Wiki source code of OSI-EDU-WG-notes-18feb2014
Last modified by Joseph Potvin on 2023/02/17 01:53
Show last authors
| author | version | line-number | content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | __**Participating**__ | ||
| 2 | |||
| 3 | Joseph Potvin | ||
| 4 | Ken Udas | ||
| 5 | Wayne Mackintosh | ||
| 6 | |||
| 7 | = Discussion Notes = | ||
| 8 | |||
| 9 | == 1. Building the OSI-EDU-WG == | ||
| 10 | |||
| 11 | * General promotion message about OSI-EDU-WG and the FLOW Syllabus, with link to OSI announcement page | ||
| 12 | * The announcement should emphasize ways to participate, since this is intended as a peer-production living asset | ||
| 13 | * Joseph will craft a 1st draft text for the OSI announcement & call for participation, plus a short outreach message | ||
| 14 | ** This week, in time for review ahead of 25 Feb WG teleconf (Didn't make it in time for earlier review.) | ||
| 15 | * The WG participants also identify & contact specific scholars/educations in various fields to seek participation | ||
| 16 | ** Particular academic champions in the network | ||
| 17 | ** Build theme-based communities of practice | ||
| 18 | – learning specialists | ||
| 19 | – lawyers, law educators, law academics | ||
| 20 | – project managers (in many fields that go with the FLOW model) | ||
| 21 | – project management educators, PM academics, PM standards & certification specialists | ||
| 22 | – self-learning developers/managers interested to collaborate | ||
| 23 | * //Added in after the teleconf//: ORCID could be a useful partnership: http://orcid.org/about/community See also: http://orcid.org/open-source-license | ||
| 24 | |||
| 25 | == 2. Target nature and structure of the FLOW Syllabus, 2 months from now? == | ||
| 26 | |||
| 27 | "Resource-based learning" and other guidance http://www.reusability.org/read/chapters/hannafin.doc | ||
| 28 | And some useful presentation layer ideas here: http://www.reusability.org/read/ | ||
| 29 | |||
| 30 | * structure the modules for use towards formal academic credit | ||
| 31 | * couple the syllabus modules with approval processes | ||
| 32 | * linking in with university structures/timing has some challenges | ||
| 33 | * the extent to which it is modular makes it easy to draw upon within already-accredited/certified courses to: | ||
| 34 | ** fortify an existing course | ||
| 35 | ** diversify an existing curriculum | ||
| 36 | ** assist researchers in comparative analysis with other business models | ||
| 37 | * incremental design, dont solve it all in first run | ||
| 38 | ** good that it's a flexible outline resource | ||
| 39 | ** an actively peer-curated guide | ||
| 40 | ** of course, there is risk of the syllabus becoming "just an index", path could become relatively staid, biased by "our mental scaffold" | ||
| 41 | ** so we should establish working principles | ||
| 42 | ** useful to articulate our working boundary between the syllabus, and our working assumptions about how diverse users will engage it "as input" | ||
| 43 | ** encourage users to adapt and optimize the way it will be used | ||
| 44 | * all agreed that the syllabus refer only to open access sources, as a precondition | ||
| 45 | * provide links to relevant open access journals (and to what that means) | ||
| 46 | ** Er,... Surely, add a section about Open Access Journals into the syllabus since this whole movement is directly relevant to the FLOW theme! | ||
| 47 | – Open Access Business Models http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/OA_journal_business_models | ||
| 48 | – Open Access Directory http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Main_Page | ||
| 49 | – Dispelling Myths about Open Access http://libraries.mit.edu/scholarly/mit-open-access/general-information-about-open-access/dispelling-myths-about-open-access/ | ||
| 50 | – Defining and Characterizing Open Peer Review http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=ulib_fac | ||
| 51 | * there's a large body of "shadow resources" / "grey literature" that's not yet very easy to discover | ||
| 52 | ** USQ is working on an intexing project that might be of use, with large stores of open educational content (not yet available) | ||
| 53 | * to the extent which we're breaking ground with this, it's sure to be somewhat complex | ||
| 54 | * question about direct links to court cases vs interpretive 2ndary works | ||
| 55 | ** there is value to both | ||
| 56 | ** decision based on the clearest to-the-point explainations | ||
| 57 | ** the art of interpreting case studies is challenging, but valuable when well facilitated (good that it includes guides to "the case method") |