Hi there,
Thanks to all those who have replied on and off list regarding why they chose not to bid for projects 1 and 2. I'm hoping to collate these responses and write them up into a blog post next week. Hopefully we can learn something from the experience!
In the meantime here are a couple of thoughts off the top of my head. Brandon mentioned that he expected project one to be "akin to what Norm Friessen did in his studies for CanCore" In actual fact we were looking for something quite different. We were hoping that by undertaking semantic analysis or text mining a sufficiently large body of educational metadata we would start to see data and relationships emerging that we had not previously been aware of and which can not easily be uncovered by straight comparative analysis or cross walking. Perhaps we might have had a different response if we'd pitched this call at text mining or data analysis communities, if such things exist. I don't know, perhaps, perhaps not. I suspect that Dan may have been on to something when he suggested that these projects are maybe a little bit out of people's comfort zones.
Amber Thomas at JISC and I have discussed various option regarding whether and how to pursue work of this nature. We haven't come to any conclusions yet so please keep sending any thoughts you may have to the list, all your comments are of great value.
Cheers
Lorna
________________________________________
From: Daniel Rehak [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 14 April 2011 17:17
To: Open Educational Resources
Cc: Lorna Campbell
Subject: Re: Mini Projects: Why no bids for projects 1 and 2? Hmm?
So I'll start a response, and it's for both projects.
1. Do you think these projects are not important, or not of value to your community or institution?
No, I think they are both important, but I like #1 more than #2. But in the bigger scheme of things, they are the same -- looking at the data we have available and making sense of it.
2. Do you think these projects are not achievable?
As pilots, very achievable
3. Do you think these are interesting projects but didn't know how to approach them?
I know what I would do
4. Do you lack the skills or resources to undertake projects of this kind?
As a one person team, maybe not enough mashup programming skills to make get everything done that I would envision in the solution
5. Were you put off by the bidding procedure?
No
6. Were you put off by the level of funding?
No
7. Did you just not get round to writing a proposal?
In part. Also in part since these are close to Learning Registry ideas, I was hoping someone else would take an independent view on them and provide some wonderful new insights.
If you have any other comments or suggestions regarding this call please do let us know.
So I'll be candid -- in my view, the submissions were pretty main stream in terms of how they view the repository and content ecosystem; not to say that this is bad. As I noted before, I was hoping to see something completely unexpected come forth as ideas. So I do wonder if #1 and #2 are outside of people's current comfort zones and models of how the ecosystem works.
- Dan
--
Lorna M. Campbell
JISC CETIS Assistant Director
University of Strathclyde
Glasgow
Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Phone: +44141 548 3072<tel:%2B44141%20548%203072>
Skype: lorna120768
The University of Strathclyde is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, number SC015263.
--
Daniel R. Rehak, Ph.D.
ADL Technical Advisor
Skype: drrehak
Email: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
Twitter: @danielrehak
Web: learningregistry.org<http://learningregistry.org>
adlnet.gov<http://adlnet.gov>
lsal.org<http://lsal.org>
Google Voice: +1 412 301 3040
Tel: +1 412 931 7317
Work: +1 412 931 7319
Mob: +1 412 805 7683
|
