5.1 Wikieducator: memoirs, myths, misrepresentations and the magic  (Page 15/21)

e.g.

• An open wiki model
• A RSS based framework
• The modular but still LMS centered approach we’ve taken

The purpose of our OER project is to determine a sustainable model. In my view the business case for OERS is at the macro or pan institutional level. Individual institutional efforts tend to be a form of marketing rather than truly free open fit for purpose courseware developments and hence the problem of NC restrictions. That’s the supply side though.

On the demand side “the nut we still haven’t cracked in the free content movement is the value proposition at the individual educator level. The “costs” of remixing in terms of time, ego (psychological ownership) etc. must be less than the real and perceived benefits.”

Part of the problem I see is that the cost of course materials is, more often than not, borne by the student in the form of text-books or course fees when digital library resources come into play. The academic writes the text, gets kudos and small returns while the publishing house receives the profit. In this scenario the educator is rewarded for being published certainly in terms of their research credentials. Open Journals are on the rise but it still doesn’t crack that nut. In the music industry remixes ( in essence mash-ups) are well established and musicians are credited with that skill. We need leading institutions to start publishing research and commissioning courseware in open formats and provide the recognition. So we’re back at the supply side and the need for this movement to be embraced at a macro level. I’ve been saying as much to the Ministry of Education here lately!

This is why initiatives such as Wikieducator are so important.

Cheers

10. wayne mackintosh - april 6th, 2007 at 2:24 pm

Richard, that’s insightful - thanks mate.

I’d like to combine the wiki and RSS framework models together. This way we get the benefits of collaborative authoring combined with an easy way to get the content out for remix. I will table these ideas at the Tectonic Shift Think Tank gathering next week.

Clearly we will need a holistic approach. At the micro-level remix must be painless and easy to do. That is overcoming the problem of using “someone else’s lecture notes”. Even with text books - institution A will choose one textbook above another. This is part of academic autonomy and must be respected. You’re right - when dealing with textbooks - the students pay, so there is no institutional incentive to reduce cost here.

However, in the development of eLearning courses - this is a cost addition in most face-to-face institutions. (Even if its a hidden cost - that is academic time used to develop eLearning materials instead of doing something else like research or teaching.) So there is conceptually a motivation to share development costs but I suspect in the early phases this will be at the personal motivation level of the individual academic. How do I save time yet improve my eTeaching?. The trouble is that institutional reward and incentive systems don’t recognise time spent authoring materials (in f-t-f institutions).