It was interesting to read about the
the open courseware (OCW) movement initiated by MIT. If they had not
had the foresight and bravery to begin pioneer who knows where we
would be today. The idea to share its course content with the world
was a huge step forward pushing forward this digital renaissance we
are in (or entering, depending on your source material). The
“rational altruism” mentioned by Yue has empowered many learners.
I have known about open courseware for some time. I stumbled upon
MIT's OCW while searching for new course materials about 3 years
ago. When I found this I thought what a great addition to my AP
biology course. I have used a number of the video lectures (thought
they often lack the visuals the instructors are using for copyright
reasons) and a great many of the problem sets and exams to supplement
my course. I have even used a few of these to enhance my
understanding of some of the more complex biological issues.
It is staggering to think of the number
of people that visit and learn from these resources each day. The
ability to learn material based on your personal needs and desires
can not be underscored. To think that 35 million people (including
myself and my students) have used the MIT course materials since its
inception is incredible.
One of the most astonishing things for
me was the effect this OCW movement has had in other parts of the
world. A world citizen, from any nation with internet access, could
view these materials. The use of these courses in other countries
such as Pakistan, China, Venezuela, and Nigeria is swesome. I never
realized how important these resources were in countries where
educational opportunities are so limited. The OCW movement has given
millions the chance to learn new and powerful concepts. The OOPS
project is expanding theses offerings to billions of Chinese by
translating the MIT courses. This project thought is led by
volunteers, much like Wikipedia. And much like Wikipedia the
materials are open to other editors so that these materials can be
updated, modified and improved. In 2008 the number of visitors to the
OOPS translated courses topped 1.9 million.
The ability to merge course ideas and
tailor your own educational experience has never been greater.
It is inspiring that more and more
institutions are joining in the OCW movement. Just of few of the
notable US ones include Harvard, Rice, The University of
Pennsylvania, Princeton, Tufts, Stanford, Carnegie Mellon, and the
University of California – Irvine. While these free courses do
not award credits (yet) people can sometimes gain credit through CLEP
exams or by preparing a portfolio based on what you have learned
through an agency such as Learning Counts
(http://www.learningcounts.org)
As the chapter concludes the focus
shifts to the idea that all this content will be available to self
teach and may eventually lead to free education. That learning is a
basic human right (I agree). While I find this an interesting concept
we must not forget that this content is the result of paid
professionals. There must be some funding model to maintain and
create new content. Also the content available is mainly factual,
content knowledge (level one). The other aspects of instruction that
lead to higher order thinking must be included to make these programs
more successful. The P2PU seems to help address this to group based
discussions and tutors....but its a start.
This is a great start but at can not
replace a good deep experience. And truthfully not that many
“standard” educational practices provide this either. But the
OCW course movement is a great starting point to provided content. I
see that the “teachers” will further evolve has this practice
becomes more and more common. It will be interesting to see what the
educational arena will look like 10 – 20 years from now.
I found Open Source software has a huge advantage when comes to cost, flexibility, updating, and protection (less virus) BUT a huge issue is the fact that there is NO incentive for Quality control or help. It lacks for a help desk.... Now as the software matures it gets better, but that takes some time. For example, Open Office... when it first came out it was lauded as the Microsoft Office Killer. Yes it was free.... but we had huge problems with it crashing randomly on our MLTI laptops. It didn't have the help files as well. Open Office relied on peoples familiarity with Microsoft's Office.
ReplyDeleteHow I see software companies will make their money is the value added features. Give the base free, but the high end features you pay for. You don't need to pay for basic word processing suite now that your have Google Docs (that is going to move open source to the web) you only need Office for higher level word processing.
It is what has happened to music industry. Kids are not buying a cd for 1 song... they are listening to 1 song... then making their own. The value added is going to the concert.
Interesting take. I guess that is one way they could profit from it.....
ReplyDeleteWe all want the FREE stuff but in the end without some form of profit structure how will these companies flourish. Some even seek donations (Wikipedia did this not to long ago).
Hmmm?
It seems odd to criticize lecture style teaching as "sage on the stage". Much of the OCW includes videos of lectures. This, and the high regard for "TED Talks" indicates that the lecture is still a viable way of information transferal and that being able to listen to someone else is still a valuable skill. An advantage of listening digitally is the ability to replay a part if there is a distraction or a point that is difficult to grasp.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Art's comments that while it's a basic human right to learn, someone has to come up with the material. I love "free stuff" as much as the next person, but I also realize that professionals need to be paid for their work.
ReplyDeleteAs an analogy, police officers and firefighters do into their line of work because they want to make their communities better places to live, work and play. It's a basic human right to feel safe, but those who are doing the protecting need to get something out of it. They often enjoy the work they do, but like everyone else, they have families to feed and homes to heat. Why should it be any different for those in education?
Personally, I like the idea of having a "free" version of an education tool available, while offering more advanced plugins or options at a (reasonable) cost. It seems like the most fair and ethical way to provide free and open courseware, while still honoring the work of the creators.