The course I am now enrolled in at the University of Manitoba is for me going to a further examination of OERS from both a critical and a practical view. From what I learned in the Introduction to Emerging Technologies course about OERS they are very English Language and High bandwidth oriented endeavours. On Stephen Downes blog (for example We Learn, Thoughts on Solutions, & OERs Moving On ) and Chris Lott's blog there are carefully thought out arguments on OER implemetation which are much more eloquent and erudite than I could ever hope to produce in this blog. Of course these postings have to be read after much foundational reading and rumination about OERs in order to have any value to us as educational professionals. (This I find true for all the courses I have done in the Emerging Technologies field;staying current, posting and sharing has to be a passion in order to stay engaged at a professional or graduate level and even then is hugely time consuming given our off-line life commitments )
But to the point of the course I guess I did not sign either of the two initiatives that are mentioned in the title of this blog and probably wouldn't have anyway for some of the following reasons
- I wasn't aware of them
- I have a philosophical and semantic issue with the definition of freedom and openness
- It seems difficult to get educators and administrators in our economically privileged hemisphere to 'buy in' and engage in the new participatory learning models using OER therefore, how can we expect the whole world to sign on to a declaration of something that has no meaning for them
- Anything that has George Soros' name attached to it cannot be a free endeavour devoid of attached strings. To short the English Pound and make 10 billion dollars does not sound like the actions of an enlighten philanthropist ready to change the way the way works (economically or otherwise). While I agree that money has to push innovation and mass acceptance I think this is counteractive to OERs ultimate goals for the world's education paradigm shift
While I agree with the principles espoused in these declarations and feel they need codified in some manner it seems, as with many things regarding the online learning communities, it is done by a relatively small cadre of over-committed and hyper-productive individuals; well meaning, idealistic and often times right in the convictions of what must take place The number of signatories (2328 for Capetown & 5228 for Budapest) attest to this. Not quite slacltivism but certainly not a deluge of participation of global scope. While these individuals may be influential thinkers and educators they will not be the ones to force change but I laud there efforts. It will have to be a mandate from the masses who have yet to engage in large enough numbers to create a critical mass for change in education ( and the others ....ecology, economics, politics.......)
They will have to 'buy in' in huge numbers which means they will have to have easy and fast access in huge numbers and see this 'product' as valuable to them in their own circumstances.This being said I do agree with what the Budapest Declaration said regarding peer reviewed articles. If Shakespeare's plays not be widely disseminated and were treated only as a means of increasing wealth for his family (he'd be a corporation it today's world) we would have been greatly diminished as a species. Thus I think is essential to share and give away our knowledge and expertise. But I don't agree that the peer-review is the best or only type of shareable or worthy knowledge as they contend. A lot of what is valued is on the deep or hidden web; Intranets and wall gardens of corporations, schools and individuals. Also it presumes that a lot of persons in academia are willing or able to share their research because of institutional or corporate intellectual ownership.
To put my preceding comments into context I must diverge from the topic questions proivded to us by Ms. Keiller
To put my preceding comments into context I must diverge from the topic questions proivded to us by Ms. Keiller
Most people, myself included, lurk and learn without fear of embarrassment , loss of grade, etc. We take and use that which is useful to us and leave the rest. As I have learned from my readings by Paulo Freire and Ivan Illich, we cannot impose solutions pedagogical or economic, but rather they must be created and consumed by and for the end user. If they are not producing then they are not actively engaged in the collaborative process that we all take for granted as the coming wave in education. The learning materaisl have to be set in context, practical and adaptive to be meaningful and adopted en mass. This is the antithesis of our 'systematic' and institutional approach in the west. Our 'hammer and nail' solutions are not practical in the underdeveloped or emerging world (notice they are always defined in term sof economics)
I have to admit that all of my thinking on matters in education have not only been colored by the above educational philosophers, but also by the likes of Naomi Klein( Shock Doctrine), Howard Zinn (People's History of the United States) and Chris Hedges (numerous books and online writings). They have greatly influenced my thinking on how matters of education are always circumscibed by the economic and political factors enveloping our global village. I think the paradigm shift for Open Education and its democratic principles supported by the freedom of the delivery method ( Internet) suggests nothing less than the dismantling of our whole capitalist/corporatist system of control, a mighty tall order indeed.
