Hi Leigh, My view is that TQF need not necessarily mean replacing of NQFs, where as we can further strengthen the NQFs by identifying learning outcomes etc which would be internationally accepted and that could naturally establish healthy bonds between TQF and NQFs. Here TQF will function as a meta-data model.
Moreover, in education, every thing is connected, but the connections may be some times very complex and may not be easily understandable by learners, teachers and other stakeholders especially the labour market. Therefore, I think, one of the major tasks of Educators involved in TQF is to streamline these connections regularly to ensure that they are connected in most systematic/logical way. Possibly you can talk more facts about it from OP experience. In fact, this kind of a protocol is already in practice as part of Transnational or Borderless Education being promoted by many internationally accepted academic bodies/institutions and even business firms as well. Anil On Oct 29, 12:21 am, "Leigh Blackall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thank you for your perspective Anil, I hope more will share theirs on this, > however briefly if it is seen as a time wasting thread. It is helping me to > think things through on a bigger picture level, even though I have gone > ahead and edited the Wikipedia entry so it is consistent with other entries, > and see that other edits have followed. > > I am not apposed to mentioning Wayne as the founder - nor including > reference to COL, UNESCO and HF. I was apposed to the significance those > pieces of information had over and at the expense of any other information > about the project. > > To me, the idea of a single curriculum is of grave concern - and I always > took it as just careless language (haven spoken to Wayne personally about > it) and that it would be rectified sooner than it has. In countries where > colonisation is a very sensitive issue, such as Australia and New Zealand > (but certainly not limited to those as you know), such a statement of > singularity would be the very thing that prevents engagement. Indeed, it is > associations like this that is one of the reasons that most my network > (prior to participating in the Wikieducator project) has not followed me > into Wikieducator. This has troubled and perplexed me for a long time, > thinking it to be mere technical or usability issues. > > While I have come to appreciate some of the new connections that the > Wikieducator project has given me, I think my history in this email forum > shows a great many issues I have brought up that have exhausted a huge > amount of everyone's time in debating here, not the least my own. Almost all > of these issues have largely remained unresolved. The only good that I can > see coming out of argument is the opportunity to clarify the expression of a > position, but to what end? > > > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 9:51 PM, Anil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi friends, > > > There is nothing wrong in mentioning the founder in the very beginning > > of the topic, you can see thousands of such articles that are well > > read on www. Nothing that is man-made happens in the world without a > > sparkling thought in somebody's mind who has the initiative to trigger > > action for making it a reality. It is such initiators who become > > founders. Let us accept this fact and deliver the beauty and worth of > > mutual trust, recognition and consideration that are the crux of the > > very existence of human societies. . > > > Founders can bring in the support of very big institutions into the > > project. Neither it prevents any one from placing a reference or photo > > of the founder at the opening of the article about the project nor it > > any way reduces the importance of organizational partners.These are > > the ways societies express its gratitude to those who provide valuable > > social services. > > > ''WikiEducator is a community project working collaboratively with the > > Free Culture Movement towards a free version of the education > > curriculum by 2015'' is a well accepted vision statement of the > > project. We are all attracted to the project via that vision. I don't > > see any reason to dispute it now. Let us not disrupt the decorum for > > no reason. > > > Finally about the anxiety over the curriculum, I think, since it is a > > wiki project, there may not have any restrictions in thinking about > > different national curricula and connecting them to an international > > movement. Let us itry to see the faces of billions and billions of > > poor to whom the free and open educational material that we are > > developing would become godsend...then the trivial issues may > > disappear in void for we have no time to waste. > > > Anil > > > On Oct 28, 1:03 pm, "Leigh Blackall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Offense most certainly taken, and thank you Patricia, things are much > > > clearer now. I'm sorry you see my concerns as destructive and personally > > > motivated. For the record, I have made no such accusations of Wayne but > > > acknowledge that it is very difficult not to. As long as Wayne is the > > > central figure complete with thumbnail image, I suppose my criticism of > > the > > > message that is out there about Wikieducator (such as the Wikipedia page) > > > inevitably becomes personal. > > > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Patricia Schlicht <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >wrote: > > > > > ……Or could it be that I am completely out of touch with Wikieducator > > and > > > > need to… > > > > > No offense intended, Leigh, but I think you seriously need to find the > > true > > > > essence of the project again, so you don't only talk and completely > > > > overanalyze anything and everything, seeing things were there are none, > > > > making assumptions and coming to conclusions that are completely out of > > the > > > > sky. > > > > > You seem to become what Open Educational resources formerly gave a bad > > > > reputation. While your intentions might be well-intended, you are > > reaching > > > > the opposite of what you are trying to achieve. You don't raise issues, > > > > rather eye-brows and not the first time. > > > > > Your unfounded and completely ridiculous accusations of Wayne's > > intentions > > > > only goes to show that you have absolutely no idea what is involved or > > what > > > > the goal of the project is. It seems to me that you are only out to > > > > discredit the good that has been done and in such a way that the rest > > of us > > > > can only shake their head and credit it to your youth. > > > > > I think you are personally motivated and/or threatened which is why you > > > > want to ensure you get to ruin the project by inflicting nonsense into > > > > people's heads. There are 1000s of people out there who you slap in the > > face > > > > with often very negative comments. Ever thought about this? > > > > > WikiEducator is a fantastic project. Sure, there is lots to be done and > > > > many improvements to be made. There is no one here who wants to > > overpower > > > > anyone, Wayne not in particular. He would never do anything that isn't > > done > > > > with integrity. He is a person of high values which he honors. > > > > > Leigh, you are knowledgeable guy and your expertise is needed….as part > > of > > > > big team…what are you trying to do???! > > > > > My friend, seriously, I understand you got your fires burning, but I > > also > > > > think you are running in the wrong direction and have lost any > > objectivity > > > > in this matter. > > > > > ….or maybe this is one of your attempts to stir up controversy?...Not a > > > > very productive way of doing this, if that's the case. The key is > > *"...working > > > > collaboratively with everyone…", *so suggest changes instead of > > > > "badgering" the author. > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Patricia > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > *From:* wikieducator@googlegroups.com [mailto: > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *Leigh Blackall > > > > *Sent:* Monday, October 27, 2008 8:02 PM > > > > *To:* wikieducator@googlegroups.com > > > > *Subject:* [WikiEducator] Re: Another Milestone > > > > > Thanks for the pointer to the Wikipedia page about Wikieducator Anil > > > > > I feel very unsettled by it - particularly: > > > > > 1. the celebration of an individual above all else (rather than > > simply > > > > in the history), > > > > 2. its strong references to COL, UNESCO and Hewlet Foundation (above > > > > other partners who can show a far greater contribution to the > > project than > > > > any of those), > > > > 3. and its quotation of that perplexing, even frightening line that > > > > SOME (one) wikieducator Users choose to use, to the detriment of the > > > > project: *"...working collaboratively with the free culture > > movement< > >http://console.mxlogic.com/redir/?mjhOCyYMeodIL6zBYQsCzAQsLCM0vMUN8H9...>towards > > a free version of the education curriculum. > > > > *" > > > > > Obviously, we are not talking about developing a single curriculum!.. > > are > > > > we? If we are, I'm out now. If we are not, then can we please > > systematically > > > > go through every piece of PR out there and correct it to something more > > > > acceptable: *"...working collaboratively with everyone towards the > > > > development free versions of education curricula for everyone.*" > > > > > As for the reference to central bodies like COL, UNESCO, A "free > > culture > > > > movement" and even Hewlet Foundation, I think these should not be > > included > > > > in an graphical box heading the article, and should merely be listed > > along > > > > with all other contributing organisations, as is consistant with other > > > > Wikipedia articles for similar projects like Wikiversity< > >http://console.mxlogic.com/redir/?2OqekQnC1P1JBUQsLCzAQsCzBYS03-7695p...>. > > > > > Could it be that Wikieducator PR is designed to sell the project to > > > > specific funding bodies at the expense of a balanced and accurate > > account of > > > > what Wikieducator really is? Seems to me that the Wikipedia entry is in > > need > > > > of some serious wikification< > >http://console.mxlogic.com/redir/?5AQsFELc3C3rbNEVvd79EVd7bVI07YeciaO...>! > > > > Or could it be that I am completely out of touch with Wikieducator and > > need > > > > to rethink my association to it? > > > > > Off to start an edit war in Wikipedia I suspect... > > > > > On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 9:57 PM, NELLIE DEUTSCH < > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Randy, > > > > What a wonderful date: Valentine's Day and my husband's birthday. > > > > > Warm wishes, > > > > Nellie Deutsch > > > > Doctoral Student > > > > Educational Leadership > > > > Curriculum and Instruction > > > >http://www.nelliemuller.com< > >http://console.mxlogic.com/redir/?1pd7aqbP0VwSOYqenPhOqejhO-r01gYY-nG...> > > > >http://www.integrating-technology.com/pd< > >http://console.mxlogic.com/redir/?2OqekQnC1P1JBUQsLCzAQsCzBYS02B2vAoX...> > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "WikiEducator" group. To visit wikieducator: http://www.wikieducator.org To visit the discussion forum: http://groups.google.com/group/wikieducator To post to this group, send email to wikieducator@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
