After viewing David Wiley's "Openness, Disaggregation, and the Future of Education." Retrieved from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcRctjvIeyQ. I was intrigued and also feeling a little nostalgic about some of the concepts David was discussing.
I totally agree that things are so different now than before. We have moved into a digital age of socialization and information gathering. Long gone are the tasks of finding information in a phonebook or a book based encyclopedia, which happened to be outdated practically before it was published. Pretty well everything you need to find out about is online. We don't need to be in a building to be educated. I find the whole concept of inviting people from all over the world to participate in a program really exciting. I would love to be able to work with and communicate with others from around the world. You are exposed to so much culture this way and can make friendships along the way.
I do find, however, that I am a little nostalgic about my university days. It was not just about the "buildings", it was also about going to the "Subpub 101" courses at the Student Union Building to drink and play darts with others from other educational pursuits and working out with my profs in the weight room. I realize that socialization has changed and maybe those kinds of connections aren't as important anymore, with avenues such as, "Facebook" and "Twitter" where socializing is more sharing of your life pursuits and ideals in an instant manner rather than waiting for the next "Subpub 101" session.
Also, I do wonder about how "open learning" would be funded. How would the facilitators be paid? Would they be subsidized by the government or by donations from big businesses? Would the need for the "brick and mortar" universities be gone forever? Will the facilitator be in "The Cloud'? Will there even be a need for facilitators or will there be some computerized central place where all content and everything that is needed to complete a course be housed?. These are things I am thinking and going to hopefully find out about.
Upon further reflection and nosing around, I came across the article: "Ten Years Later: Why Open Educational Resources Have Not Noticeably Affected Higher Education, and Why We Should Care", by Gerd Kortemeyer posted on the Educause Review website (retrieved from: http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/ten-years-later-why-open-educational-resources-have-not-noticeably-affected-higher-education-and-why-we-should-ca) I thought the following quote, from the article, was interesting:
“What I propose here is a global enterprise-level system, which
immediately raises the question, "How can such a system be
financed in the long run, particularly if it is supposed to host
free and open content?" The answer is probably manifold:
• Because the system also provides a marketplace for licensed
resources, the entity operating it would probably take a cut
from all mediated content sales.
• There might be a membership fee for an institution to supply
part of the content pool.
• In addition, revenue can be generated from services such as
hosting or local integration.
In the end, the business plan must make sense — it is naïve to
believe that OERs can be free for everybody involved.
Somebody has to pay for their creation, programming of the
platform that hosts them, the platform's maintenance, the server
space, the service, etc. Even if the content were originally
generated using taxpayer money, in which case it arguably
should be available for free, stewardship responsibilities —
and their costs — continue.
The business plan cannot rely on the same traditional
institutions that face so many digital challenges already.
Instead, the educational community can and should build a
healthy, sustainable economy around OERs and commercial
content, avoiding the excesses and idiosyncrasies of the current
content marketplace. In a preferred model, the "supersized CMS"
is open source and free; it should be as intuitive as an iPod, but
it is only the "player-device." The entity that provides the
marketplace, the service, and the support and keeps the whole
enterprise moving forward is probably best implemented as a
traditional company.”
Before I found this article, I was thinking the same thing as the part I highlighted in the above excerpt from the article. I find it interesting that Gerd Kortmeyer refers to OER as a "marketplace" and "...best implemented as a traditional company". This worries me a little. I realize that Gerd Kortmeyer is correct in that we need to fund OER's someway. What concerns me is the possibility of the intrusion of big corporations that may supply funding for "a price". What that "price" may look like, I don't know. Could the price be too high and the idea of "open" is compromised? If education is to be truly "open" with input from students as well for developing content and personalizing learning then can this truly work if corporations are providing funding?
I totally agree that things are so different now than before. We have moved into a digital age of socialization and information gathering. Long gone are the tasks of finding information in a phonebook or a book based encyclopedia, which happened to be outdated practically before it was published. Pretty well everything you need to find out about is online. We don't need to be in a building to be educated. I find the whole concept of inviting people from all over the world to participate in a program really exciting. I would love to be able to work with and communicate with others from around the world. You are exposed to so much culture this way and can make friendships along the way.
I do find, however, that I am a little nostalgic about my university days. It was not just about the "buildings", it was also about going to the "Subpub 101" courses at the Student Union Building to drink and play darts with others from other educational pursuits and working out with my profs in the weight room. I realize that socialization has changed and maybe those kinds of connections aren't as important anymore, with avenues such as, "Facebook" and "Twitter" where socializing is more sharing of your life pursuits and ideals in an instant manner rather than waiting for the next "Subpub 101" session.
Also, I do wonder about how "open learning" would be funded. How would the facilitators be paid? Would they be subsidized by the government or by donations from big businesses? Would the need for the "brick and mortar" universities be gone forever? Will the facilitator be in "The Cloud'? Will there even be a need for facilitators or will there be some computerized central place where all content and everything that is needed to complete a course be housed?. These are things I am thinking and going to hopefully find out about.
Upon further reflection and nosing around, I came across the article: "Ten Years Later: Why Open Educational Resources Have Not Noticeably Affected Higher Education, and Why We Should Care", by Gerd Kortemeyer posted on the Educause Review website (retrieved from: http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/ten-years-later-why-open-educational-resources-have-not-noticeably-affected-higher-education-and-why-we-should-ca) I thought the following quote, from the article, was interesting:
“What I propose here is a global enterprise-level system, which
immediately raises the question, "How can such a system be
financed in the long run, particularly if it is supposed to host
free and open content?" The answer is probably manifold:
• Because the system also provides a marketplace for licensed
resources, the entity operating it would probably take a cut
from all mediated content sales.
• There might be a membership fee for an institution to supply
part of the content pool.
• In addition, revenue can be generated from services such as
hosting or local integration.
In the end, the business plan must make sense — it is naïve to
believe that OERs can be free for everybody involved.
Somebody has to pay for their creation, programming of the
platform that hosts them, the platform's maintenance, the server
space, the service, etc. Even if the content were originally
generated using taxpayer money, in which case it arguably
should be available for free, stewardship responsibilities —
and their costs — continue.
The business plan cannot rely on the same traditional
institutions that face so many digital challenges already.
Instead, the educational community can and should build a
healthy, sustainable economy around OERs and commercial
content, avoiding the excesses and idiosyncrasies of the current
content marketplace. In a preferred model, the "supersized CMS"
is open source and free; it should be as intuitive as an iPod, but
it is only the "player-device." The entity that provides the
marketplace, the service, and the support and keeps the whole
enterprise moving forward is probably best implemented as a
traditional company.”
Before I found this article, I was thinking the same thing as the part I highlighted in the above excerpt from the article. I find it interesting that Gerd Kortmeyer refers to OER as a "marketplace" and "...best implemented as a traditional company". This worries me a little. I realize that Gerd Kortmeyer is correct in that we need to fund OER's someway. What concerns me is the possibility of the intrusion of big corporations that may supply funding for "a price". What that "price" may look like, I don't know. Could the price be too high and the idea of "open" is compromised? If education is to be truly "open" with input from students as well for developing content and personalizing learning then can this truly work if corporations are providing funding?