QUESTIONS: How can you build a sustainable business around giving away educational materials? How can you build a sustainable business model around giving away credentialed degrees? Should governments fund open education? (Do they already?)
The readings this week brought nice discussions on the concept of OER sustainability. I will cite here the definition that I thought was more complete and concise - According to Wiley (2007), sustainability is "(...) an open educational resource project's ongoing ability to meet its goals." Also, it is important to highlight that these goals are related to other issues, as mentioned by Koohang & Harman, 2007: "instructional design and presentation; cost of production and maintenance; support; and OER communities of practice as relate of scalability." Building sustainability must take into account those issues and may follow different funding models, according to particular circumstances and needs. Another point to consider is that the costs involved can be met with resources other than money, merely.
Although the resources arrive free of cost to the users (I do not particularly like the term "user" in educational context, but I will use it for a broader, general sense here) it does not mean that their production, delivery and review process are for free, as well. Funding can occur through diverse means.
Wiley (2007) cites different OER business models: MIT, USU and Rice. Wiley also cites different funding models - endowment, membership, donations, sponsorship, conversion, contributor-pay, institutional, government. These models point to different possibilities of OER sustainability.
As for the sustainability of giving away credentialed degrees, Downes mentions the co-development model (and he cites some innitiatives that involve Brazil). This model seems to be ideal and it makes reference to the community of users. Just a quick note here: this partnership model always seems to benefit one side better than the other, as I know from experience.
Should governments fund open education? Yes, sure, and some are already doing it. The Brazilian federal government has funded a nation-wide learning objects project through the Ministry of Education that is being developed by many public universities throughout the country. This project will make learning objects available for public fundamental education.
domingo, 21 de outubro de 2007
domingo, 14 de outubro de 2007
Week 7: Licensing Open Educational Resources
QUESTIONS: Can you think of license options that CC is currently missing that would benefit the open education movement? As the CC and GFDL licenses are incompatible, how can OCW content be legally remixed with Wikipedia content? Some people claim that the Creative Commons ShareAlike clause provides most of the protections people want to secure from the Creative Commons NonCommercial clause. What do you think these people mean, are they right, and why? Is copyleft good for the open education movement? Why or why not?
All right, before I start with the answers, some comments: As I was returning from Brazil this weekend where I attended the IVLA (International Visual Literacy Association) conference I saw inside the airplane (TAM) that they had this Brazilian Popular Culture Almanac (printed magazine). It is a very interesting publication and I noticed that it is under the Creative Commons license. The license restricts commercial reproduction of content and asks for contact in case someone wishes to do so. Right then I noticed that it really is a "some rights reserved" copyright.
Also, as I watched the video that mentions Brazilian musician (and politician) Gilberto Gil I was not surprised about his innitiative reported in the video ("take a bit and make it new"). Gilberto Gil is tunned with the Internet era and has many works that reflect on the changes in culture trigged by the new information society. Talking about culture, he is the current Minister of Culture in Brazil. He is in his second term (along with the president who got reelected) and could manage with the president to maintain some of his musical agenda. Gilberto Gil was also the mayor of Salvador( capital of the state of Bahia) some years ago. So, he is very much connected to the world of culture and its relation with politics.
It seems to me that CC is missing a lot in relation to free sharing of instructional resources. It seems to work well with cultural products, though. I got the impression from one of the videos that it can be customized, am I wrong?
CC is still very restrictive, still retains copyright, although it allows certain uses of the work. This is what keeps it from being fully in sync with the open education movement. It uses the term "free" in a monetary sense. It would benefit Open Education if it waived the restrictions on commercial uses and also on credits.
Wikipedia content is commited with free (in the sense of personal liberty) content version of education. The remix mentioned in the question would only happen under a share-alike provision of CC.
Well, those who claim that "the Creative Commons ShareAlike clause provides most of the protections people want to secure from the Creative Commons NonCommercial clause" might be wrong since CC allows for collaboration, use, sharing etc but at a certain extent. It is clear in keeping the non-commercial clause.
As for copyleft, which came from free documentation of software, it is good for the Open Education movement. It meets the free content definition and has the share-alike provision. Copyleft understands free in the sense of liberty and not in monetary grounds.
All right, before I start with the answers, some comments: As I was returning from Brazil this weekend where I attended the IVLA (International Visual Literacy Association) conference I saw inside the airplane (TAM) that they had this Brazilian Popular Culture Almanac (printed magazine). It is a very interesting publication and I noticed that it is under the Creative Commons license. The license restricts commercial reproduction of content and asks for contact in case someone wishes to do so. Right then I noticed that it really is a "some rights reserved" copyright.
Also, as I watched the video that mentions Brazilian musician (and politician) Gilberto Gil I was not surprised about his innitiative reported in the video ("take a bit and make it new"). Gilberto Gil is tunned with the Internet era and has many works that reflect on the changes in culture trigged by the new information society. Talking about culture, he is the current Minister of Culture in Brazil. He is in his second term (along with the president who got reelected) and could manage with the president to maintain some of his musical agenda. Gilberto Gil was also the mayor of Salvador( capital of the state of Bahia) some years ago. So, he is very much connected to the world of culture and its relation with politics.
It seems to me that CC is missing a lot in relation to free sharing of instructional resources. It seems to work well with cultural products, though. I got the impression from one of the videos that it can be customized, am I wrong?
CC is still very restrictive, still retains copyright, although it allows certain uses of the work. This is what keeps it from being fully in sync with the open education movement. It uses the term "free" in a monetary sense. It would benefit Open Education if it waived the restrictions on commercial uses and also on credits.
Wikipedia content is commited with free (in the sense of personal liberty) content version of education. The remix mentioned in the question would only happen under a share-alike provision of CC.
Well, those who claim that "the Creative Commons ShareAlike clause provides most of the protections people want to secure from the Creative Commons NonCommercial clause" might be wrong since CC allows for collaboration, use, sharing etc but at a certain extent. It is clear in keeping the non-commercial clause.
As for copyleft, which came from free documentation of software, it is good for the Open Education movement. It meets the free content definition and has the share-alike provision. Copyleft understands free in the sense of liberty and not in monetary grounds.
domingo, 7 de outubro de 2007
Week 6: Background Readings in Copyright and the Public Domain
QUESTIONS: Understanding the importance and value of the public domain, how much (what percentage) of this value would you estimate is realized when works are licensed with a Creative Commons or GFDL license? To what degree would the open educational resources movement (and therefore the world) be additionally benefited if OERs were simply placed in the public domain? Please explain.
The world of Copyright is so tricky. Well, I guess that the more I read about it the more I get confused, really. There are many details and situations to consider. But I think that Carroll and Pollock did a nice job trying to make the concepts digestible. I particularly liked Pollock's work "The Value of The Public Domain". It includes a nice discussion about on-line file sharing.
I also read on the Wikipedia about Creative Commons and I agree with this statement from Lawrence Lessig (founder of Creative Commons) about the dominant and restrictive permission culture: "(..) it is "a culture in which creators get to create only with the permission of the powerful, or of creators from the past". Lessig maintains that modern culture is dominated by traditional content distributors in order to maintain and strengthen their monopolies on cultural products (...)."
We live in a world that is so restrictive about the sharing of intelectual products. And it is not different from most anything that exists, actually.
Most of what we read deals with the conditions in the developed world. But what happens when we consider other places with more unstable economies? Brazil, for instance, and as far as I understand at least, also has similar copyright regulations. But there is equally as much confusion in relation to this issue. I will talk about a scenario that I have observed there:
It is common for someone at a bar or at a beach tent (yes, in Brazil we have tents on the beach where you can get food and drinks, isn't it wonderful?) to be approached by a vendor (usually someone who is currently unemployed and survives through the informal market) trying to sell illegal copies of music CDs or movie DVDs for far much less than what they are sold in the stores. My question is: since the minimum wage is too low, how can one buy an expensive CD or DVD at the store? I am not in favor of "piracy", but of course it is impossible for someone with a low income to spend a lot in order to purchase CDs. This is how piracy survives in deloping countries. The phonographic industry has not been able so far to propose intelligent fair solutions for this situation. Yes, they have come up with measures that are even more restrictive (seals, for instance). There are campaigns that explain the costs and people involved in the development of CDs, but all they try to do is to share the common sense of "guilt" among the population in case one buys a "pirate" product (illegal one).
Also, I asked once at a video rent place (something like Blockbuster) what they consider illegal reproduction of a DVD. They told me that if you copy a DVD for personal use only this is not considered a crime, but if you make many copies and sell them this is an illegal act. Well, I am sure that the situation is more complicated than this. It is hard to determine fair use. For instance, is it really fair use to copy something for educational purposes?
I mean, it is just so easy to deal with this situation in a simplistic way, calling it a crime to copy and distribute materials among the poverty.
Now back to the main question of the week: as I read on the Wikipedia "The Creative Commons licenses enable copyright holders to grant some or all of their rights to the public while retaining others through a variety of licensing and contract schemes including dedication to the public domain or open content licensing terms. The intention is to avoid the problems current copyright laws create for the sharing of information. The project provides several free licenses that copyright owners can use when releasing their works on the Web. It also provides RDF/XML metadata that describes the license and the work, making it easier to automatically process and locate licensed works. Creative Commons also provides a "Founders' Copyright"[1] contract, intended to re-create the effects of the original U.S. Copyright created by the founders of the U.S. Constitution."
Well, if it is really so, then I think it is very nice. But I am not so sure of how much it can also be restrictive. It seems to me that it is still somewhat restrictive.
I understand the principles of the public domain better. The world would greatly benefit from measures that would grant OERs to be placed in the public domain. In the words of Pollock (2006), the public domain is "synonymous with ‘open’ knowledge, that is, all ideas and information that can be freely used, redistributed and reused." So, I think that the public domain broadens the scope of materials that can freely shared and reused and also it solves the problem of limits and barriers.
The world of Copyright is so tricky. Well, I guess that the more I read about it the more I get confused, really. There are many details and situations to consider. But I think that Carroll and Pollock did a nice job trying to make the concepts digestible. I particularly liked Pollock's work "The Value of The Public Domain". It includes a nice discussion about on-line file sharing.
I also read on the Wikipedia about Creative Commons and I agree with this statement from Lawrence Lessig (founder of Creative Commons) about the dominant and restrictive permission culture: "(..) it is "a culture in which creators get to create only with the permission of the powerful, or of creators from the past". Lessig maintains that modern culture is dominated by traditional content distributors in order to maintain and strengthen their monopolies on cultural products (...)."
We live in a world that is so restrictive about the sharing of intelectual products. And it is not different from most anything that exists, actually.
Most of what we read deals with the conditions in the developed world. But what happens when we consider other places with more unstable economies? Brazil, for instance, and as far as I understand at least, also has similar copyright regulations. But there is equally as much confusion in relation to this issue. I will talk about a scenario that I have observed there:
It is common for someone at a bar or at a beach tent (yes, in Brazil we have tents on the beach where you can get food and drinks, isn't it wonderful?) to be approached by a vendor (usually someone who is currently unemployed and survives through the informal market) trying to sell illegal copies of music CDs or movie DVDs for far much less than what they are sold in the stores. My question is: since the minimum wage is too low, how can one buy an expensive CD or DVD at the store? I am not in favor of "piracy", but of course it is impossible for someone with a low income to spend a lot in order to purchase CDs. This is how piracy survives in deloping countries. The phonographic industry has not been able so far to propose intelligent fair solutions for this situation. Yes, they have come up with measures that are even more restrictive (seals, for instance). There are campaigns that explain the costs and people involved in the development of CDs, but all they try to do is to share the common sense of "guilt" among the population in case one buys a "pirate" product (illegal one).
Also, I asked once at a video rent place (something like Blockbuster) what they consider illegal reproduction of a DVD. They told me that if you copy a DVD for personal use only this is not considered a crime, but if you make many copies and sell them this is an illegal act. Well, I am sure that the situation is more complicated than this. It is hard to determine fair use. For instance, is it really fair use to copy something for educational purposes?
I mean, it is just so easy to deal with this situation in a simplistic way, calling it a crime to copy and distribute materials among the poverty.
Now back to the main question of the week: as I read on the Wikipedia "The Creative Commons licenses enable copyright holders to grant some or all of their rights to the public while retaining others through a variety of licensing and contract schemes including dedication to the public domain or open content licensing terms. The intention is to avoid the problems current copyright laws create for the sharing of information. The project provides several free licenses that copyright owners can use when releasing their works on the Web. It also provides RDF/XML metadata that describes the license and the work, making it easier to automatically process and locate licensed works. Creative Commons also provides a "Founders' Copyright"[1] contract, intended to re-create the effects of the original U.S. Copyright created by the founders of the U.S. Constitution."
Well, if it is really so, then I think it is very nice. But I am not so sure of how much it can also be restrictive. It seems to me that it is still somewhat restrictive.
I understand the principles of the public domain better. The world would greatly benefit from measures that would grant OERs to be placed in the public domain. In the words of Pollock (2006), the public domain is "synonymous with ‘open’ knowledge, that is, all ideas and information that can be freely used, redistributed and reused." So, I think that the public domain broadens the scope of materials that can freely shared and reused and also it solves the problem of limits and barriers.
domingo, 30 de setembro de 2007
Week 5: Example Open Education Projects
QUESTIONS: What do these representative open education projects have in common? What differentiates them? In the context of open education projects, what does "quality" mean?
It was a very interesting experience to browse the different open education resource sites. First of all, this was the very first time that I visited any of them. I simply had not learned about them before this course. I think that they are important initiatives in sharing knowledge. Most of them still have logins and passwords for the access of the whole features of the courses, but with the guest login one can still have access to important resources, or "chunks" of knowledge.
They have in common this general idea of sharing educational contents. But most of them are aimed at higher education. It was on the National Repository that they made clear the division of contents per level (eg.: high school). I also felt that this site was more dynamic and offered more opportunities for access to multimedia resources.
Well, I would say that all the sites also have in common a certain limitation in the screen design. The fonts are usually small for the average reader (or maybe the problem is with me and I need to check my eyes soon... :-)). I have not identified principles of universal design either.
The MIT site was particularly interesting in this aspect. It offers an uninviting, heavy interface that to me seems to be more aimed at the business world. Well, also, near the phrase that says "Unlocking Knowledge..." there is the picture of a man with crossed arms. The visuals are contradictory in meaning, I would say.
As for the contents being offered, most of them offer college content, but the content is different in scope and categories. Also, some are richer than others (UNESCO, for instance, was richer in diversity -categories and subcategories- and offered PDF versions of the courses).
In terms of pedagogical design, I enjoyed the Carnegie Mellon site better. Also, it has a better rapport with users. The other sites, on the other hand, are very impersonal.
Talking about quality in open education contents, I think that there is still much to develop. I felt that the sites were worried in being only a repository of contents and did not offer much opportunity for discussion and community building (the only exception was the MIT site, which ironically I found visually uninviting). The contents per se also do not seem to have much pedagogical treatment - they are mostly collections of texts transported to the screen. I am aware that dealing with a multitude of materials takes much work and requires the collaborative work of people from different areas, but something has to be done in order to treat information differently in different types of media. Also, it is important to make the interface visually appealing, but is equaly important to make it user friendly and intuitive. I observed that the Open University site was the only one to have a better treatment of the navigation, letting the user know where he is.
Overall, my opinion is that the sites reveal diversity in the concept of open content and treat information in different ways, but mostly in an impersonal way.
It was a very interesting experience to browse the different open education resource sites. First of all, this was the very first time that I visited any of them. I simply had not learned about them before this course. I think that they are important initiatives in sharing knowledge. Most of them still have logins and passwords for the access of the whole features of the courses, but with the guest login one can still have access to important resources, or "chunks" of knowledge.
They have in common this general idea of sharing educational contents. But most of them are aimed at higher education. It was on the National Repository that they made clear the division of contents per level (eg.: high school). I also felt that this site was more dynamic and offered more opportunities for access to multimedia resources.
Well, I would say that all the sites also have in common a certain limitation in the screen design. The fonts are usually small for the average reader (or maybe the problem is with me and I need to check my eyes soon... :-)). I have not identified principles of universal design either.
The MIT site was particularly interesting in this aspect. It offers an uninviting, heavy interface that to me seems to be more aimed at the business world. Well, also, near the phrase that says "Unlocking Knowledge..." there is the picture of a man with crossed arms. The visuals are contradictory in meaning, I would say.
As for the contents being offered, most of them offer college content, but the content is different in scope and categories. Also, some are richer than others (UNESCO, for instance, was richer in diversity -categories and subcategories- and offered PDF versions of the courses).
In terms of pedagogical design, I enjoyed the Carnegie Mellon site better. Also, it has a better rapport with users. The other sites, on the other hand, are very impersonal.
Talking about quality in open education contents, I think that there is still much to develop. I felt that the sites were worried in being only a repository of contents and did not offer much opportunity for discussion and community building (the only exception was the MIT site, which ironically I found visually uninviting). The contents per se also do not seem to have much pedagogical treatment - they are mostly collections of texts transported to the screen. I am aware that dealing with a multitude of materials takes much work and requires the collaborative work of people from different areas, but something has to be done in order to treat information differently in different types of media. Also, it is important to make the interface visually appealing, but is equaly important to make it user friendly and intuitive. I observed that the Open University site was the only one to have a better treatment of the navigation, letting the user know where he is.
Overall, my opinion is that the sites reveal diversity in the concept of open content and treat information in different ways, but mostly in an impersonal way.
sábado, 22 de setembro de 2007
Week 4: Background Readings in Open Education
Readings Weeks 2 - 4:
QUESTIONS: What do these overviews of the field have in common? What do they emphasize differently? What are the aims of the authors of each report? Do you see a bias toward or against any ideas, organizations, or approaches in any of the reports? Which report spoke the most clearly to you, and why do you think it did? Based on where the field is now, and these initial ideas about where it might go, what part of the open education movement is most interesting to you? Why?
I am not sure if I can address the whole scope of this week's questions, but I will try. I should have posted my understanding here little by little, instead of trying to answer the questions all at once.
Well, it seems to me that all three reports address the OER and higher education at a certain level. I felt that the first one "Giving Knowledge for Free: The Emergence of Open Educational Resources" was heavier in reading than the the other two. As a government forum report, it emphasized a lot the issue of return on inverstment (ROI). I was happy to read on the second report "
The third report "A Review of the Open Educational Resources (OER) Movement: Achievements, Challenges, and New Opportunities" provides a balance of diverse innitiatives under the Hewlett foundation funding program. It is quick to provide favorable balance towards most of those innitiatives and not so much detail as to "why". In this aspect, I think that this report presents some bias. However, this report has some stronger virtues than the previous ones. It is also more aimed at resources than the other two. It is more explanatory and does tackle the issue of the necessity of promoting awareness of open content resources. It is realistic as it deals with disparities in intellectual and human capitals. One other thing that I liked was that it points out what some specific universities are doing - mainly in the developed countries, though.
It would be nice to learn in better details what is being done towards developing countries. This is the part that would be more intesting to me. But usually the reports talk briefly about this or not at all. As reported in the first reading, however, OER is a recent movement and it is difficult to refer to definite statistical data. More research is really needed in this area.
QUESTIONS: What do these overviews of the field have in common? What do they emphasize differently? What are the aims of the authors of each report? Do you see a bias toward or against any ideas, organizations, or approaches in any of the reports? Which report spoke the most clearly to you, and why do you think it did? Based on where the field is now, and these initial ideas about where it might go, what part of the open education movement is most interesting to you? Why?
I am not sure if I can address the whole scope of this week's questions, but I will try. I should have posted my understanding here little by little, instead of trying to answer the questions all at once.
Well, it seems to me that all three reports address the OER and higher education at a certain level. I felt that the first one "Giving Knowledge for Free: The Emergence of Open Educational Resources" was heavier in reading than the the other two. As a government forum report, it emphasized a lot the issue of return on inverstment (ROI). I was happy to read on the second report "
The third report "A Review of the Open Educational Resources (OER) Movement: Achievements, Challenges, and New Opportunities" provides a balance of diverse innitiatives under the Hewlett foundation funding program. It is quick to provide favorable balance towards most of those innitiatives and not so much detail as to "why". In this aspect, I think that this report presents some bias. However, this report has some stronger virtues than the previous ones. It is also more aimed at resources than the other two. It is more explanatory and does tackle the issue of the necessity of promoting awareness of open content resources. It is realistic as it deals with disparities in intellectual and human capitals. One other thing that I liked was that it points out what some specific universities are doing - mainly in the developed countries, though.
It would be nice to learn in better details what is being done towards developing countries. This is the part that would be more intesting to me. But usually the reports talk briefly about this or not at all. As reported in the first reading, however, OER is a recent movement and it is difficult to refer to definite statistical data. More research is really needed in this area.
quinta-feira, 30 de agosto de 2007
Week 1 August 27: Why Open Education?
Before I start answering the questions for this week, I want to make a few comments. It was interesting to me that the Tomasevski's 2001 work "Removing obstacles in the way of the right to education" makes reference to a report about Brazil which was already outdated in 2001. Sadek and Borges' report was published in 1985, but in 1988 Brazil had a constitutional reform. In the new Constitution, illiterates are no longer precluded from the right to vote. Voting is still mandatory in Brazil, but illiterate people can vote if they want. It has become optional for them. As it is optional for those who are more than 70 years old. It is also an option for those who are older than 16 but younger than 18. For all other people it is an obligation. In my case, for instance, since I am living abroad now, I have to justify to the Brazilian government why I cannot participate in the voting process. This involves filling out some forms. It is an obligation for me. Well, I do not necessaraly agree with this, but just wanted to clarify what the situation really is in Brazil now.
I will mention that this exercise gave me an opportunity to read parts of the Constitution. :-) I have not done this in a while.
All right, now to the questions:
1) In your opinion, is the "right to education" a basic human right? Why or why not?
Yes, in my opinion education is a basic human right. And I think that it should read "good education". Just to mention Brazil again, the access to basic education is guaranteed in the Constitution. But not all children are in the schools. Some are forced to work in order to help their families (or for other reasons) and the government does not have the power to force parents to send their children to school. But the federal government has implemented some measures to give some financial support for poor families that keep their children in school. Well, the situation is too complex. It involves many social, economical and political issues.
Basic education in Brazil is guaranteed by the state and paid by the tax payers. Unfortunately, public education has deteriorated in its quality in many aspects.
Going back to the main question, I view education as the key to citizenship. One cannot function socially without much knowledge. And education has to be good, substantial. I am aware that the world is changing all the time and too fast and that the concept of education has to change as well. But it cannot surrender to nowaday's trend of fugacity. It cannot also be attached to the treacherous interestes of the business world.
As for the academy, it is, indeed, different from the corporate world. Different in its purpose, methods, objectives and nature. I agree that the academy has to adapt in many ways to the changing world, but has to maintain its principles.
2) In your opinion, is open *access* to free, high-quality educational opportunity sufficient, or is it necessary to *mandate* education through a certain age or level?
I tend to think that having access to high-quality education should be already good enough. But in reality we know that things are different in the practical world. Well, I have just written about the Brazilian situation. Although there is free access to education (not necessarily good, but...), there are other factors that intervene in the basic right to education. Should it be mandatory? It should. But I think that treating this issue like this is too simplistic - because only being mandatory does not solve the poor situation of education nowadays. More should come from the governments in terms of funds for schools. More should also come from international agencies. But in some developing countries, it is too much to expect that governments have enough resources in order to keep a good educational system. Global economical issues also interfere in local realities. So it is not too simple.
A great day for everybody,
Catia
I will mention that this exercise gave me an opportunity to read parts of the Constitution. :-) I have not done this in a while.
All right, now to the questions:
1) In your opinion, is the "right to education" a basic human right? Why or why not?
Yes, in my opinion education is a basic human right. And I think that it should read "good education". Just to mention Brazil again, the access to basic education is guaranteed in the Constitution. But not all children are in the schools. Some are forced to work in order to help their families (or for other reasons) and the government does not have the power to force parents to send their children to school. But the federal government has implemented some measures to give some financial support for poor families that keep their children in school. Well, the situation is too complex. It involves many social, economical and political issues.
Basic education in Brazil is guaranteed by the state and paid by the tax payers. Unfortunately, public education has deteriorated in its quality in many aspects.
Going back to the main question, I view education as the key to citizenship. One cannot function socially without much knowledge. And education has to be good, substantial. I am aware that the world is changing all the time and too fast and that the concept of education has to change as well. But it cannot surrender to nowaday's trend of fugacity. It cannot also be attached to the treacherous interestes of the business world.
As for the academy, it is, indeed, different from the corporate world. Different in its purpose, methods, objectives and nature. I agree that the academy has to adapt in many ways to the changing world, but has to maintain its principles.
2) In your opinion, is open *access* to free, high-quality educational opportunity sufficient, or is it necessary to *mandate* education through a certain age or level?
I tend to think that having access to high-quality education should be already good enough. But in reality we know that things are different in the practical world. Well, I have just written about the Brazilian situation. Although there is free access to education (not necessarily good, but...), there are other factors that intervene in the basic right to education. Should it be mandatory? It should. But I think that treating this issue like this is too simplistic - because only being mandatory does not solve the poor situation of education nowadays. More should come from the governments in terms of funds for schools. More should also come from international agencies. But in some developing countries, it is too much to expect that governments have enough resources in order to keep a good educational system. Global economical issues also interfere in local realities. So it is not too simple.
A great day for everybody,
Catia
sábado, 18 de agosto de 2007
Welcome!
Oi, seja benvindo! In Portuguese, it means: Hello, welcome!
I am a PhD student in Instructional Technology at The University of Georgia. I am Brazilian and have worked in the field of IT since 2001 when I joined the UFC Virtual Institute, from the Federal University of Ceara, Brazil. Please visit http://catia.myweb.uga.edu/doctoral_review/biography.htm in order to learn more about me.
I look forward to the beginning of our "Intro to Open Education" course next week!
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)