Remove 2007 Remove Advocacy Remove Article Remove OER
article thumbnail

On ZTC, OER, and a More Expansive View

Iterating Toward Openness

For the first decade of the modern open education movement (1998 – 2007), the distinguishing feature of our work – the thing we cared most about and talked most about – was the open licensing we applied to educational materials. Other schools have OER policies and OER degree programs. grey below). green below).

OER 112
article thumbnail

Do We Need a National Open Education Strategy?

Iterating Toward Openness

Flat World Knowledge began publishing “open textbooks” in 2007, and Connexions at Rice changed their name to OpenStax and started publishing open textbooks in 2012. Of course innovation with OER didn’t actually stop with openly licensed traditional textbooks. And that’s essentially where innovation stopped.

Strategy 155
Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Colleges Are Striking Bulk Deals With Textbook Publishers. Critics Say There Are Many Downsides.

Edsurge

And of course there are other vendors, like Elsevier and Wiley (like Jones Soda and RC) and openly-licensed resources known as OER, or open education resources (which are something like a Sodastream homebrew). If you make it too expensive, colleges are going to look harder at OER,” she said. Who Owns Student Data?

Pearson 124
article thumbnail

The 2019 Global Education Conference - Full List of 130 Sessions and 10 Keynotes!

The Learning Revolution Has Begun

Content and Curriculum Creator, Project Explorer Creating OER-s and Interactive STEM Applications in Mathematics Higher Education , Lucie Mingla Math Educator, New York City College of Technology, CUNY Cross-cultural alignments, fertilization, differentiation: Bridging the gaps through technology , Melda N. Kristin Hundt, Teacher.

article thumbnail

The 100 Worst Ed-Tech Debacles of the Decade

Hack Education

The implication, according to one NYT article : “the digital gap between rich and poor kids is not what we expected.” The real digital divide, this article contends, is not that affluent children have access to better and faster technologies. (Um, Um, they do.) This “reverse engineering,” the publishers claimed, violated copyright.

Pearson 145