You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 24 Next »

Team: Chris Bourg, Curt Newton, Hunt Lambert, John Willinsky, Loic Tallon, MJ Bishop, Cable Green

Meeting #2:

Preparation (MJ & Curt conversation): 

Do we have all the big questions on the table? For example, to what extent is Open a thing in itself, vs. an affordance or facilitation for bigger goals? And what are those bigger goals, that could motivate deeper engagement in Open?

  • Is this an either/or ... or a both/and?  We can (must?) open as a base to accomplish our bigger education / knowledge goals.

We should consider value propositions by use case:

  • Why produce Open? 
    • Open what? Content, research, data, policies, practices?
    • Because open is the best way to do science, education, data analysis for the public good.

  • Why use (teach / learn) with Open?
    • With open content (OER) or open practices? I think both - and there are different reasons for each.

  • Why support the Open movement / field?
    • Because: enter vision statements here.

See the comments after Meeting #1 for breakdowns of constituencies (for whom), flavors of open, timing (tiers)

Some suggested deliverables

Meeting #1: Define key questions/considerations the Open 2020 Working Group should address. Who is missing? Work products?

Team: Chris Bourg, Curt Newton, Hunt Lambert, John Willinsky, Loic Tallon, MJ Bishop

Also fold in here the Incentives content from the original Sustainability and Incentives team.

** **

Value Propositions definitely good; what value propositions work for each constituency, where do they conflict vs. align?

Team also wants to include incentives that support behaviors toward the value propositions. Need to resolve overlap with Sustainability + Incentives group.

Definitions of Open, not worth working on - use the Budapest Open Access definition? (ask Nicole, Peter S)

Who is missing? Keep it from being too elite

  • Meetings not just at MIT and Hewlett. MJ will help arrange Meeting #2.
  • Engaging state and public ed leaders - e.g. SUNY, CUNY (Mark McBride), ASU global freshman academy
  • Faculty who are actually doing it
  • Norman Bier
  • Richard Sebastian / Achieving the Dream, cc initiative
  • Google - Jamie Casap
  • Quality Matters - Deb Adair, OER process for quality control
  • ISKME
  • Employers - they can contribute to the content, or they'll go around higher ed
  • Publishers - various types, comm'l journal, textbook, university presses, OAJournal

Metric: public ed wants access and outcomes 

Some value propositions for Open

  • Cuts the tether to time and space - learn when, where, how you want
  • Modularity to custom ordering to stacking into solid credential 

Questions of scope:

  • Higher ed only, or include high school also?
  • Expand beyond US-centric to a global perspective? How might that happen given time and resources?

Incentives

  • Authors: To generate content, to share it openly

    • Grants available only for making open content

  • Educators: To use open content

  • All: Rewards and recognition of efforts

  • Interim issue, because it fills in an area that is currently unsupported

  • Institutions: From governments to encourage them to adopt open practices; accreditation organizations; Enhanced reputations

Via Willem van Valkenburg:
University: Reputation, quality, innovation
Students: Cost reduction, accessibility, quality, flexibility, modern learning methods
Teachers: Career perspective, possibility to innovate, recognition for education effort, impact

Work products:
  • Map of incentives: key places, groups, and people
  • No labels