Brandy Usick's Site

graduate_student_experience

I'll keep this post short but this is my apology to Peter and my class colleagues for not keeping up with the course through out the month of August. I was quite pleased with the layout of the course and the momentum that was building. Unfortunately, suffice to say that other things got in the way in my keeping to task!

(I created this post on Aug 5 but failed to publish it so thought I would to that now)

For this assignment I will be focusing on the UofM's Virtual Learning Commons and perhaps more specifically on the graduate community.

Although I missed part of Brian's presentation this week due to that ill timed fire alarm (will go back and listen from the beginning) I realized that I need to become more aware of how I might share the resources we create and add to our office's website and the content or tools that are added to the VLC. I think this report will help me to explore this a bit more. It was interesting to read in Wiley's article that that there was not an immediate identification of making learning object revisable and remixable. Of course this requirement or aspect is what has emerged through the development of OER. I have to admit that I feel like I am still "stuck' in the "learning object phase" but I do wish to move forward and closer to the ideals of OER.

This week we were asked to read (listen) up on licenses and to consider whether it would be “ simpler if we just had copyrighted work, which had to be cleared and public domain work which was free to use”

I am not sure if I have a simple answer to that question. My initial thought is yes, having a simple system would be preferable. My thoughts instead are turning to my own experiences or should I say challenges.

I found it easier to navigate fair use Cancopy policies when working exclusively with hard copy materials.  If I found a great article that I wished to use in a workshop or presentation, it was easy:  copy and distribute because it was for educational purposes. Now if I find a  great article from an online journal or website this practice does not apply. Now I must consult digital copyright policies. Fortunately we have people to turn to for assistance (thanks Mandy!) but there is no guarantee you will receive the permission you seek, regardless of the intended purpose (grrr) But like Mandy pointed in her presentation sometimes one can get around this issue by providing links (again if allowed).

One of my pet peeves involves buying music. If you buy music in one form, e.g. vinyl – my partner is somewhat of an audiophile - you must pay for it again if you wish to play this album on your ipod  (I’m pushing aside the ability to connect the turntable to the computer and copy the music, similar method, I suppose, to my childhood spent holding up my shoe box tape recorder to my parent’s large stereo system (record player and speakers encased in wood). I have, however, come across at least one record company that is sympathetic. If buy their vinyl the inner liner sheets will reveal a special code that you can enter to download the digital version of the album. Fabulous… but only if you live in the US.

I enjoyed Lawrence Lessig’s presentation, particularly his “refrain”. I always appreciate others efforts of breaking down complex issues into easy digestible parts.

Peter presented us with an interesting assignment: to post our own definitions of the three constituent terms of OER. I thought this was a good task to have us complete given that each of us would likely come up with different definitions or perspectives. Of course once I waded through the readings (and video) I came to realize how complex a task this really is.

Below are my musings on the definitions of these three terms. It is evident to me that I will need to go back and review these readings again.

 I see “open” as being openly and freely available on the internet. The author/creator ensures their material is available without restrictions for those interested in accessing the material. David Wiley says the challenge with the concept of “open” is that people maybe want available resources but do not necessarily want to allow others to modify the original work. I have to agree this is a challenge.

Illka Tuomi's paper is quite ambitious. Tuomi covered different perspectives along the spectrum. He addressed some of the questions I had about how "open" is open. When thinking about the UofM and recent system upgrades, the end result is more information is being shared with staff and students (with varying degrees of access and permissions). And these programs (e.g. Banner) are apparently compatible with other programs (or at least we’ll see when we attempt to synch a new database for Disability Services in the upcoming months). Information is more available to those members within the UofM community who have the appropriate user id and passwords.

I was also thinking about how we are seeing more units provide their specialized information and services online so that students/staff do not have to directly contact these services to obtain this information but rather can access it online. I think of our efforts within Advocacy which include adding “walk throughs” to our site which provide information for common student appeals/requests. We’re making our "specialized" knowledge freely available and not just to members of the university community.

 The concept of resource is an interesting one. Tuomi presents and contrasts the internet community definitions against the economic definition, which make sense to me.

Know with regard to educational, I appreciated reading in the OECD’s report that there is an argument to change the term “educational” to “learning” to recognize the learning that takes place outside of a formalized system. I have to agree but of course one would hate to diminish the momentum of OER by changing the term.