Hello @paulstacey , regards and thank you and the OEG crew to support these necessary conversations.
Let me hang on to this idea of value, because its emerged in the curriculum alignment work and why I went back to the Reusability Paradox. I was amazed with the possibility to create these offline OER channels, bundling and sequencing OER at ease to meet the official learning outcomes, creating robust and extensive solutions, in our K-12 chilean-aligned channel ended aligning 2000 OER. But as I tried to see how this set could be used … many questions emerged: are there too many?, should we balance the number of OER per objective?, to what depth can we treat a learning objective?, this is more relevant to learners or teachers? So basically went back to the paradox and rethink the tradeoff: how can effective and quality OER also have impact in different contexts.
I totally agree that openness provides the end users the possibility of the 5R’s with OER or the collection of them to fit the best way possible their specific needs and context, so they can be effective. But also, the other side of the paradox, those looking to reuse to scale and create “cars” that can be effective and have positive impact.
And openness is also a great answer, as you could also modify, extend, curate, improve, etc. these larger sets of aligned OER. But to do that, and many more open practices, not only requires expertise and skills from users, but also needs
a flexible and trusting infrastructure to support, replicate, expand, design for remix, etc.
In this days of discussion we’ve talked about collaborative and participatory platforms (like the Kolibri Studio), digital content, open licensing schema, interoperable technical standards … all components to a (open) infrastructure to support the power of open in K-12. How can countries/communities count on such infrastructure? But maybe more important and difficult, how can this infrastructure be sustainable over time? Any thoughts you can share on that for the K-12 context? Thanks again!!