One of the issues we often face is trying to understand who our different audiences are (we think we have several) and what those audiences different purposes are (sharing content, working together collaboratively, finding whole courses or units, modifying and creating collections to suit their needs) and then what kinds of tools to give to each type of user.

I think what’s relevant in terms of the questions raised here is that different people can use the wiki, or use group tools, or use open source resources, to do different things. We found that our group tools and wiki resources have been popular (and are starting to be more popular) with school districts who are seeking a way to both collaborate on curriculum development and also memorialize what they do to share it with other educators in their schools and districts (and also, we hope, educators around the world). Working in a group, users can also set their own controls for how they work together, how they review materials, work flow, etc. The model also works when a single teacher uses the content and the tools to create a collection of resources from the repository. While a collection is not strictly a curriculum, it can be used to help guide one, as it can contain objectives, teacher and student-facing resources, standards, and assessments.

Another point I want to make is that there doesn’t have to be one, single, overarching curriculum on any one topic and that’s what makes the use of wiki collaboration so compelling. At Curriki we’ve created a content roadmap that outlines a complete K-12 curriculum in the core subject areas. We are trying to get people to contribute open source content to cover each of the areas outlined on our roadmap. But what we really hope is that we get multiple contributions for each topic so that people searching for resources don’t have to use one and only one curriculum on a topic, but can pick and choose among different approaches and different resources that suit their student’s needs and their teaching styles. Using the wiki, they can take the best-of and mix, remix, and match and that’s where the real power comes in!

Anne

I was fascinated to read your post about open content, and Bill’s (of FunnyMonkey) response, as well.

Without question there are processes available to bring together content and make it available for use, re-use etc. You point out, if I read you correctly, that the missing element is context: what to do with all this “stuff”? Is it right for me? Where’s the substance/meaning?

And this is where the conversation gets really interesting: what about the role of the teacher in providing what Bill terms “recontextualization”? That’s the nut I’ve been working on cracking for some time now, along with marrying the interests of content contributors (from the commercial to the individual), professors in a classroom setting, and, of course, students.

Anyway, no doubt there’s change coming but if you ask me it won’t happen properly until 1) context is added to the aggregation process and 2) the interests of content creators, professors and students are all aligned. The second point is critical because we have to consider the importance of getting contextualized & customized best-of-breed content to students in order to advance learning objectives.

I think I’ve basically just re-stated your post but it got me all fired up since I’ve dedicated a great deal of time to the subject…

All the best,

I.

Guys,

Appreciate your comments, and Sylvia, I think Open is what you mean in both senses

Open Source and Open Content have many parallels. The concept of Open applies to both in our case. I realize the significance of the Silos in your original post, and in Bill’s follow ups. I think that the silos have a purpose, and curriculum is not those things – as I think you’d agree.

But, curriculum can reference, connect and leverage an eclectic mix of resources, and some of it will certainly be pointing to specific objects or documents in those unorganized silos. YouTube is a classic silo example. The curriculum is what ties those things together, The curriculum is the guiding force. Our teachers mine YouTube for what they need to help convey ideas and concepts in that curriculum.

However, the openness of the code – ability to view and change the code – in software – also applies to our idea of an “Open Content Curriculum”. The intentionality is also user defined by those in the organization, or our “users”.

Seven years ago, our curriculum “developers” , to use Eric Raymond’s terminology in the Cathedral and the Bazaar, were the textbook manufacturers, software and materials developers that most districts use. Now our developers are our users

This approach would not be suitable for all districts, of course. When I do presentations about our collaborative curriculum projec I like to pull in here “Conway’s Law”. He was a programmer who can be very roughly paraphrased as having said:

“Organizations tend to create things that resemble their internal communications structures – Melvin Conway – 1968″

BSSD is a really open organization when compared to most school districts. We still use resources from textbook companies and software developers, but we define the common threads that link the curriuclum together through our standards.

This allows teachers the professional freedom to use an ecclectic mix of resources from wherever they need to – including YouTube, Rice’s Connexions project, and so on – in order to help students learn. And students are encouraged to CONTRIBUTE, not just consume those resources in demonstrating mastery.

So, I hope this helps you understand that in our case the idea of “Open” applies to both the editable nature of the curriculum, and the user-guided definition of intent and direction.

Regards,

John

I wish I could take credit for “content silo” — I don’t know who coined the term, but it was someone far brighter than me. I first heard it when working on issues around online identity, and I find it useful as a way of looking at how companies approach their users/members.

AOL? Content Silo.
Facebook? Content Silo.
Ning? Content Silo.
Hippocampus? Content Silo.

@John — I love the work that you are doing in your district. Amazing stuff. I particularly like your description of curriculum as process, and how that incorporates the notion of intentional community.

Cheers,

Bill

I tried to make that distinction in my post, and keep it a readable length, but maybe that wasn’t clear enough!

By using the word “open” in the title and body of the post, I wasn’t referring to the common ability of all wikis to be openly edited, but to the idea that some wikis are there without any guiding hand, and become what Bill cleverly labeled “content silos” – wish I’d thought of that term!

Our 1,700 student, K-12 district has actually moved into a collaborative curriculum development model that has been very successful so far, and uses MediaWiki.

Although it is a work in progress, we have around 10,000 pages of teacher and student created, standards-based content, supporting materials that have been uploaded, and disussion pages created. Resources are referenced to teach the standards, and these come from a range of approaches, and appeal to a wide variety of teaching and learning styles.

The site is open to all, not just district employees and students, and has several thousand users from inside and outside the district. It operates as our OFFICIAL curriculum. Here. For us.

The parallels between Open Source and Open Content Curriculum have been a linchpin of this effort, and Eric Raymond is frequently cited

I’ve enjoyed this post and the comment thread, but I believe and have seen that collaborative curriuculum development using wiki tools CAN and DOES work.

I also disagree on the idea that this idea is based on an essential misunderstanding of curriculum. Curriculum is not a product, but a process. Refinement of what is needed to be know, and how to learn it is a dynamic process.

Intentional organizations define these things, and don’t buy them. But they don’t in reality start with a blank slate. They copy, rip and burn them….no matter if they are using print or digital techniques to do so.

A curriculum is not a collection of resources. That truly IS a misunderstanding. But living, user-created and -maintained standards allow an organization to continually refine the resources which support that curriculum, and fit the needs of that organization’s users as designers.

What is missing from Sylvia’s argument, I think, is the definition of who the curriculum is for….what schoold or learners does it serve? is it supposed to be a universal curriculum? For ALL? Then she is right. A wiki-based universal curriculum would not become THE Curriculum any more than one build of Linux would likely become THE Linux Build.

Regards,

John