Open Education 2006 (VIII): Benefits and Tools for Open Content

By Ismael Peña-López
ICTlogy (ISSN 1886-5208). Issue #36, September 2006

 

Here come my notes on the Open Education 2006: Community, Culture, and Content that we are attending:

Friday, September 29, 2006
Concurrent sessions

Open Content in Education: The Instructor Benefits of MIT OpenCourseWare
Preston Parker, Utah State University

Five ways to be compensated:

  • duplication
  • distribution
  • alteration
  • derivation
  • exhibition

Benefits of “Open Content”:

  • Better quality
  • better compensation for creators (credit to the right person)
  • more efficient
  • less expensive product (eliminate the intermediary)

How are people compensated:

  • traditional methods
  • suppelmentary goods
  • suplementary services
  • reception
  • sponsoring
  • adds revenues

Institutional benefits (of OCW):

  • enhance faculty and student enrollment
  • showcase student content
  • offer alumni something more
  • make connection with life long learners

What are faculty benefits:

  • Recognition
  • marketing
  • leave and accessible academic legacy
  • connections/networking/collaboration
  • reach learners not reachable otherwise
  • increase class enrollment
  • easier content dissemination.

Open Business Models:

  • Marketing model
  • Advertising model
  • Suplementary goods
  • Individualisation goods

Tools for Creating Open Content: CMS4OCW and CMS4ROCKL. When Teachers Want to Share.
Pedro Pernias & Manuel Marco Such, Universidad Alicante

CMS4OCW: CMS for OCW. For institutions.
CMS4ROCKL: CMS for content for knowledge and learning. For individuals, creating p2p repositories.

Both tools facilitate the creations of organized structures tgo aggregate context for the individual items. Each course is a especific “portal” to access the catalogue. They are CMS (not LMS), handle Scorm, let users create more complex structures by using single items, creates a repositoryof Scorm packagge which can be harvested easily through MHP or OAI, sindicates through RSS.

The user can upload documents and files to “my contents”. Organize the documents & files there and preview the results.

LOR@: Learning Objects Repository Architecture. Not a repository, but an architecture.

Web 2.0 for Development related posts (2006)

If you need to cite this article in a formal way (i.e. for bibliographical purposes) I dare suggest:

Peña-López, I. (2006) “Open Education 2006 (VIII): Benefits and Tools for Open Content” In ICTlogy, #36, September 2006. Barcelona: ICTlogy.
Retrieved month dd, yyyy from http://ictlogy.net/review/?p=452

ICTlogy Review

  • ISSN 1886-5208

Issues: