I think it'd be great to implement some features into Moodle that allows it to facilitate opencourseware. To me the only real requirement would be this addition: the ability to tag learning resources and activities as "open", meaning guests can access those, as opposed to "private" or "closed" or whatever term to indicate that it's for registered students only.
For instance, I'd want to be able to tag resources as closed if they are protected under copyright laws against use outside of TEACH or Fair Use; I'd want to be able to tag activities as closed for the most part as I don't want to deal with guests completing activities (or possibly even viewing them unless they are registered).
Along the same lines it'd be great to have the ability to tag resource copyright status in preparation for tagging as "open".
I'm working on the Open University's open content initiative, and we're planning to use Moodle to deliver our open content - going live in October 2006.
What we're doing though is to host the open content on a separate Moodle installation from our virtual learning environment for registered students, and then just using guest access on the open content server. The actual material for open content is being edited to remove any "closed" material.
We're going to offer multi-authentication so that our registered students can dip into the open content without registering, but allowing the world at large to self-register if they want to take part in discussions or store activity results.
Would that approach be any use to you?
What we're doing though is to host the open content on a separate Moodle installation from our virtual learning environment for registered students, and then just using guest access on the open content server. The actual material for open content is being edited to remove any "closed" material.
We're going to offer multi-authentication so that our registered students can dip into the open content without registering, but allowing the world at large to self-register if they want to take part in discussions or store activity results.
Would that approach be any use to you?
I think that's the best approach one could take with the current version of Moodle, but I expect the ability to provide both versions on the same box in the same course using 'open' or 'closed' identifiers would be far better. Thoughts?
I agree with you Jared, offering the ability to tag objects in moodle should be kept to a single release. Additional features, like the ones mentioned, would be greatly appreciated by the OpenCourseWare community.
Your suggestion is sensible if you're offering the opencourseware with exactly the same content as you're offering to paying students.
At the OU, we're offering more material online for open content than currently sits on our VLE (although that is likely to change over time) and we're going through an editorial process on much of the content to remove references to other sections of the course, or other courses, that are not currently available as open content. For example, if you say in some text "as you have learnt in activity 4", but activity 4 is closed, then they haven't learnt at all and you need to teach them in some other way to ensure that the open content fulfils its learning objectives.
Because this means the content is different, for us it makes sense to have two servers. However this could change over time so I wouldn't argue against what you're trying to do, but I thought it might be useful to explain what we're doing here.
At the OU, we're offering more material online for open content than currently sits on our VLE (although that is likely to change over time) and we're going through an editorial process on much of the content to remove references to other sections of the course, or other courses, that are not currently available as open content. For example, if you say in some text "as you have learnt in activity 4", but activity 4 is closed, then they haven't learnt at all and you need to teach them in some other way to ensure that the open content fulfils its learning objectives.
Because this means the content is different, for us it makes sense to have two servers. However this could change over time so I wouldn't argue against what you're trying to do, but I thought it might be useful to explain what we're doing here.
I strongly support Jared's idea. Maybe you can have a brief look on the following thread: Moodle and OpenCourseWare.
I would love to have the possibility to attribute different "views" or access rights to resources. (I got into more details in the thread mentioned above.)
From the end-user perspective, I see the advantages of Jenny's (the Open University's) approach. If it is well organised, the end-user will only be directd to open content, and never be disappointed by 'restricted' materials. From the perspective of the resources and production structures of a small university, which is experimenting with OpenCourseWare as well, I see it as burdensome and expensive to create different versions of a course, and a second installation for publishing open.
Different 'views' could also allow for more more subtle arrangements, e.g. distinguishing between private (individual), course participants, participants of a study programme (cohorts), and the general public.
What do you think?
Thomas
I would love to have the possibility to attribute different "views" or access rights to resources. (I got into more details in the thread mentioned above.)
From the end-user perspective, I see the advantages of Jenny's (the Open University's) approach. If it is well organised, the end-user will only be directd to open content, and never be disappointed by 'restricted' materials. From the perspective of the resources and production structures of a small university, which is experimenting with OpenCourseWare as well, I see it as burdensome and expensive to create different versions of a course, and a second installation for publishing open.
Different 'views' could also allow for more more subtle arrangements, e.g. distinguishing between private (individual), course participants, participants of a study programme (cohorts), and the general public.
What do you think?
Thomas
Absolutely. I think you're right on in all respects, though I would hope that "guests" would not actually see the elements that were not open--instead they would be hidden from guests, perhaps with a disclaimer at the top saying, "not all elements of this course are visible to guests".
I'm so determined to make this happen that I think I'm going to focus some of our developers efforts on seeing if we might modify the locked feature to add options for openness. Let me layout a version of what I mentioned before and get some feedback:
Now I'm not fully versed on the new "Locked" feature, but I imagine we could very naturally build onto the existing "Locked" feature by providing two additional options for both "resources" and "activities: "Open" or "Closed". "Open" means a piece open to both registered students and guests, provided that "Guest Access" is allowed for the course through the Control Panel. "Closed" means closed _only_ to guests (that is, only for registered students), provided, again, that "Guest Access" is allowed for the course.
Actually I don't like the term "Closed"--what would be a better term? Maybe, Private, Limited, Restricted, Exclusive, Shut, or maybe Fastened? Yeah, "fastened" seems to be the most neutral...
On a related note, I heard someone is working on meta-tagging elements (activities and resources) in terms of copyright status. We may need to use this as a basis for considering how we would mark the copyright status of "Closed" elements (for surely an element that was marked "copyright not cleared" could not be made "Open").
Several topics to answer:
hidden/restricted: both ways can work, but I would prefer something like "guests cannot access/read this resource". Something similar is done with a forum, where "guests can not contribute". (Actually, I have the problem of not being able to exclude guests from reading forum postings in a seminar, which can be quite sensitive. I would like more options here as well.)
"Locked" feature: where can I find it? I did not catch up with the latest developments in Moodle 1.6 yet. However, what you say sounds reasonable, especially if it can be done at the level of the individual resource/activity. (In the long run, I would even go beyond a binary system of open/closed, whishing to determine visibility of resources/activities for differented groups (e.g. group A/B/C, course, installation, guests).)
There are also some other debates in this forum on related issues, e.g. on permission systems, which might be of some help as well.
A feature for meta-tagging copyright status would be very helpful, indeed!
hidden/restricted: both ways can work, but I would prefer something like "guests cannot access/read this resource". Something similar is done with a forum, where "guests can not contribute". (Actually, I have the problem of not being able to exclude guests from reading forum postings in a seminar, which can be quite sensitive. I would like more options here as well.)
"Locked" feature: where can I find it? I did not catch up with the latest developments in Moodle 1.6 yet. However, what you say sounds reasonable, especially if it can be done at the level of the individual resource/activity. (In the long run, I would even go beyond a binary system of open/closed, whishing to determine visibility of resources/activities for differented groups (e.g. group A/B/C, course, installation, guests).)
There are also some other debates in this forum on related issues, e.g. on permission systems, which might be of some help as well.
A feature for meta-tagging copyright status would be very helpful, indeed!
The new roles & permissions system for 1.7 should help a lot here, both with access to particular resources/activities and the wider course level access. We may need to define a few extra roles specifically for opencourseware.
Have a look at the Moodle docs page at http://docs.moodle.org/en/Roles to see what they've got so far.
Have a look at the Moodle docs page at http://docs.moodle.org/en/Roles to see what they've got so far.
Jenny,
I have been looking at the roles section for the 1.7 release and would to propose a new role similar to a visitor role. This would be an Open/Community learner role.
The teacher/administrator would be able to add certain course objects to this role. This would give the instructor / administrator flexibility in what content this type of user will see.
I have been looking at the roles section for the 1.7 release and would to propose a new role similar to a visitor role. This would be an Open/Community learner role.
The teacher/administrator would be able to add certain course objects to this role. This would give the instructor / administrator flexibility in what content this type of user will see.
Martin D has asked people to post contributions into the Wiki, (see his post http://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=38788#209997).
Your suggestion sounds reasonable to me, although re-reading the wiki page it doesn't actually mention permissions at the object level, only at the resource level, so now I'm not sure if the new stuff will offer a solution.
Your suggestion sounds reasonable to me, although re-reading the wiki page it doesn't actually mention permissions at the object level, only at the resource level, so now I'm not sure if the new stuff will offer a solution.
I've just announced our beta version of an OpenCourseWare mod for Moodle 1.6 on the Moodle developer forum:
http://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=54086
http://moodle.org/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=54086