Holy cow. That 'oaister' site you referred me to is cool. A gigantic library-type search of open stuff. I gave it my usual acid test: a search based on the word 'kerguelen' (weird island in the south Indian Ocean). I got 585 hits, all of them (apparently) open!!!
Thanks, Scott!
Gina Bennett
Posts made by Gina Bennett
Over the past couple of weeks I have been co-facilitating orientation workshops for new students. My role is to provide some guidance about accessing the college network & online learning resources & my co-facilitator is a library technician who explains how to access & use the library’s databases. So I have been learning more about the information that our institution pays for, information that must be accessed via a special portal with private username & password.
As I was listening last night to the librarian explain the complex process of navigating to the portal, logging in, & searching for resources in the databases, my first thought was ‘Why would you bother with this process? Why not just google for your information?’ My second thought was ‘How could you trust this information? If it’s behind this complex wall, cut off from the flow of information, so difficult to access & to respond to, published only by certain (paid) people, so DATED … how valuable can this information really be?’
Yes, yes – I *know* that peer-reviewed pay-for-view information is certainly not all bad & I’ve used it myself (although not since I completed my thesis & was required to use such sources). And I was a little surprised myself last night at my very visceral reaction to the library part of the workshop. Maybe we will struggle to define what an ‘open’ resource is but surely we can agree that walled garden information is NOT open.
So I suppose I would subscribe to the ‘virtuous cycle’ idea that Colby Stuart refers to above.I think information is sort of like electricity: it’s only useful if it circulates. The more it circulates, the more power it generates. Of course you have to know how to use it, how to evaluate it. But you certainly can’t collect electricity in a jar.
Gina
Hi Scott, hi everybody
My name is Gina Bennett & I work at College of the Rockies in Cranbrook BC, where my job title is 'eLearning Specialist' . I think it's kind of a cool job title but it is somewhat misleading: College of the Rockies is a very small institution & so like everybody else, I wear many hats & have diverse responsibilities. I blog occasionally at http://sansfrontierisme.blogspot.com/
Like most faculty people I have been a proponent of open educational resources long before they were called that. Years ago, we just called it 'sharing' or 'swapping handouts' & the conditions of openness were informal. Of course the internet has enabled us to share far more widely & the development of sharing licences (like Creative Commons) have helped us to set sharing conditions we can be comfortable with. I guess I've grown along with the movement & shared lots of things, both formally & informally.
I can't really think of a favourite OER so early on a Monday morning but I can think of an observation... In the course of my job I've been able to travel & work in a couple of developing nations. The concept of sharing seems to be better understood there. The "problem" of protecting our resources, including educational resources, seems to be far more acute in wealthier nations. It seems to be taking us a bit longer to learn that (as Scott's story illustrates!) the more you share, the greater your potential to benefit. It's sort of a new twist on the 'Matthew principle'
Gina
My name is Gina Bennett & I work at College of the Rockies in Cranbrook BC, where my job title is 'eLearning Specialist' . I think it's kind of a cool job title but it is somewhat misleading: College of the Rockies is a very small institution & so like everybody else, I wear many hats & have diverse responsibilities. I blog occasionally at http://sansfrontierisme.blogspot.com/
Like most faculty people I have been a proponent of open educational resources long before they were called that. Years ago, we just called it 'sharing' or 'swapping handouts' & the conditions of openness were informal. Of course the internet has enabled us to share far more widely & the development of sharing licences (like Creative Commons) have helped us to set sharing conditions we can be comfortable with. I guess I've grown along with the movement & shared lots of things, both formally & informally.
I can't really think of a favourite OER so early on a Monday morning but I can think of an observation... In the course of my job I've been able to travel & work in a couple of developing nations. The concept of sharing seems to be better understood there. The "problem" of protecting our resources, including educational resources, seems to be far more acute in wealthier nations. It seems to be taking us a bit longer to learn that (as Scott's story illustrates!) the more you share, the greater your potential to benefit. It's sort of a new twist on the 'Matthew principle'
Gina
Hi Nancy,
I'm glad you raised the example of the availability of generic, low-cost AIDS drugs for Africa. That example was also raised during our discussion at ETUG last week. I think it's an extremely pertinent example; in fact, you could argue that it is the same example. Because it's not exactly the availability of the drugs themselves that's so critical (the drugs I'm sure could be made in African laboratories too): it's the information about how to make them that's so critical. It's vital, essential medical information, & without it, people die.
You did suggest a difference between the AIDS drug problem & the problem of sharing other essential information. You suggested that the drug problem was solved at an institutional/international level. I will suggest that the AIDS drug problem was perhaps 'solved' a number of times informally, illegally, outside of the institutional/international level long before it reached global recognition.
Access to information is an essential part of access to education. I'm not saying that education is the total cure to everything -- hungry people need food first -- but education is the key to a sustainable improvement in quality of life. To my thinking, withholding information so that the rich can get richer while the poor get poorer is just plain wrong.
Gina
I'm glad you raised the example of the availability of generic, low-cost AIDS drugs for Africa. That example was also raised during our discussion at ETUG last week. I think it's an extremely pertinent example; in fact, you could argue that it is the same example. Because it's not exactly the availability of the drugs themselves that's so critical (the drugs I'm sure could be made in African laboratories too): it's the information about how to make them that's so critical. It's vital, essential medical information, & without it, people die.
You did suggest a difference between the AIDS drug problem & the problem of sharing other essential information. You suggested that the drug problem was solved at an institutional/international level. I will suggest that the AIDS drug problem was perhaps 'solved' a number of times informally, illegally, outside of the institutional/international level long before it reached global recognition.
Access to information is an essential part of access to education. I'm not saying that education is the total cure to everything -- hungry people need food first -- but education is the key to a sustainable improvement in quality of life. To my thinking, withholding information so that the rich can get richer while the poor get poorer is just plain wrong.
Gina
Hi Sylvia
Thanks for responding & you raise an important point. You said, "it's not just "access" and "dissemination" we need to think about; adaptation or recreation of information is also important."
Allow me a little aside: are you familiar with the DIKW model? For the uninitiated, the model claims that there are 4 levels of material with which our brains can work: data, information, knowledge, and wisdom. As we move up the levels, the material becomes more and more contextual. (Wikipedia describes DIKW in a so-so manner here.)
So while I believe in the open sharing of data (as do most scientists), & the open sharing of information at the very least as it pertains to information that supports basic, essential education, I believe that the sharing of contextualized knowledge is something that must be done more carefully & with an awareness of the 'other'. And I honestly don't think that wisdom can be 'pushed' across boundaries at all: one only benefits from the wisdom of another by free will.
Nevertheless, if another group needs the information or education or knowledge in order to meet basic human needs, I don't think we have any moral right to withhold it. Not even to protect what we consider 'cultural' reasons. If someone desperately needs medical information in order to save lives, what right do we have to say, 'just wait until we assess the cultural impact for you.' ??
I do appreciate (as I think you are cautioning) that if we impose our education, our constructed knowledge on other cultures, we are guilty of colonization. This is indeed a serious risk. That's why I think it's important to keep a focus on the free sharing of information while supporting & encouraging cultural adaptation so that the information becomes culturally appropriate, useful knowledge.
Gina
Thanks for responding & you raise an important point. You said, "it's not just "access" and "dissemination" we need to think about; adaptation or recreation of information is also important."
Allow me a little aside: are you familiar with the DIKW model? For the uninitiated, the model claims that there are 4 levels of material with which our brains can work: data, information, knowledge, and wisdom. As we move up the levels, the material becomes more and more contextual. (Wikipedia describes DIKW in a so-so manner here.)
So while I believe in the open sharing of data (as do most scientists), & the open sharing of information at the very least as it pertains to information that supports basic, essential education, I believe that the sharing of contextualized knowledge is something that must be done more carefully & with an awareness of the 'other'. And I honestly don't think that wisdom can be 'pushed' across boundaries at all: one only benefits from the wisdom of another by free will.
Nevertheless, if another group needs the information or education or knowledge in order to meet basic human needs, I don't think we have any moral right to withhold it. Not even to protect what we consider 'cultural' reasons. If someone desperately needs medical information in order to save lives, what right do we have to say, 'just wait until we assess the cultural impact for you.' ??
I do appreciate (as I think you are cautioning) that if we impose our education, our constructed knowledge on other cultures, we are guilty of colonization. This is indeed a serious risk. That's why I think it's important to keep a focus on the free sharing of information while supporting & encouraging cultural adaptation so that the information becomes culturally appropriate, useful knowledge.
Gina