I definitely recognize the value of metacognition in learning experiences; I'm wondering, though, how it's related to openness. Here is one of those places where I'm trying to work through what "open" means, and trying to connect these various dimensions together. The others I can see in terms of somehow reducing barriers/uncovering/connecting across boundaries.... is this one kind of like surfacing in that it's important to be able to open something in other ways? Like if you reflect, then you can better move in new directions?

Nice point here! I hadn't thought of it before but yes, if something isn't "surfaced" it's hard to then open it in some other way. And surfacing could be a form of opening insofar as it is related to something like transparency.

This one feels to me more like a "what" than a "how"; in other words, the way I'm thinking at the moment, design of a learning experience could be one of the ingredients that is opened up in some of the other ways (shared, participants can be involved in it, it can be inclusive or not, etc.). But perhaps I'm not quite getting the point here?

Even in the example it sounds to me like the design could be the thing that's opened and they way it's opened (by people representing different experiences and points of view) could be in terms of the "include" aspect.

As I'm reading through this I'm wondering how to differentiate "develop" from "create." On reading and re-reading I'm still seeing create/revise/remix and modify/extend as similar. Can you explain the difference further?

I am really intrigued by this project, and particularly by this list of "how" things may be opened. That's partly because for a couple of years I've been trying to think through for myself all these various dimensions and in what way they could all be said to share something that makes them "open" (if that's at all a possible task). I've gone through several iterations of talks/workshops about this at different places and still don't feel like I've got it! So I'm curious to reflect on this list further. A couple of thoughts follow below.

The Teaching and Learning Enhancement Fund at UBC Vancouver encourages resources created to be released with an open license, and many open resources are created through that fund.

This is also the case for the Aspire Learning and Teaching (ALT) fund at UBC Okanagan.

These are also other places to apply for funding for OER at UBC!

Some missing words here in this sentence?

This is making me think of complaints about people's capabilities being reduced as we become more reliant on technological tools (e.g., not having the same acumen for arithmetic because we rely on calculators, or not remembering things as well because we rely on external memory aids). I suppose that if these claims are true we could say that in a way we are losing capabilities, but it might also be the case that we are relegating to a kind of composite or purely artifact process capability (as described above) something that was an explicit-human process capability. We aren't losing it, we're just moving it to a different aspect of our capabilities. And what other changes in our capabilities higher up the hierarchy might be made possible by doing this that wouldn't have been possible otherwise?

I'm really wishing right now that I knew more about cognitive science because I wonder to what degree empirical evidence suggests that our minds work in this very logical, hierarchical, organized way that sounds to my untrained ear like how one might conceive of computers working...is this an adequate model for the human mind as well given what we know empirically?

I keep thinking here about how many of these processes and sub-processes are likely unconscious or habitual to the extent that we don't actually know our tools well. Perhaps this is part of the model as well, though this way of putting it (that we need to know our tools and when to use each one) is not encompassing that idea for me.

On a first read, this list is striking me as possibly too individualistic. Meaning, augmenting the intellect is about providing the individual with tools, methods, language and training. Is there a way in which we can augment our intellects, improve our problem-solving capacities, through better interactions with other people? A basic idea here would just be the ways in which we distribute our problem-solving capacities amongst people with different expertise, and find ways to bring our thoughts and capabilities together. Perhaps that is part of the "methodology," but the way that category is described here it's about how the individual uses methods rather than a larger description of the systems and structures and practices through which we are able to collaborate well (or not) to augment our collective problem-solving abilities. In what ways do these structures help or hinder our ability to solve complex problems, together?

Or changes in the human being that occur through changes in our technology (and our social relationships and practices as well).

In this scenario, the "clerk" is working for the "human problem-solver," who is in control of what the clerk gets for him (and in 1962 it's a "him!") and transparently provides the information requested. I can't help but think about the ways in which my daily interactions with digital intellect augmenters are not (only) controlled by me as a problem-solver coming in and telling the machines what I want, but (also) my requests for information and what I want it for are increasingly shaped by the "clerks." What the problem is, why I want to solve it, what information I think I can get, and how I approach that information are deeply influenced by the clerks around me and how I have learned to interact with them. And those who own the platforms I interact with, and their motivations for designing them as they do (for my benefit as well as for the sake of profit, usually).

I found this article quite detailed and interesting. I learned, for example, that attribution used to be just an option out of many for CC licenses, and that with 2.0 it became automatically part of all of them because such a high percentage of people always chose it (the Wikipedia article links to this page explaining the change for the 2.0 license suite).

I also found the table under "types of licenses," "seven regularly used licenses" quite interesting because it connects the licenses with other 'open' and 'free' frameworks, such as the open definition and free cultural works.

The list of court cases towards the end is useful as well., and has the latest case (Great Minds v Fed Ex (2018)).

Altogether the Wikipedia page is relevant to many parts of unit 3, including license types and enforceability. I wonder, for the latter, if a link also to this list of case law on the CC wiki would be useful (though it was last edited in 2017).

Some possible new items to add, relevant to module 5.5, Opening Up Your Institution:

1. OER Africa has an in-depth OER policy review and development toolkit. It looks at issues around developing OER policies from the perspective of students, faculty, institutions, government context, and more. It includes case studies relevant to the regional context with probing questions to consider after each case study. It is from 2012, but many of the considerations about developing and implementing an OER policy that are included in the toolkit are still relevant. This resource can be valuable when thinking about possibly instituting an OER policy at one's own institution. The toolkit is licensed CC BY 4.0, South Africa Institute for Distance Education.

The next two resources are relevant to the section on OER policies because it provides examples of policies along with case studies and challenges that differ in different parts of the world. It can help people see how what works in one place may not work well elsewhere.

1. There is a global open policy report from 2016, ed. Kelsey Wiens and Alek Tarkowski, published by the open policy network: https://openpolicynetwork.org/solving-some-of-the-worlds-toughest-problems-with-the-global-open-policy-report/ It includes reports on open policies in Africa & the Middle East, Asia, Australia, Latin America, Europe, and North America. There is an overview in each section along with case studies. This report is also housed on the CC website: https://creativecommons.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/StateofOpenPolicyFullReport_FINAL-1-1-1-1.pdf The report is licensed CC BY 4.0.

2. The ROER4D project (research on OER for development) produced a report in 2017 called Spotlight on OER policy in the Global South: Case studies from the Research on Open Educational Resources for Development (ROER4D) project. The main questions addressed include: "What is the state of OER policy development in the Global South?" "To what extent do developing countries need OER policies for OER adoption to flourish there?" The report discusses ROER4D research in four countries: Colombia, South Africa, Afghanistan and Mongolia. The report is licensed CC BY 4.0

A new item to add; this is relevant to section 5.3, Creating and Sharing OER. There is a subsection there about considering accessibility from the start in creating/adapting OER, and this toolkit helps one do that.

Open Education Accessibility Toolkit, 2nd edition, by BCcampus (Coolidge, Doner, Robertson and Gray). This toolkit includes specific, practical information on how to make OER accessible, through considering organization of content, font size, colour contrast, how hyperlinks are handled, alternative text for images, and more. https://opentextbc.ca/accessibilitytoolkit/ The toolkit is licensed CC BY 4.0.

Some other possible resources to include, relevant to section 5.2: Finding, Evaluating, and Adapting Resources. Both of these would help to expand out the section on remixing and adapting, by talking about how one might do so and the licensing considerations needed.

1. Queens University Library in Canada has a guide on remixing and adapting existing OER that includes: why one should consider adapting resources, how to do so (what tools one could use, depending on the original source files), how to help ensure one's adaptations are consistent with other elements of the original, and licensing and redistributing the adaptation. This web page doesn't have any licensing information on it, but it's part of a larger guide and the guide is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0.

2. Anita Walz has an excellent chapter in a book called The Evolution of Affordable Content Efforts in the Higher Education Environment: Programs, Case Studies, and Examples (2018): "Valuing Open Textbooks: Derivatives, Adaptation, and Remix". In this chapter Walz discusses a project she was involved in to adapt an open textbook, as well as broader benefits and challenges of doing such adaptations, and how to go about them. This chapter is in a book that is licensed CC BY 4.0, edited by Kristi Jensen and Shane Nackerud.

I found this first module a little unclear; it didn't tell me clearly how to distinguish OER from other things on the internet. it listed a number of things that might count as OER (open resource collections, wikis, MOOCs) but didn't explain well when such things are open or why. For MOOCs, the explanation was given that some aren't open because they require one to purchase a textbook--thereby seeming to equate open to free of cost. I didn't find this one very helpful for distinguishing OER, nor as an additional resource about remixing and adapting works (section 4.4).

Another suggested resource for this section:

Attribution statements for remixed OER content, from Open Oregon: https://openoregon.org/attribution-statements-for-remixed-oer-content/ This content is licensed CC BY 4.0.

This page provides detailed suggestions for how to attribute open educational resources when using them digitally, in print, on slides, on videos, and more. It's focused both on what is required by CC and also how to do the attributions in a readable way when you are combining multiple works into a single source. It also has a link to an "open attribution builder" from Open Washington, which looks quite useful: http://www.openwa.org/attrib-builder/ (licensed CC BY 4.0).

This content is related to section 4.3, on finding and reusing CC licensed works. One of the things people sometimes have trouble with is figuring out how to attribute correctly, in multiple formats, and I think this resource explains it well.

This short video effectively expresses an important point from David Bollier: the idea of the "tragedy of the commons" doesn't work insofar as it relies on thinking of the commons as a thing, a resource that can be consumed. If you think of it as only that (e.g., the ocean as a commons) then it makes sense how it could be depleted or polluted by people "outside" of it, as the video describes. But Bollier argues (as also nicely summarized in "The Commons Short and Sweet" by Bollier), the commons isn't just a resource, it is also a community and the processes, rules, values they use to govern the resource and their relationships to it and to each other. So if people are overusing a resource then it's not because the resource is itself a commons, but rather because somehow the processes that are part of the commons aren't working well. It's not that something is part of a commons that is a problem (resources can be mismanaged in many, non-commons contexts too), it is that the processes and practices for connecting people in a community with the resource need to be adjusted.

This resource is related to unit 1 insofar as CC is discussed as not just a set of legal tools but also a community, many of whose members (which can include anyone who applies a CC license to their work or who uses a CC licensed work correctly) share similar values around cooperation, sharing, equity of access.

I took some time to explore these resources. What I found most interesting is that there are a number of affiliated courses in other countries--there isn't just the copyright course at Harvard, but other courses have taken the original content and modified it for their own contexts. This is really important because copyright differs so much from country to country. Many of the theoretical ideas are the same, but the particular cases and specific provisions in law clearly differ.

Some of the affiliated courses seem to be using a lot of the same material from the Harvard course, including the US court cases, and then adding in a few local cases and examples (see, e.g., this example from Italy). Some seem to just be using the Harvard materials exclusively without the local additions.

This could be a place to see some specific examples and court cases from various parts of the world, except that many of the content from the affiliated courses is hard to deal with (see below).

A number of the courses have their materials hosted on a Harvard Law platform called H2O, and it's very hard to navigate and read...each item seems to open in a different tab on my browser and then you can't get back to the higher level items you started with unless you go back to the earlier tabs. It's kind of frustrating to try to go through.

This resource is relevant to many aspects of unit 2 because it includes information on quite a few of the concepts discussed therein.

really interesting article linked here, which talks about pages and posts, particularly in social media, that don't have hyperlinks being both dead and blind, incapable of connecting in a conversation with others.

I find this really important. More and more, as a faculty member teaching philosophy, I find myself wondering whether teaching students mostly how to write academic essays is really doing them a deep service. It helps them if they are going to write other academic essays, or go to grad school, or teach kids to write academic essays, but what other skills might we be emphasizing instead or alongside?

I'm trying to understand the part about including both of the sources from fivethirtyeight and Fox News. This sentence suggests that savvy readers will be able to filter through the bias in both of those. But not all readers will be that critical. Is it better to try to link to sources that are less clearly linked to (quoting from above) "emotions that exert some influence over the reader's interpretation of what follows ..."?

Wow, this is intriguing. I still remember vividly as an undergraduate learning about hypertext in the context of fiction. A grad student co-teaching a class I was taking on literature (don't remember the exact course) was telling us about this idea of fiction writing through hypertext and taking you down twisted paths that may be different from the paths other readers take. And it seemed utterly magical. That was around the late 80s/early 90s. How far we've come that the hyperlink now seem mundane.

I love the idea of revisiting the potential of the humble hyperlink!

Interesting that these moves are mostly about credibility of sources. Though this one checks credibility not by staying on the page of that source, but by looking outwards and asking other credible sources about the source's reliability, etc.

Isn't this part of the question, though? Determining a reputable source? That is one category of the questions in ESCAPE, above. But I suppose there are some sources that are fairly generally agreed upon as reputable, even if all sources are prone to some bias or other.

Really interesting; I hadn't thought of this but it makes a lot of sense. Once you answer all those many, many questions, then what do you DO with all that information? How do you take it all in and come to some answer with that much data?

This is important: the idea that the internet will give voice to the marginalized is undermined by the "free speech" model being used on many tech platforms.

I didn't know this...it fits so well. In my limited experience with FB I felt like it was still a place where one was trying to be "liked" (literally).

Is there a way to use these platforms against such purposes? I have gotten off of FB because I wasn't getting value out of the algorithms (they were just annoying to me), but I still use Twitter because I think I can engage with it in a way that doesn't have to support or promote polarization or problematic discussions in other ways. Can we resist the polarization from within?

It does help that I use a Twitter app that doesn't involve any algorithms, no ads, no "Moments" (I don't even really know what those are...I just heard the name and briefly did a web search).

Still, given that these platforms only stick around if they are able to be profitable, and polarization (among other things) drives profits, the platforms themselves could never be used on a grand scale for something else; if they weren't being used as intended by those funding them, if profits weren't being made, then the platforms would cease to exist.

Been slowly moving away from Twitter to Mastodon...still stuck on Twitter sometimes though. And I don't know what else is available for videos besides YouTube!

I'm sad to admit it, but I didn't really get this until reading this post. So, I'm glad for the post, but sorry for my own previous ignorance. I think I kind of vaguely got it, but not deeply until now.

The issue I'm seeing around this at the moment is that such skills aren't "owned" by any particular area of the university (at least in my own context) and so they may fall by the wayside. Such skills are needed by all students, but in which classes will they get them? Philosophy? English? History?...we don't have even anything like "communications." Maybe such skills should be part of many courses, but sometimes it's a hard sell when departments think they have their own, already-existing curricula to focus on.

Right now we do have a nice website for such skills called "Digital Tattoo," put together by students. But it's not part of an official curriculum that I know of. https://digitaltattoo.ubc.ca/

Just curious why higher ed is the key source here; is it because most of us involved so far have been from higher ed, or is there some other reason why higher ed should be so central?

I wonder how much of this is due to commercialization/focus on advertising and making a profit? That seems to be what so much of social media is about these days, and also much of the web for that matter.

Good point. this, along with the last sentence of the paragraph, that open is not the opposite of private, help us to focus on the idea of open as access and agency--students having the agency to contribute to public knowledge, but also the agency to decide not to if they wish.

How might one think that it is so complicit? Also not quite getting this one...

I am not sure what this means...a little help, please? The language is a bit too abstract for me (and I'm a philosopher!).

This could maybe be something like a definition of open pedagogy, from these authors? Recognizing that any definition is not comprehensive and thoughts about these issues are in flux.

I really like this point, that knowledge creation is a social justice issue. The next sentence really drives it home and makes a lot of sense to me.

Interesting point. Once we start talking about access through textbook costs, we open the door to faculty thinking about access in the other ways listed above too.

Okay, well, maybe this answers my previous question ... ;)

I have often wondered about this--a number of things that many of us are excited about re: open pedagogy are also part of other pedagogical theories. So I wonder: what is "open pedagogy" adding to the other views? What does "open" bring that the others don't?

typo: should be Nicholson

typo: should be Nicholson

Does this go against what says below, which focuses on the author/writer anyway?

This paragraph is mostly focused on the authority of the author. But it's not always about that; it could be a reliable author who has gotten misled by bad sources. Rheingold does also say check the author's sources, but the focus here is still mostly on the author. I would put it more on the sources of what the author is saying, I think. Even if I don't know the author, the sources could still be trustworthy.

Again this raises questions for me: why do they want this kind of data? How is location data helpful to them? Why are they interested in marketing campaigns? Maybe to market their own service, or for something else?

What I'm reading so far raises the following general point for me: it would be useful if policies like these not only said what they collect, but also why, for what purposes. That does come up below, of course, but such statements are always pretty vague--things like: "to make our services better," or "to improve user experience," or stuff like that that means very little.

does this only apply if you access it on the web? Not sure how it could be done if you're using an app on desktop or mobile...

need to hang CSS code onto something on the page.

e.g., you can hang CSS on a "class" id is similar to a class, except you can only have one ID of that name on a page, but you can have mutliple things with same class on one page.

If you set a class like "post-title" to a colour, then it will change all things of that class.

You can make it more specific by, say, looking at the next link in the hierarchy like div.post-header, so only post titles with that div. will be changed.

if you want a screenshot, find screenshot file in file directory for theme and the make screenshot for it.

Dowload this; looks useful. Can see changes you make to CSS on your page like preview for themes.

Integrated Developer Environment

This lets you write CSS in shorthand and they translate into full CSS

Download this--looks useful.

Really useful for trying things out on a bigger sitewide level. Using the dev panel doesn't work if you refresh the page, but this does.

But this only works for your own browser; it doesn't change the page itself for others.

Whereas with "undo" you have to keep doing it until you get to the thing you want to fix. With this you can just take out the thing you don't want and leave the rest. Among other things...

I don't do enough of this! Need to emphasize self-assessment more.

Need to have these three things to do active learning well: get info, practice/have experience, reflect.

And I'm betting that through this experience, even if they didn't pass a test, they learned a great deal just from studying and talking about and writing about challenging and thought-provoking texts! Not just in their language ability, but in the sense of widening their understanding of their social context, themselves, other people, etc.

This is an interesting (if saddening) example--saddening because of the reminder that too many assessments are like the hypothetical MC exam. However, though I'm seeing the deliberative posing here, I'm not seeing the wobble. I took these two examples to be of the P/W/F cycle, but I mostly see the P.

Upon re-reading, it seems the W is in one's being faced with a mandate that doesn't sit well with one's principles or considered practices, so is the wobble in the uncertainty of how to react?

I think I've been thinking of wobble differently, like when you're doing teaching and learning practices that have worked in the past and things have changed so now they aren't working so well in a particular case, or when you decide to try something new and it doesn't work as you had hoped.

This is really powerful to me, not only because of the idea that in order to push beyond the status quo of your practice, to work towards doing things better you should expect that things are going to feel uncertain, but also because of the idea that both instructor and students need to learn to be comfortable with this.

BUT the problem is that in some ways it might be harder for students to get used to this idea, or to deal with wobbles, because so much rides on them understanding what is going on in the class so they can do well. As much as we teachers risk in wobbling, students may risk more when they experience it (or at least feel more anxious because they perceive their grades to be so important?).

Indeed. And so it's important to pay attention to the context. In the university context at UBC, we do expect that students will be paraphrasing correctly, won't have a whole paragraph out of 20 of an essay be in someone else's words w/o citation, etc.

Here too, as above. It's still a problem, and it's still misconduct. The difference is that when students are really trying to adapt well and aren't doing it correctly, it's an honest mistake that we treat differently in terms of response. But it's still misconduct, officially.

Yes, I think it does. We differ on this, as do many in first year programs in the Faculty of Arts at UBC at least. Students have gotten zeroes on essays with that amount. We do think that this still counts as a problem, and would call it "academic dishonesty."

This question is asked purely out of ignorance in that I don't know if this is true at all or not: could it be that many people don't recognize it's happening, even at the faculty level? I admit to not having known this was a problem at any postsecondary institution, but maybe that's b/c I work at an "R1" institution. I didn't know it was happening at CC's, or elsewhere. Indeed, it might even be happening at my campus and I don't even know.

But perhaps the question is: for those who DO know about it, why is it not seen as a problem? Then the answers given here apply. But I wonder how many faculty and students are aware?

Similar to what @BMBOD has said, why must this defining be done from one side only? Why can the relationship not be negotiated with all the parties involved? If I were in a relationship where one person took it upon him/herself to define it for me, without any input on my part, I would quickly recognize there is something seriously wrong with the relationship.

But the tone of the article suggests that the only thing students can "choose" to do is to listen to the prof and follow the relationship as defined by the prof. So there is very little room here for things being "up to you [students]."

I am reminded of how I and some other faculty in my experience have reacted when we are told how things are going to be from above, without any chance at input. Depending on the context, sometimes the reaction has been very negative--why can't there be more collaboration in this power relationship? Why can't we have a say?

Why should our students feel differently?

Ah, here is an answer to a question I asked above. Should read through before annotating! :)

Can students do their own annotations on a particular work that others are also annotating, so that they are not all seen by each other? I know you can make them "private" but then can you share them all with a teacher, for example? I'm guessing that in Amanda Licastro's case, the students annotated articles that others were not also annotating, and then just used "public" so the teacher could see them.