[tomasdore]

I agree with you, James, that the structure is the value that makes it a course. So on that point I think we do want to call them courses rather than resources.

I think we can see how MIT originally started with OCW, seeing their material as resources. They have since got on board with edX, though their OCW still exists, so now they offer both. The difference is that you have to be a bit of an expert already to take good advantage of OCW, whereas the MITx offerings have fewer gaps between the resources – the learner is led through a more solid path.

Tom

[tomasdore]

Hi, James,

Certainly a good piece from Dr Devlin, thanks for linking to it.

I would have agreed more strongly prior to this weeks’ ocTEL activity; but…

The ‘if you do only one thing‘ activity has caused me to evaluate Saylor’s offering. The interesting aspect is that so much of Saylor’s offering already exists, as they prefer OERs as their first choice. The value Saylor adds, then, is to arrange resources into courses. The knitting process. So…

Isn’t Saylor’s model something of a rebuttal of the idea that resources trump courses? For we find that the arrangement of resources into courses is their main selling point.

I’m interested in your opinion on that question (or other colleagues’ opinions).

Thanks,

Tom.

 

[Author]

Posts