Like many of you, I just got back from ISTE. It was a good conference, and I had tons of great conversations with lots of folks. But like many formal learning experiences, it left me wondering, “Couldn’t we make better use of this time and money to drive more authentic learning experiences?”
Prior to ISTE, I’ve been thinking a lot about authentic, passion-driven learning and Bud Hunt’s brilliant new Center for Make/Hack/Play.
And in the last year, I’ve gotten involved in a lot of maker activities on a personal level.
Last night this all came together in a dream. It was of a make/hack/play space at ISTE.
So what would a mini maker faire for educators looks like? Does it even make sense to separate this out as an “ed” maker faire?
Washington state’s Office of Public Instruction is hiring an OER program manager for their new OER initiative.
According to their office:
This is a new position created to support implementation of Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill (E2SHB) 2337 passed and funded by the state Legislature during the 2012 Legislative session. E2SHB 2337 provides resources to OSPI related to developing a library of high-quality, openly licensed K-12 educational courseware that is aligned with the newly adopted Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for English language arts and mathematics.
The position will provide leadership and vision for OSPI’s OER project, communicate to school districts and other stakeholders, and lead in developing a library of openly licensed courseware aligned with the CCSS. The position is funded initially from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013. Continuation beyond June 30, 2013 will be based on continued legislative and/or private funding for the work.
I know that there is a wide divergence of opinions on what constitutes fair use.
I understand that many would like to stretch what is included in fair use or even do away with copyright altogether. I’m not unfriendly to those viewpoints, but I don’t think that in my sometimes role of providing information about copyright (and of course, open content) that that is the right viewpoint for me to espouse. We can all read the text of the law. Saying it should say something else is fine. Saying it does say something else seems unhelpful.
Perhaps because I am a rules-oriented type of girl, I tend to have a fairly literal interpretation. I stand by my assertion that most folks interpretation of fair use is much broader than what the law itself says. Some (well, at least one) have accused me of misinformation. While I don’t agree with that characterization, I am keenly interested in being accurate.
So, as I write a new piece on open content, I’d like some feedback to make sure I am being fair and accurate on this issue. I look forward to a spirited discussion. :)
[excerpt - DRAFT for comment]
There’s an endless supply of free content on the Internet. How is open different from everything else that is free? In the United States, any content that is not public domain (by virtue of its age or designation as such by the creator) is copyrighted, whether or not it is indicated as such. Generally, in order to reuse or redistribute copyrighted content, you must obtain the creator’s permission.*
* The exception to this is the murky area of fair use. While the purpose and character of use (e.g. nonprofit, educational) is one consideration, the law also considers the nature of the work (e.g. parody), the amount and substantiality of the use, and the effect of the use on the potential market use. Various organizations have translated this ambiguous language into defined ranges of acceptable use, but the law itself is gray. As derivative works are often being shared on the Internet (and leaving the classroom walls), fair use becomes less clear.
The point of this discussion is not to promote any particular interpretation of fair use, but to discuss alternatives to it, namely, open content.