a conference of the Open Knowledge Foundation, will be participating in an effort to improve this Wikipedia article and others related to the concept of open science. Anyone who would like to contribute to this article as part of this drive to improvement should do so! Details of the event are at Wikipedia:Workshop/Open_Science_Workshop_(Geneva). Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Role of tenure-track faculty and traditional universities

Often in higher ed news, OER seems to have been pitted against tenure-track faculty and traditional universities. Meanwhile, librarians -- especially those at research universities -- have often taken a leadership role at their universities to offer a safe and neutral space for faculty to discuss these issues and debate the directions that technology-centered vendors and donors are taking us all. Perhaps this article could also explore this political discussion and the role that academic disciplines and their professional organizations have taken in supporting (or hindering) OER initiatives? Randolph.hollingsworth (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Added content before consulting talk page

Greetings, I'm a newbie editor, and am taking a WIKISOO online course. I added content and two citations to this page before asking if that was ok on the talk page. It is copied below, and please let me know if this was incorrect protocol, and if this historical antecedent should have been placed somewhere else on Wikipedia.

Here is what I added... An historical antecedent to consider is the pedagogy of artist Joseph Beuys and the founding of the Free International University for Creativity and Interdisciplinary Research in 1993. After co-creating with his students, in 1967, the German Student Party, Beuys was dismissed from his teaching post in 1972 at the Staatliche Kunstakademie Düsselforf. The institution did not approve of the fact that he permitted 50 students who had been rejected from admission to study with him. The Free University became increasingly involved in political and radical actions calling for a revitalization and restructuring of educational systems.[26] [27] Netherzone (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC) Vivrolfe (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible Article Enhancements

I'm also enrolled in WIKISOO. A quick read suggests to me that some of the International section and the preceding section need merging or differentiation. The MOOC pay-for certificate reference could use some elaboration. Sometimes acronyms are used without first giving the full name of an organization or institution. The role of librarians and libraries might fit in the reference to information literacy mentions. The Critical Discourse section is weak and could actually use more content. Some mention of the various populations served and the role of the movement in life long learning and autodidacticism might be made or referred to.Researcherguy (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The title "international section" and references to international activity implies OER has origins in one particular country or region, whereas the origins of "open" are widespread. Should we refer to it as "global section or global activity" Vivrolfe (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I could also contribute to the "institutional support" section particularly the funding and ongoing growth of OER in the UK which could be much elaborated upon. Vivrolfe (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

OER a proper noun?

Wondering if "Open Educational Resources" is a proper noun, should the article title be uppercase instead of lowercase? Litjade (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I've seen it written like that (uppercase) more often than not. I'd vote yes. R.M.McKernan (talk) 00:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Case for OER=(lowercase) open educational resources

Thanks, @R.M.McKernan, for responding. Like others here, I'm contributing as a participant in the WIKISOO course and learning as I go. Let me attempt to make the case in favor of using "open educational resources" over "Open Educational Resources" in Wikipedia articles. Applying the WP:CAPSACRS style guideline that "emphasizing the letters that make up the acronym is undesirable," OER would be expanded to the lowercase open educational resources. And applying the WP:DOCTCAPS style guideline that "systems of thought do not begin with a capital letter, unless the name derives from a proper name," the term would be lowercase. I couldn't find anything to the contrary under proposed naming conventions or in the WikiProject Open. —Litjade (talk) 23:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Critical Pedagogy.

I wonder what is the relation between the Open educational resources and the Critical pedagogy. Not only the pedagogy who creates Paulo Freire, but also Henry Giroux and Peter McLaren. This subject came to my mind when I read about the Joseph Beuys initiative, which is related to the 'critical pedagogy'. Maybe I'm just guessing, but I read a book of Claire Bishop, Artificial Hells: Participator Arts and the Politics of the Spectatorship, where she talks about these topics.--Luisalvaz (talk) 01:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Excellent observation, @Luisalvaz: -- I do not know the answer, but I think it would be great to investigate and create appropriate links between these Wikipedia articles. In addition, two of our WP:WIKISOO students have recently created the article Public Sphere Pedagogy which I think is also related. @Ryanx7: and @Graphemie:, any thoughts? -Pete (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Great list of OER

I'm delighted to find this incredible list of OER from UMUC - all the sites everyone knows about and a few more. Posting here to celebrate. ;) http://libguides.umuc.edu/content.php?pid=10986&sid=4182411 - Sara FB (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Images open source on all WP pages?

I want to use this image of dogs fighting over a bone. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/83/Dogs_playing.JPG/450px-Dogs_playing.JPG , in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_toy article , but I can't find anything in the article references or talk pages that tell me if the image is open source. Can someone help me understand if I can use all images on WP or if I can only use ones for which there is a clear reference that the image is meant to be open? Sorry for including the entire links, but I wanted to make sure the page and image could be found. I know that in one article where I wanted to share an image, I submitted it to CC. Thanks Patricia.Loeblein (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Patricia, if you click on the images in articles they take you to a bigger version, and more information. So for example, this image opens up 'media viewer' and at the bottom of that you'll see the copyright notice (see the bottom left of this Dog_toy#mediaviewer/File:Dogs_playing.JPG where it says 'CC-By-SA 2.0'). If you want more information ever, you can click 'more details' there which'll take you to Commons:File:Dogs playing.JPG. Most images on Wikipedia are free to reuse with attribution, although there are some exceptions (for example, company logos where no free alternative exists). Sjgknight (talk) 20:16, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I had tried some things, but your instructions are very clear. I am a teacher, so I will be able to help many students find the licensing for images. Patricia.Loeblein (talk) 20:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I discovered the problem I was having. I was opening the image and viewed it in a browser, so the "more dettails" was not an option. Thank you again from me and all my students. Patricia.Loeblein (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Suggested merge

From Open-source curriculum - looks very similar (??) --K (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Kauppinen

I just spent some time trying to find the text of this paper and read it, I cannot find any supporting text about open education resources in that paper so I am removing the section. curb the ''[[commodification]] of [[knowledge]]''<ref>{{cite journal|last=Kauppinen|first=Ilkka|title=Different meanings of 'knowledge as commodity' in the context of higher education|journal=Critical Sociology|date=29 January 2013|doi=10.1177/0896920512471218|url=http://crs.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/01/29/0896920512471218.abstract|accessdate=23 April 2013}}</ref> and

You can read the full text of that paper here : https://www.academia.edu/4680305/Different_Meanings_of_Knowledge_as_Commodity_in_the_Context_of_Higher_Education http://www.scribd.com/doc/288942462/Different-Meanings-of-Knowledge-as-Commodity-in-the-Context-of-Higher-Education-Kauppinennnnssssn https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270638834_Different_Meanings_of_%27Knowledge_as_Commodity%27_in_the_Context_of_Higher_Education James Michael DuPont (talk) 03:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Essentially contested concept removed

I have removed this reference to Scanlon that was added in this edit : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Open_educational_resources&diff=prev&oldid=551976602

The original editor is retired, I cannot validate this claim without spending $30, it does not add much to the article. Open educational resources are an [[Essentially contested concept|essentially contested]] <ref>{{cite journal|last=Scanlon|first=Eileen|title=Digital futures: Changes in scholarship, open educational resources and the inevitability of interdisciplinarity|journal=Arts and Humanities in Higher Education|year=2012|month=February/March|doi=10.1177/1474022211429279|volume=11|pages=177-184|url=http://ahh.sagepub.com/content/11/1-2/177}}</ref> James Michael DuPont (talk) 22:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Open educational resources. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.opencontent.org/home.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)