“A Work in Progress”
Steven W. Gilbert, President, The TLT Group, October 3, 2001
CONTENTS [Linked]:
"Open source" software development may provide a timely model to meet some of the emerging needs of colleges and universities. Can we develop a coherent Web-based system which encourages and enables many individuals and institutions to build on each others’ efforts to improve teaching and learning with information technology? What are the smallest steps that could be taken by the smallest groups to begin developing this system?
This document begins to explore how the Open Source approach might be applied to the development of instructional materials and/or professional development resources and/or institutional planning and support strategies – not only to software. How can higher education best take advantage of the principles, practices, and tools of the Open Source software development “movement”?
"Open source” software development projects usually provide access to the “source code” for the original program and any derivative works free of charge to anyone; however, there may be closely related commercial services and products. Access to the source code permits modification of the contents and functions of the program, so that anyone can make improvements. So, many professionals or skilled amateurs can actively work together to develop and improve a complex “open source” software program. The management of open source projects often includes allocation of work among volunteers, careful attribution of contributions, and vigilant quality control.
Expectations for improving teaching and learning with information technology continue to grow rapidly – much more rapidly than the capacity of any single individual or college or university to take advantage of the new instructional options. We are facing an unprecedented need for professional development that crosses the usual boundaries of departments, offices, divisions, schools, and campuses – and institutions. The resources currently available at any single institution – even a large university -- for professional development are tiny in comparison with the pace and scale of change now needed. Together, the resources of many institutions might be better able to support the local instructional and professional development needs of each institution involved – especially by building organized collections of effective and evolving technology-based materials and services. All these efforts depend on both the individual creativity and collaborative capabilities of faculty members and academic support professionals.
Consequently, we want to consider an “Open Source Professional Development Environment” (OSPDE) for Higher Education to support the development, improvement, and use of resources for instruction, for professional development, and for planning throughout higher education -- worldwide. The OSPDE would be a Web-based system of people, references, tools, and other linked resources (individual modules, focused collections, ongoing projects and programs).
One goal would be to use open source principles, practices, and tools to enable people to build on each other’s work. For some people, that means contributing their own new creations to an environment in which others will be able to access, modify, use, and improve them. For others, that means being able to find useful resources that they can adapt, use, and improve – and then share those improvements. However, ultimately, the most important goal is to support better professional development, teaching, and learning in higher education through enabling:
You are invited to help explore these ideas, and possibly develop them into a plan and proposal -- and build the Open Source Professional Development Environment itself. First, we must take a good look at what is already being done in this direction and then decide if something more is really needed. [We’ve already begun a Web page of links to related activities; see:
http://www.tltgroup.org/OpenSource/Base.htm ]
The way we decide, plan, and build this environment– the
structure, process, and content – should be guided by open source
principles. That is, you are invited to
point out the “bugs” – errors of omission, confusion, terminology, reference or
substance in this document and in subsequent explorations and planning
efforts. Better yet, you are invited to
suggest and make improvements.[1] This is indeed a Work in Progress!
Please send your suggestions and questions to <GILBERT@TLTGROUP.ORG>.
In 2001, as I visit campuses and talk with people in higher education I keep hearing that “We need to get ALL the faculty using technology in their teaching.” What “everyone” really wants is to enable the mainstream faculty – not just the self-motivated pioneers -- to make more intentional instructional use of available and emerging technology applications. But in most colleges and universities, the professional academic support services cannot even satisfy the current level of requests to help faculty find, adapt, and use (or develop) new instructional applications of information technology.
Can you and your colleagues keep up with all the new options for using information technology to improve teaching and learning? Can all your faculty members contribute to and benefit from the vast number of ongoing efforts to develop, improve, and share individual instructional “modules”? Can your faculty members and support professionals avoid duplicating the efforts and mistakes of others – and build on their successes? Are most of the requests to help faculty integrate technology into teaching and learning satisfied promptly? I don’t know anyone who can say “yes” to these questions.
Most faculty members and support professionals are already struggling valiantly just to fulfill their current responsibilities, while many are trying to master new information, tools, and roles. Many of the faculty pioneers are generous with their time in helping their colleagues. Many of the campus-based professional development staff are highly dedicated, energetic, and effective within the limits of their resources. But the demands and expectations keep growing much more rapidly than the supply of these important individuals. These people need new kinds of instructional resources and professional development resources.
Very few of the most attractive educational uses of information technology can be found or developed, adapted and used by a single faculty member working alone – or by a single academic support professional. Teachers and learners increasingly depend on access to services and resources that can only be provided and maintained by other professionals. We need to enable individuals to share the burden of keeping up with the flood of information and options and to trust each other enough to divide the work and share the results of each other's diligence and judgment. Only through new collaborative efforts can individuals stop drowning.
So, to make the most of the new opportunities that continue to arrive in higher education, we need to enable faculty and other professionals to think and act differently, not only with respect to the changing nature of their own responsibilities, but also with respect to their ability and inclination to collaborate with other professionals. Enabling people to think and act differently is a good definition of "deep learning." Enabling faculty and other professionals to do so is a good definition of "professional development." We need to learn to apply what we already know (and what we're still learning)about teaching and learning to the professional development needs of everyone in education. We especially need to take advantage of the expertise and commitment of those already involved in helping their colleagues and providing professional development services..
We are facing an unprecedented need for professional development, not only for individual faculty members. We need professional development that crosses the usual boundaries of departments, offices, divisions, schools, and campuses. Even more, we need programs that overrun the boundaries between institutions. The resources currently available at any single institution – even a large university -- for professional development are tiny in comparison with the pace and scale of change now needed. Together, the resources of many institutions might be better able to support the local professional development needs of each institution involved.
But currently, there exists only a vast decentralized inter-national interlinking non-system of
Many of these resources are excellent and serve the needs of a few people very well (e.g., informal organizations like KAIROS, “a journal for teachers of writing in webbed environments” growing out of the Alliance for Computers and Writing; formal organizations like instruction-oriented subgroups of professional disciplinary societies; professional development services from for-profit companies like CollegisEduprise; professional development activities and materials offered by companies like Blackboard and WebCT; instructional materials from publishers such like Pearson; related courses – online and “traditional” from many universities.) But the current need vastly exceeds the current offerings and it is very difficult for people to even know what is available – to know where and when and how. We need a more coherent approach that makes effective use of the individual creativity and inter-institutional collaborative capabilities of faculty members and academic support professionals throughout higher education -- worldwide.
More precisely, to take advantage most cost-effectively of new options for improving teaching and learning:
In summary, the pressure is growing rapidly throughout higher education to enable the mainstream faculty – not just the self-motivated pioneers -- to make more intentional instructional use of available and emerging technology applications. This will require enabling vast numbers of faculty and other academic professionals to think and act differently in response to the changing nature of their own responsibilities and the rapidly increasing number of instructional options available. Faculty members are also beginning to see new potential advantages from collaborations with other professionals – especially collaborations that can take advantage of new tools and media to support their activities. But the resources available on any one campus to meet these growing expectations and demands are tiny by comparison.
So what is the solution?
Can we create a framework to focus and coordinate some of the wonderful resources available from higher education’s non-system of professional development and institutional planning? Of “instructional module” development? Can we describe a set of desired characteristics of this framework and begin to build it and fill in the pieces? Can we share the development, and continual modification, of the overall design and structure? Can we share the burden of developing professional development modules and using and refining them? Can we embed this work in a system of categories and organization that makes the ongoing efforts and intermediate results easy to find and use?
Can academia become comfortable with a system that will always be a Work in Progress?
In 1994 a small group of people met and began a discussion that resulted in the first guidelines for Teaching, Learning, and Technology Roundtables (TLTRs). In the years that followed, a series of workshops, presentations, and publications encouraged and enabled over 500 colleges and universities to develop their own versions of local TLT Roundtables. Leaders from some of the most successful local Roundtables enjoy reporting how they ignore some of the guidelines and modify others. The TLTR Guidelines were slowly modified to reflect what was being learned in practice. But the TLTR guidelines available today still suggest that they be “…adapted to reflect local circumstances -- especially local politics and culture…” See: <http://www.tltgroup.org/resources/rtltguide.html>
The way in which the TLTR Guidelines were developed and the many ways in which they have been applied and improved by participants are entirely consistent with Open Source principles. Consequently, it seems reasonable to hope that the open source approach could also be used to develop and share other plans and strategies for institutionalizing change and for supporting the improvement of teaching and learning with technology.
[NOTE: I am not very good at creating simple, clear, catchy new names. I welcome suggestions for improving the terms in this section.]
Open Source Software Development – Works in Progress
"Open source software development” projects include many professionals or skilled amateurs actively cooperating to develop and improve a complex software program by allocating the work among participants through a combination of self-selection, assignment, and negotiation. Each participant is able to acquire and use the most fundamental underlying “source code” without paying any fee. Access to the source code permits modifying the contents and functions of the program, so that anyone can make improvements. Much of the work is done on inter-dependent and independently useful modules. Coordination, attribution, and quality control are essential functions – as many different people offer improvements. Quality control mechanisms can rely on the judgment of respected members of the core development team and others.
Even though access to the “source code” for the original program and any derivative works is usually free of charge, there may be closely related commercial services and products. Some of the latest and best known open source software programs (e.g., Linux) are closely linked to commercial services and products – on which many users depend.
Open source software “products” are always, forever, Works
in Progress!
Open Course
“Open course” efforts are those that enable a group of people with common interests in specific courses to work together to develop, share, modify, add, and build on instructional resources for those specific courses. In many cases, to work on “instructional modules.”
Open Source Professional Development
“Open source professional development” efforts are those that enable a group of people (including faculty and other academic support professionals) with common interests in improving teaching and learning to work together to develop, share, modify, add, and build on professional development resources. Professional development resources might include books, workshops, interactive software, online tutorials, online courses, videocassettes, listservs, etc. – as well as plans and strategies for institutionalizing change and for providing institutional support for improving teaching and learning with technology.
Both “open course” and “open source” Websites and activities must include ways that new users can contribute to an ongoing process of improvement, enhancement, and development.
Items, Resources
Open Course and Open Source Professional Development “Items” or “Resources” are individual resources that can be used for a specific instructional or professional development purpose.
Collections
Each “collection” is a selective (not comprehensive) set of Open Course and/or Open Source Professional Development resources. The purpose for the collection and the criteria by which items or resources have been selected for inclusion/exclusion are clearly stated. Some clearly identified individual or group exercises judgment in applying those criteria. Items can be removed from the collection based on changes in their quality or on changes in the criteria.
Open Source Professional Development Environment (OSPDE)
The “Open Source Professional Development Environment” (OSPDE) will be a Web-based system of people, references, tools, and other linked resources (individual modules, focused collections, ongoing projects and programs). The purpose is to support the development, improvement and use of Open Course resources and Open Source Professional Development resources (including planning and support strategies) – and to support the efforts of faculty and academic support professionals who might use those resources. Participants adapt and use the principles, practices, and tools of open source software development to fit the emerging needs of higher education.
Compassionate Pioneers
Those most likely to contribute their ideas and their work to an environment of sharing and building upon each other’s contributions are the Compassionate Pioneers. The “Compassionate Pioneers” are those who not only reach beyond their own limits and lead the way in developing or trying new options, but who also encourage and help their colleagues to take the same path – especially with respect to improving teaching and learning with technology. Faculty members, academic support professionals, administrators, and students can each be compassionate pioneers. Everyone can be a compassionate pioneer – at least occasionally.
We propose to determine whether or not an “Open Source Professional Development Environment” (OSPDE) seems to be needed for higher education; to identify its essential characteristics; and, if indicated, to begin to help design and build it. Open source principles should shape the way the Open Source Professional Development Environment is planned and developed.
The OSPDE will be a Web-based system of people, references, tools, and other linked resources (individual modules, focused collections, ongoing projects and programs). The system will depend on the commitment of a cadre of faculty members and other academic professionals to the improvement of teaching and learning with technology – and to collaboration. The purpose of this system will be to encourage and support the development, improvement and use of Open Course resources and Open Source Professional Development resources (including planning and support strategies) – and to support the efforts of faculty and academic support professionals who might use those resources. Participants will adapt and use the principles, practices, and tools of open source software development to fit the emerging needs of higher education.
The example of "open source" software development may provide a timely model to meet the emerging needs of higher education. Many faculty members are already accustomed to building on each others’ work: Faculty often collaborate with colleagues in their own disciplines on research projects and, more informally, exchange ideas and references about instructional resources and about ways of organizing courses. Most academics are comfortable with the principles underlying “open source” software development, even if they have never heard the term “open source.” For example, open source software development projects include many professionals actively sharing in the development and improvement of a complex system by allocating the work among participants through a combination of self-selection, assignment, and negotiation. Much of the work is done on inter-dependent and independently useful modules. These last two sentences almost describe how many faculty members develop bits and pieces to make incremental improvements in courses they teach. Those sentences also describe some of the collaborative work done informally by academic support professionals.
Some of the concepts, economics, and Web-based tools recently emerging for managing and facilitating open source software development projects could be used to support collaborative work to develop instructional materials and professional development resources. (And to build the "Open Source Professional Development Environment for Higher Education.") These efforts can build on current models for developing and sharing educational resources that already reflect some of the principles of open source software development -- such as IMS, Merlot, the Math Forum, and MIT's new open course and open knowledge initiatives. See also, especially, the Harvey Project developed by Robert Stephenson of Wayne State University. Stephenson was the first person I know of to suggest the application of open source principles to the development of instructional resources. For links to these and other related resources, see:
http://www.tltgroup.org/OpenSource/Base.htm
Coordination, attribution, and quality control are essential functions of any system that effectively supports the development of course units or of professional development resources by large groups of individuals who share common professional goals and needs. For faculty who might participate in such efforts, the ways in which open source software development tools could support a peer review process could be quite helpful in enabling participants to get appropriate “credit” for their work toward promotion, tenure, or post-tenure evaluations.
Fortunately, people involved with open source software development have made significant progress in recent years building online systems that facilitate the focus and coordination of work on a single large software project. Some of these systems also address the challenges of quality control and of accurately describing and attributing the accomplishments of all who can contribute to the joint effort. Quality control mechanisms can rely on the judgment of respected members of the core development team and others (and, perhaps, some contributions of instructional materials may be accompanied by data from evaluation/assessment studies of the educational impact of those materials).
Some of the latest and best known open source software
(e.g., Linux) is closely linked to commercial services and products. In fact, many developers of open source
software are quite comfortable with the development and marketing of commercial
services and products, and many users depend on them. Consequently, the valuable online instructional resources and services
already available from companies like Blackboard, WebCT, XanEdu, Pearson,
Microsoft, Compaq, HorizonLive and many others, could be linked to an Open
Source Professional Development Environment for Higher Education. A step in this direction took place in a
workshop directed by Robert Stephenson of Wayne State University on “Open
Course” modules held at the University of Michigan this past July. <A report from this workshop may soon be
available.>
Obviously, the successful development and use of an OSPDE-like environment will be highly dependent on the active participation and leadership of faculty members and local academic support professionals [especially the “Compassionate Pioneers” among them – see “Terminology” above.] The OSPDE is intended as a supplement to, not a replacement for, their work. Here below is a first cut at a set of guidelines -- a list of purposes and characteristics for the elements of this system of linked resources. A condensed list is followed by an expanded version.
STRUCTURE
The Open Source Professional Development Environment (OSPDE) for Higher Education would be a Web-based system of people, references, tools, and other linked resources (individual modules, focused collections, ongoing projects and programs). Each component (item, resource, or collection ) should have some [how many?] of the purposes and characteristics listed here. Additional explanation and links to related resources follow further below.
PURPOSES
To create (and improve and share) resources that can be used [and modified and improved] directly by faculty members to improve teaching and learning in courses.
“Open Source Professional Development”
To create (and improve and share) resources that help faculty and other academic support professionals to change how they think and act with respect to improving teaching and learning (especially, with information technology).
CHARACTERISTICS
Each collection of resources within the OSPDE is selective -- not comprehensive -- based on clearly-stated criteria. Reviews, evaluations, and/or references are required for each resource. (For most resources?)
Participation and Contributions
The OSPDE itself, and each collection of resources within it, are structured to encourage and enable users to contribute suggestions for the improvement of individual items and/or to share variations or “derivative works.”
Fees, Sharing Rights, and Responsibilities
Faculty members and other academic professionals who use the items in the OSPDE or collections within it are not expected to pay for each individual usage; however, individual participants are responsible for contributing in other ways. Institutions may support the OSPDE through direct fees or other mechanisms.
Some (most? all?) of the resources within the OSPDE use information technology – broadly defined.
The resources are developed, maintained, and/or improved by individuals, college/university departments, consortia, professional societies, publishers, or commercial entities. Attribution is clear and easy to find.
To create (and improve and share) items that can be used [and modified and improved] directly by faculty members to improve teaching and learning in courses. For an example of a collection of Open Courses, see the Harvey Project: “…an international collaboration of educators, researchers, physicians, students, programmers, instructional designers and graphic artists working together to build interactive, dynamic human physiology course materials on the Web.” See:
To create (and improve and share) items that help faculty and other academic support professionals to change how they think and act with respect to improving teaching and learning (especially, with information technology). E.g., a down-loadable text file describing how to use PowerPoint effectively when running a small group discussion – including sample slideshows; or a good article on classroom techniques to facilitate collaborative learning. For an example of a collection of not-quite-Open Source Professional Development items, see the University of Maryland University College –Verizon Virtual Resource Site for Teaching with Technology that “provides resources for use in the selection of appropriate media to accomplish specific learning objectives” at:
<http://www.umuc.edu/virtualteaching/>. This site includes the invitation: “If you have comments, questions, or examples, please contact us by clicking on the Feedback button at the top of any page.”
Each collection within the OSPDE is selective, not comprehensive. Criteria for inclusion/exclusion are clearly stated, and someone exercises judgment in applying those criteria. For example, see:
<http://taste.merlot.org/eval.html> and <http://taste.merlot.org/rate.html>
For individual items being suggested or offered for inclusion in the OSPDE or in one of the collections within it, reviews, evaluations, and/or references are required. This information is intended both to help those who decide whether an individual item is appropriate for a collection or the OSPDE, and to help potential users of the item decide if or how they might use it.
For collections of resources (e.g., collections of specific course-focused resources WITHIN the OSPDE), there is a mechanism by which specified people (perhaps a kind of jury or panel – or even a single individual well-respected in the relevant field both as a scholar and teacher) are responsible for selecting the items that are included in this collection and for determining and clearly indicating the quality of those items based on stated criteria. Items can be removed from the collection based on changes in their quality or on changes in the criteria. E.g., a discipline-focused Web-based collection of instructional modules might have a set of senior faculty from that field who share the responsibility of reviewing and annotating the modules both when the items are first nominated and periodically to confirm their status and quality. The Merlot project is attempting to use subject-based peer review for this purpose. See:
<http://www.merlot.org/home/PeerReview.po>
In the OSPDE and each collection of resources within it, the originator(s) of individual items encourage others to help modify, improve, or add to these resources in ways consistent with open-source-style operating principles and mechanisms – they can contribute suggestions for improvement or even provide a variation or “derivative work” as an alternative. I.e., Participants can modify the available resources for their own use, but they are encouraged or required to offer any significant improvements to be added to the collection. For example, there is a description of a specific approach for Web-based instruction such as student research on the Web, and a “form” is offered through which “visitors” or “members” can submit a URL, title, description, and other information about an activity or resource that is being nominated for inclusion in the collection. Similarly, see DocShare at <http://www.docshare.org>
DocShare provides a form through which contributors can submit URLs for resources that they would like to share with others via the DocShare Website. Also see the Harvey Project, which has a link from each of its learning objects to an online discussion group specific for that object – where users can ask and the creators (or other users) can answer questions about content or function and where improvements can be suggested and discussed. See
<http://lessons.harveyproject.org/development/worksprogress.html>.
Faculty members and other academic professionals who use the items in the OSPDE or collections within it are not expected to pay individually for that usage. However, they are expected to contribute in other ways, and the institutions of which they are members may also be required to pay some kind of fee to sustain the overall enterprise. A metric for monitoring the exchange of resources among participating individuals and institutions may also be used to balance the fees charged with the contributions of items, collections, and other services. Metrics might be based on the amount of time that professionals or students contribute to the ongoing development and operation of the OSPDE or collections within it. [Tom Carey of the University of Waterloo is exploring some options for metrics that facilitate the exchange of both fees and services.]
Additional fees may be charged for closely related support services or materials; e.g., workshops, seminars, hard copies, etc. [See the successful commercial activities that have emerged around the open source Linux operating system. See <http://www.linuxhq.com/>]
Mechanisms must be provided by the OSPDE (or by collections within it) that enable individual users to provide feedback. The users are responsible for providing information about problems or errors they encounter in specific items, and for making suggestions for improving any items they use. For example, see the means for reporting “bugs” in open source software at the site: <http://sourceforge.net/>.
Some (most? all?) of the items use information technology – with a broad definition of information technology.
The resources – both collections and individual items -- have been developed and are being maintained/improved by individuals, college/university departments, consortia, professional societies, publishers, or commercial entities. Attribution of the source of full items or parts of items is clear and easy to find.
The Harvey Project links each learning object to a page of credit information. See projects listed under the “New” sections for Websites, members, sponsors, and tools at: <http://harveyproject.org/>.
<What other purposes or characteristics should be
included in these guidelines?>
FOR
MOST CATEGORIES IN THE “GUIDELINES” LIST, WE NEED MORE AND BETTER LINKS TO
EXAMPLES, ESPECIALLY TO COLLECTIONS THAT OBVIOUSLY ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO USE AND
IMPROVE WHAT IS PROVIDED. Please send
URLs for “open source professional development” resources and “open course”
resources – collections of useful items that reflect at least some of the
purposes and characteristics listed in the “Guidelines” section above. If you can, please include information
about things like accessibility, quality assurance, frequency of revision,
purpose, and receptivity to being cited or linked – and the ways in which
others can participate and contribute.
Also,
read the “Next Steps” and “Questions for Further Discussion” sections
below. Let us know if you have some of
the answers or have ideas about how to find them. Let us know how you might like to participate.
Please
send your URLs, suggestions, questions, etc. to: GILBERT@TLTGROUP.ORG.
[Also see “Questions for Further Discussion” below.]
1. Find and
Organize Collections and Examples
Find collections and examples of resources already available on the Web that reflect some of the open source principles and characteristics. Especially seek collections, services, and sites that offer some of the following:
Arrange links to these collections and examples that make it easy for users to find and explore what we have assembled. Try to get librarians and human-computer interface experts to help.
For a crude but useful beginning, see:
<http://www.tltgroup.org/OpenSource/Base.htm>
2. Go/No Go
Decision
Decide if open source principles, practices, and tools can be cost-effectively applied to achieve the goals of this overall project. Is there enough potential volunteer effort, funding, or revenue to sustain the development of some version of an Open Source Professional Development System? Who are the most likely partners? What would the overall structure be – a confederation? Loose linked system?
3. (If “Go”) Plan
and Build the OSPDE for Higher Education
Use the “open source” approach to develop the plan, engage support, and manage the resulting system. Work with those who already have relevant expertise, experience, and resources AND WHO WANT TO HELP. Identify and modify relevant open source principles, practices, tools. Answer the “Questions for Further Discussion” in the next section!
1. Foundation: Underlying Questions
Can we create a framework to focus and coordinate some of the wonderful resources available from higher education’s non-system of professional development and institutional planning? Of “instructional module” development?
Can we describe a set of desired characteristics of this framework and begin to build it and fill in the pieces?
Can we share the development and continual modification of the overall design and structure?
Can we share the burden of developing professional development modules and using and refining them?
Can we embed this work in a system of categories and organization that makes the ongoing efforts and intermediate results easy to find and use?
Can academia become comfortable with a system that will always be a Work in Progress?
2. Essential Characteristics of Open Source Applicability
What characteristics are essential for a project, institution, or system to benefit from Open Source principles, practices, and tools?
3. Adapt Open Source to Higher Education
How can higher education adapt and make most effective use of “Open Source” principles?
4. Linkage and Formal Structure of OSPDE for Higher Education
How can a variety of collections of Open Course items and Open Source Professional Development resources be most usefully linked? How, if at all, can some kind of overall linkage system be useful? How can such a system support the component parts without impeding their further evolution?.
How formal and complex does the overall system – the OSPDE -- need to be? In what ways can/should it be more structured than the Web?
To what extent must every item in every
collection be accompanied by a review, evaluation, or report? To what
standards?
5. Financial and Other Support for the OSPDE
What levels of funding and other resources are required for the planning, launching, and sustaining of an OSPDE for Higher Education?
What are the likely sources of funds and other resources?
What would be a reasonable fee structure? Should individuals be required or permitted to pay usage or membership fees – in addition to or instead of institutional fees?
6. Open Source Development of OSPDE
How can Open Source principles, practices, and tools be applied to the development of the OSPDE itself? What tools are necessary? Where are they? Under what terms are they available? To what extent must they be adapted? How can that be done?
7. Smallest Beginning?
What are the smallest steps that could be taken by the smallest groups to begin developing [parts of] the OSPDE for Higher Education?
What are the minimum resources necessary for beginning to
develop the OSPDE?
8. Partners
Who are the most likely partners for developing the OSPDE?
[1] Rob Stephenson of Wayne State University and Ingrid Werge of the TLT Group have already done so.