Define key questions/considerations the Open 2020 Working Group should address.
Who is missing? Work products?
Chris B, Hunt, MJ, Curt
** **
Group also wants to include incentives. Value Propositions definitely good, too; what value propositions work for each constituency, where do they conflict vs. align? Definitions of Open, not worth working on - use Budapest definition? (ask Nicole, Peter S)
Who is missing? Keep it from being too elite
- Meetings not just at MIT and Hewlett
- Engaging state and public ed leaders - e.g. SUNY, CUNY (Mark McBride), ASU global freshman academy
- Faculty who are actually doing it
- Norman Bier
- Richard Sebastian / Achieving the Dream, cc initiative
- Google - Jamie Casap
- Quality Matters - Deb Adair, OER process for quality control
- ISKME
- Employers - they can contribute to the content, or they'll go around higher ed
- Publishers - various types, comm'l journal, textbook, university presses, OAJournal
Metric: public ed wants access and outcomes
Some value propositions for Open
- Cuts the tether to time and space - learn when, where, how you want
- Modularity to custom ordering to stacking into solid credential
Questions of scope:
- Expand beyond higher ed only vs high school also?
- Expand beyond US centric to global?
Work products:
- ?