OSI-EDU-WG-notes-4mar2014

Version 1.2 by Joseph Potvin on 2014/03/11 15:07

OSI-EDU-WG Meeting Notes from 4 March 2014

Participating

Joseph Potvin
Patrick Masson
Wayne Mackintosh
Ken Udas

Discussion Notes

1: Presentation about the OSI-EDU-WG in May 2014

2. Participation in OSI-EDU-WG

  • We'll be preparing a general invite soon, but if you have colleague who may like to participate in the OSI-EDU-WG, feel free to bring them along to the teleconf
  • New content on project management in the Syllabus needs feedback, eg the "learning outcomes". Good responses so far

3. FLOW Syllabus Usability

  • It's a bit overwhelming
  • Being able to tag the modules/items would be helpful 
  • Tag at what level of granularity?...hard to say, but that will be an emergent process
  • Joseph will communicate with someone involved with Protege Ontology Manager at Stanford for some ideas ...if you haven't seen http://protege.stanford.edu/ take a look. Very cool for the relatively sophisticated folk who organize information. It's been around a long time (it has a quarter million users today, and had 50,000 users back in 2006).  There might be an existing ontology that the FLOW Syllabus ought to conform to (or at least map to)
  • There are a few different aspects:
    • "What my students would learn"
    • "Outcomes"
    • "Learning activities"
  • It may be useful to write short "use case" scenarios for using the Syllabus
    • Each use case will have implications
    • This will help the WG to understand the audiences
    • And will help a course designed understand what
      parts/emements of their course would likely be essential/useful to each audience type
  • Basically, we now need to provide "tour guides" through the syllabus... By analogy, "Going to Venice":
    • ...for architects
    • ...for culinary arts
    • ...for business
    • ...for etc.
  • These can supply some audience-tailored guidance
    • granular (bullet point level)
    • tags would enable the separate views

4. FLOW Syllabus Scope

Question: Should "activities" be in or outside the syllabus?

  • This would help to outline the topics and sources
  • Courses include activities
  • Educators/community can create courses and share those
  • Activities help learners engage and practice the use of the information to develop understanding
  • What we should not do...
    • We don't want to poorly usurp the role of online learning sites, rather we want to provide them useful resources
    • We don't want to miss engaging those partners by only having the learning activity collection distributed amongst multiple environments
    • Narrow the potential community because learning activiteis are designed for a particular audience (there's an inverse relationship between embedded pedagogy and reusability)
  • Learning activities can form a coherent package however
  • What is the ideal nature of content developmemt to hand-off from the syllabus and the course designers?
    • Technical
    • Conceptual
    • Operational
  • OSI-EDU-WG would structure the syllabus
  • Independent educators (including folks on the working group) can contribute supplemental content and learning activites
  • One can't quite take the syllabus on its own and say "This is my 7-day course"
  • One can take a section and add it to something else, or take specific items

Notes prepared by:

Joseph Potvin
Chair, OSI Working Group on Management Education About Free/Libre/Open Methods, Processes and Governance
jpotvin@opman.ca
 Mobile: 819-593-5983

Tags:
    

Submit feedback regarding this wiki to webmaster@opensource.org

This wiki is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 license
XWiki 14.10.13 - Documentation