I don't want to be the sort of person who always says "I said this first", but I would be remiss in not pointing out that the solution advocated here by David Wiley was the central recommendation, oft-repeated, of my paper on OERs written for OECD in Malmo. Of course, Wiley uses different (and better) terminology. "As a contrast to 'disposable' assignments, it seems appropriate to call these renewable assignments," he writes (my emphasis). "These renewable assignments result in meaningful, valuable artifacts that enable future meaningful, valuable work." And of course student work from one year should become the OERs of the next year. There's no other rational way to create a sustainable system for producing OERs.
Today: 0 Total: 19 [Direct link] [Share]
