This is my second learning reflection in the course “Open Content Licensing for Educators”, provided by Open Educational Resources University via WikiEducator.

The course continued using tools and methods already adopted on a first session. I enjoyed the brief material both in textual and video formats but above all is the interaction between other participants, namely in Twitter and Google+. Just after couple of days I know for sure that I really enjoy studying on a course like this! I enjoy the open and participatory structure that utilizes the existing knowledge of the participants as well as allows each of us to steer our learning action towards personally set goals. We share a lot but we are also pretty free to learn what we need to.

I enjoyed David Wileys clear definition on openness.  Free access is essential but not sufficient criteria because users need also flexible permissions to reuse, revise, remix and redistribute the material. I inspired to tweet a question about the “openness” of currently hyped xMOOC’s because I see their openness very limited. In many cases, the material is copyrighted and there is a growing trend to transfer courses into mode the offers certification but requires payments.

I also enjoyed Lawrence Lessig’s and Eben Moglen’s videos, and made a notice that in Finland we don’t have the “Fair use” principle, which covers most of the educational activity in US. For us Finns it means that we should be twice as active in open licensing and I think that is the case in most of the world too.

I already knew that there are different definitions of Open Educational Resources but I was somehow shocked how weakly I performed the OECD definition quiz. I am not sure if that definition is very useful and I prefer using Stephen Downes’s brief definition instead: “Open Educational Resources (OER) are materials used to support education that may be freely accessed, reused, modified and shared by anyone”

Although the distributed structure of this course with several different tools used in interaction might disorientate some participants, I must say that I personally enjoy the diversity.  I see Twitter primary as a tool for personal reflection but sometimes that might cause some interaction too. For example, the responses I received to my tweet about closed file formats lead me to think that I probably need too provide more technical guidance to teachers producing open educational resources.

However, Google Plus has some strengths too. Shared and structured forum supports interaction inside the course and is probably more suitable to collaborative knowledge building than Twitter. I think it is easier to develop new and somehow still vague ideas and thoughts while you are not obliged to compress them to 140 characters. And I really appreciate the fruitful feedback and generous support the participants, especially Wayne Mackintosh, provides to us learners!