Favorite insight of the semester!

technically and legally capable licenses

Could be nice to illustrate an example of this

Don't know that this is necessary

Wouldn't hurt to mention CC here

Good specification, doesn't make the amount feel so arbitrary

I like how this feels personal.

Okay, you get into it here but I still found myself thinking about it before you got here

I think this kind of doesn't address the financial cost associated with higher ed. Someone reading this could say I would love to have the time for higher ed but could never collect the funds to make this decision.

I think this is a great point, and what is most exciting about OER.

In addition to examples, I think we need to show teachers through research that this works before they drop their current teaching practices and adopt ones that may feel totally radical.

True, but assuming the quality of the open text and traditional text is equal of course. Making a textbook open doesn't inherently make it high quality.

Some people who are creators of content online wouldn't like to take advantage of what is technologically possible. They may want to make their access free even, but don't want to give that permission. Although there are probably some people who wouldn't mind allowing these permissions, there is a large group of people I imagine who want to their content protected by these laws on and offline.

Do we have to make students put this out in the open? Does it alter their digital identity in a way that may not be consistent with their own views/what they decide their digital identity to be?

I totally agree with the principle of disposable assignments but to push back, does putting something out in the open instead of just throwing it into an LMS really make it disposable. We may make more effort because more eyes are upon it, but is a blog about open education really renewable or useful to many people when they walk out of our class? Maybe, but also it may not be.

These really feel like the open pedagogy Rs to me

Provides the full scope of the argument from Jefferson - which I think gives credit to and explains some of the traps we're stuck in

Somehow this idea lives on and has not been dismissed - love the argument that there is no way to encourage a dead person to create more so how can the intention of copyright be manifested in this aspect of copyright law

Interesting how this plays out in academia - no royalties or compensation aside from clout and publications for tenure & promotion

Factors are very subjective and ambiguous - you can argue that you meet the terms for fair use but a judge may not see it the same way

Interesting that this was at one point required to be asserted if that was in the nature of copyright itself.

Because we are able to share on greater scale, we are limited more intensely

Just like with traditional texts

Interesting choice to use to just talk about electronic textbooks instead of OER in general/making the distinction of OER at all

Lots of these don't have epub files... not as open as they could be

Faculty are always looking for ways to improve their teaching and increase success in learning outcomes

Very low unsatisfactory levels evaluated by educators says something about OER quality

If only there were some sort of low barriers, well-made training/certification to help teachers with this ;)

We talk so much about funding here and so little about learning outcomes (hard to put a $ value on improvement in learning)

many think they are aware and are confusing it with free resources

This could be remedied in professional development... which is mandatory anyway

We don't need more repositories, we need to make our repositories more robust!

This seems possible to remedy and doesn't say anything about quality of OER, just availability and accessibility

What are ways we can make this definitive?

Some social studies are location dependent. STEM is not location dependent. Yes there are courses like US history but that is still very US based

Would be especially pertinent for K12 teachers who are always looking for materials that map against their common core

It can... but so can many traditional materials if access to them is purchased, etc.

This should be happening all the time regardless of technology, but it's important to CRITICALLY rethink it in the face of technological advancement. That's why some people avoid certain technologies because they rethink the educational process but don't see value in the change

Faculty are pressured to hand it over to the publisher because of models of tenure

Openness built on sound economic principles.. not all institutions in a position to do this.

MIT, with its deep pockets is in an especially great position to do this

This is applicable in and outside of the sphere of technology

I love this. When people undercut the capacity of the internet to benefit learning I think they are doing an injustice for themselves and their students

No one person is going to have all the good ideas

If they don't charge authors what are the barriers to keeping this journal of good quality, navigable, and viable (there are cost associated with hosting, editing, etc)

Very interesting definition in this paper by Peter Suber "By "open access" to this literature, we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited."

Does not always remove price barriers for authors, who are often handing over their copyright to these journals (essentially paying to give someone else the copyright).

This is an interesting difference from CC licenses. I wonder if any of those who may be inclined to share are wary of the commercial use are hesitant of sharing because of the guidelines

This system is probably a way that a great deal of useful software that many can benefit from. It would be awesome to see a chain of how giving back to the community has enabled the community grow, flourish, and produce products (with specific details).

Builds a spirit of community and can have the potential to break down traditional hierarchies

Because of the established Linux world/community - interesting how this community formed

What then compels them to share their product

This can be really scary

Many champions of 'open' in different ways and in different spheres

This really is amazing. Daniel Pink talks about this a lot in his book Drive and speaks specifically of linux, wikipedia, etc. If you would propose this model to someone at that time, it would have been preposterous.

Fremium

What happened to these policies? When did universities get rid of them?

Essentially by closing the software we are preventing people from making IMPROVEMENTS and creating new capabilities

I don't know if these are necessarily alive and well today. Anyone have any opinions?

would love to know more about the history of patents

This idea that we are hard wired for sharing

By allowing individuals to do this with open source, we are reverting back to the standard as opposed to trying to create a new norm

The student themselves are not a captive market but they are captives within the textbook market.

Using the college board statistic that Phil Hill looked very critically at in his blog post https://via.hypothes.is/mfeldstein.com/how-much-do-college-students-actually-pay-for-textbooks/

I love that they share what the students actually say instead of just performance stats. Makes it more personal for students and as a community college student I'd likely trust fellow students more than a bunch of performance stats

I feel like they could have taken a little bit of an opportunity here to share a little bit more of the research

Huge number for student savings

I feel like a large number of students would have done this, so potential savings are definitely to be taken with a grain of salt

I love this distinction. I also think that if the textbook is used by a significant number of students over a great span of time, the cost is nearly negligible in the greater scheme of things.

Yet faculty are still SO incredibly suspicious of digital resources! Faculty (in survey responses I'm reading at least) frequently equate using a digital resource with the death of learning in the classroom.

The pedagogical benefits of this can be astounding. We harp on cost savings so much (which is huge), but could faculty be more easily persuaded if it could help their students meet learning outcomes and improve course performance?

The university or college typically tries to remedy issues of access to computers and other digital technologies by providing on campus computer and internet access - why is access not an issue that is considered when it comes to required course materials?

Happiness isn't necessarily contingent upon quality of living, standard of living, money earned, career success, etc. Many uncontrollable factors including mental predispositions can influence happiness that no amount (or lack) of education can change. Michael touched on this well in his commentary on happiness.