Hi Declan -- in text below ... On May 5, 6:41 pm, Declan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Peter, > > I took a quick look at some of the maturity model pages you linked > to. The approach looks interesting and I agree that framing some > goals in the context of a rubric could have some advantages. I use a > rough rubric when assigning student wiki-writing assignments. I see > flexibility as a key ingredient. > > A rubric setting benchmarks for successful content development would > of course serve as the guideline for peer review. However, it would > be important to build in enough flexibility to allow for excellence in > many different categories. In my own limited experience, I ask > students to make a math connection to a science lesson plan for > example. But some projects, like flower dissection, present a better > opportunity for an artistic connection. Why discourage a great > artistic or literary connection just to rigidly stick with math > (although I suppose we could count petals to sort the monocots from > the dicots).
You make a good point -- the criteria for a review process shouldn't be content driven -- but be able to accommodate the context for which the materials are intended. > > My point is that by building in flexibility to a rubric, we can avoid > fostering a boring bunch of formulaic, clonal pages. One advantage of > this WE format is that by collaborating broadly we can bring our > diverse skill sets to bear on the content of the pages. AGREE! > > Wayne, thanks for getting the discussion page going and updating it. > Do you have a sense for whether we should post here, there, or both? > And this is exciting! No worries -- This development shows the dynamic and commitment of our open community. Its also very exciting and to some extent an indication of the maturity of OUR collective project. > So, if a project is peer reviewed, done, and dusted as they say, > should we retain a wiki version for flexibility and ongoing > collaboration, and also an archived PDF version of acknowledged > quality? And if we keep a PDF version, do we want to go one step > beyond, and get a DOI, volume and page number and call it a journal? > Would that fly in the face of the 'open' piece of OER? Would keeping > a wiki version preserve the 'openness'? Flagged revisions (see the link on the QA page is a technology that will support both the developmental version as well as the polished peer reviewed version in the same environment. This will be able to choose between the cutting edge development or latest peer reviewed version. The wiki keeps track of every edit -- so at a technical level this is all doable. Cheers Wayne > > Good night! > Declan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WikiEducator" group. To post to this group, send email to wikieducator@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
