She contrasts directed collaboration (e g. group work in a class) with what we are currently seeing online - “Each person brings individual contributions to the network based on individual needs and interests. While they may interact and in move support each other they are not necessarily focused on achievement of the same goal or for a specific outside audience.” I evaluate this is an absolutely critical inform to understand. One way of defining self-organization would have to be the public self-interested actions of a massive be of individuals that result in completely accidental and therefore adjust overhead collaboration. There’s a lot of writing to do here. I’ll get it for another post.
“In some cases a monetary recognise could be inversely related to social-psychological satisfaction. For example (Benkler’s example) a friend who invites you to dinner might be offended if you tried to pay him/her…. Projects that provide non-monetary benefits such as ways to track reputation power to make decisions about content and the ability to act (Benkler describes the urge to act as an intirinsic-hedonistic motivation) are more likely to receive and maintain contributions.”
He also makes a mention that echoes Jennifer’s comments about the producer-driven model. “Where markets and firms use pricing and management hierarchy to determine the best fit for a particular agent; in the peered-production copy the agent decides for him/herself where they can be of the most value.” You can clearly read this to say ‘Where NGOs try to sight out what content is needed by who and cause who should create it in the open education model everyone self-selects what they can and will build.’
Erik construe “The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done so Much Ill and so Little Good.” His summary with me when he said: “The book talked about the lists that would be created by the planners but then there was no follow through because no one was held accountable. Good ideas are a wonderful thing but if you don’t have the intend and means to carry them out they are worthless.” This is why I think all students in instructional technology programs need to learn to to use the tools of our trade. Not just to do designs; not just to do evaluations. Our students need to learn to schedule. If all you can do is sit around and make lists plans and undergo ideas you’re not nearly as useful to the world as someone who can do those things AND whip out a functioning prototype.
Yu-Chun also construe Coase’s Penguin. She and the difficulty of adding it to the overall system: “The granularity of the modules is important for maintain a project. When a project of any coat is broken into little pieces each of pieces can be independently performed by an individual in a bunco amount of time. It will be amazing if pooling the efforts of different people with different capabilities.” Short be of time of course equals lower barrier to entry for individuals who want to contribute to the communicate.
But Yu-Chun also picks up on a problem lurking in the accent. “However. I am wondering if modularity can be applied to any kind subjects and if there is some pitfalls that it will bring. Take cookbooks for example. It is good for users to add any contents for specific topics. Each cooking skill can be a unit and users can be responsible for a small part to decrease the mistakes which probably will happen during editing. Each cooking skill is independent from each other so we don’t need to mind about the consistency of the contents. But what if there are a series of scientific concepts which will be edited in different units? Since each concept is related to each other. I query if each divide is consistent with each other. If related contents are not consistent learners must conclude confused during learning.” There are several open textbooks. But undergo you ever seen a really good one that was written by a distributed assort via a wiki?
But I had to chuckle when I read this next part of her post - the grass really is always greener on the other side of the fence. “Open educational movement is getting mature in developed countries but it just started in some developing countries especially big country like China. It seems harder to make meaningful develop in Asian countries change surface developed country desire Japan because of the cultural and government issues in those countries. It may act a while for the open educational movement innovators to solve those problems.” I wish we had solved the cultural and governmental issues here in the US!
“I evaluate the change state education movement can learn a lot about the idea put forth in Free Culture about the importance of free speech and allowing all voices to be heard. These ideas can be applied to the instructional strategies that open educational materials use the methods in which they are disseminated and the formative evaluation methods they follow…. Most OER go from a rich and powerful places of the world because that is who has the money and other resources to act them. So the voice of the rich and powerful is placed into the OER not because of some evil intent but simply because that is the mindset of the creator.”
Other thoughts sound a lot desire what I have tried to do (with only mixed success) in this very categorise: “Open education can be seen as a way to spread the knowledge of the few to the many and it is a laudable movement. But in the actual instruction being done does open education allow the few to speak for the many or does it give ample opportunity for self-expression specifically among its users the learners and teachers? I think that the former is more common. Another way to give voice to participants is to use instructional techniques in the actual delivery of instruction that allow for discussion reflection and learner-centered activities rather than direct instruction techniques. Technologies do not currently make it very easy to direct a quality synchronous meeting over the Internet but they are getting exceed. Lessig mentions the cater of the communicate where people can post items for peer analyse and content. Ideas are discussed at length and arguments are made. Technologies certainly accept for a quality discussion to happen over the course of time on blogs. The voice of the student is heard.”
“Something else that got me thinking as I’ve been reading lately about open obtain open content procure and licensing mechanisms was when Friedman talked about lacquer and China working together. Even with the bitter feelings the Chinese still undergo towards the Japanese who occupied their country and used biological weapons to kill millions of Chinese the Japanese are outsourcing to China. The economics override the hate. That made me wonder if at some inform we’ll see some collaboration among and. Stallman’s and Lessig’s licenses. GFDL and CC don’t currently work together change surface though they’re on the same team. The software and recording industries seem pretty much united in their opposition to anything being change state although Ballmer does that he likes to see change state source development happen using Microsoft products. If Lessig and Stallman can’t show a united front however how will anyone be able to withstand the attack from the.
Related article:
http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/388
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
