@hugh I couldn’t agree with you more! Not quite sure what I said implied creating something that couldn’t be of value now. As I said, I’m all for structure, balance of specificity and generalization, etc. that is useful right away.
To rephrase, I think it is very interesting, it not important, to primarily think of OER as a process instead of a product. We certainly want the “product” to be of value and useful. That is a given I think. But words like “current” and “dated” and “sustainable” when talking about what to include in the project are reminiscent of a publisher’s textbook model, which I think (perhaps mistakenly) is quite different than the OER model we are pursuing. In addition to the needed approach of “creating something of value now,” I’d hope an approach of “creating something that can/should be revised now” is also guiding the process. I think we’re on the same page for this. I’m all for replacing publisher textbooks with OER and saving students money. That will happen and will be laudable for sure with this project. But I’ll say (maybe in the minority here) if an instructor adopts this resource the day after we release it, and they aren’t asking their students to participate in enhancing it, they are missing a potentially transformational educational opportunity that OER affords (a la Robin DeRosa’s creation/adaption of OER). I realize this perspective probably isn’t that important to most subject matter experts on the project, but maybe it’s a sideline conversation we keep going in parallel. Again, I think we are are on the same page. Happy to continue the discussion!
OK all here is a (mostly-empty) development document:
@unfalsify my proposal … let’s start with a google doc, until it gets unwieldy (ie until the sections are being written). And then we can break out some new tools. I’m worried about splitting the project up too soon … since a large part of what we are doing is trying to understand the specific problems that Rebus can help solve.
Hi all! Happy New Year! Hope everyone had some time off over the holidays … and all are rested and excited for creating an Open Intro to Philosophy book!
Just checking in to see what roadblocks we have at the moment? I think, first thing would be to start looking for leaders for each section of the book?
@scottarobison I definitely agree with you on many points here. I just know from talking to instructors that many of them simply don’t have the time to engage in much adaptation right out of the box. They are looking for something that they can use right now, as is. Not everyone is like this, and I do wish more people had the time and inclination to go into adaptations immediately, but the reality of overwork these days is that many just don’t have the time even if they have the inclination. And too many also are not ready to have their students jump into adaptation; though they might be willing to do so, the time it takes to learn the tech tools needed and teach those to their students, as well as rework a course, to have students be adapting the text, again is sometimes more than people have.
I, too, am very excited about the prospect of how this kind of project can lead us beyond the usual textbook model. But my own focus is also on saving students money now, as soon as possible, and to get more adoptions at this point, sadly, may involve creating something that people think of as ready to use as soon as it comes out.
That isn’t to say that “creating something that can/should be revised now” isn’t also part of the process here. I want to keep it in mind and maybe start working on how to encourage easy adaptations, provide examples, step-by-step instructions, etc., that will make that as simple as possible so people with very little time aren’t scared away!
@hugh Yes, that seems to be the next big step! Should we start making a publicizing push again and draw in some potential section editors?
I haven’t gotten to the google doc yet; thanks for creating it! Am swamped with deadlines this week and next, but I have this in my “important stuff to do” list!
P.S. This board will only let me post every 2 minutes b/c I’m new, which is kind of a pain and is making me a bit late for class right now! 
@clhendricksbc @drrobertfarrow these are excellent ideas. There are so many directions that we can go with this project, and I am excited to see how this evolves.
@clhendricksbc Sorry again for not being more clear, but I too am 100% for creating a resource that can be adopted “right out of the box.” I am completely sympathetic to the work load of faculty/instructors, their technical skills, etc. That said, I do know some don’t adopt OER because, as with publisher textbooks, they can’t easily adapt it (for different reasons).
My main point, and really the reason I’m so interested in this project and Rebus in general, is the collaborative nature of the creation process and the potential for easily sharing and adapting the “finished” resource. A project of this scope certainly requires a plan people follow toward an end but I’m thrilled about the prospect that Rebus will allow users to not only collaboratively create and share OER but also easily adapt content. I realize this may not be at the forefront of many working in this space, but it feels important enough to mention and remember. Thanks for your thoughtful comment!
@joll.nicholas, if “gratis” (free as in beer) is “costless”, then “libre” (free as in freedom) is “unencumbered”. My unpopular OER opinion (to ride a trend) is that I’ve never been a fan of importing words when existing ones will do.
@clhendricksbc Wow, this would have made things a lot simpler… I just read @hugh’s “Philosophy to Open Textbooks” post. I was moving to Portland about the time of the post, so maybe that’s why I initially missed it. Great points! Here are some that speak to what I inadequately tried to communicate:
“…we do not consider Open Textbooks as static, finished things. Things that just get read for free.”
“The ‘costless’ aspect of an Open Textbook is in some ways its least important freedom-attribute, compared with the other freedoms that come with Open Textbooks: the freedom to build upon, to remix, to reuse, to revise, redistribute.”
“…a resource that can and should be built upon, used and elaborated upon, repurposed and repackaged in many different ways.”
“…with an expectation that future iterations, or versions, or companion works can build on this starting point, criticize it and question it.”
@clhendricksbc said in [PHIL] Introduction to Philosophy [lead: Christina Hendricks, UBC]:
Should we start making a publicizing push again and draw in some potential section editors?
I guess step one is to see whose arm we can twist from this group to take on a “section editorship” … ?
@clhendricksbc said in [PHIL] Introduction to Philosophy [lead: Christina Hendricks, UBC]:
P.S. This board will only let me post every 2 minutes b/c I’m new, which is kind of a pain and is making me a bit late for class right now!
We’ve lowered the “reputation” requirements & lowered the time allowed between posts. let me know if that helps !
@clhendricksbc said in [PHIL] Introduction to Philosophy [lead: Christina Hendricks, UBC]:
I, too, am very excited about the prospect of how this kind of project can lead us beyond the usual textbook model. But my own focus is also on saving students money now, as soon as possible, and to get more adoptions at this point, sadly, may involve creating something that people think of as ready to use as soon as it comes out.
In some ways, this should be “Rebus’ problem” … that is, part of why Rebus exists is to make sure that Open Textbooks are published in good, remixable formats etc …
So I think the assumption should be that the content could/should be remixed & revised … but the objective should be to make something cohesive & “complete.” With the understanding that the content won’t necessarily be static in the future.
said in [PHIL] Introduction to Philosophy [lead: Christina Hendricks, UBC]:
I would be happy to contribute to a chapter on aesthetics.
@unfalsify I favour using some non-textual parts, including storytelling. I think that creating fictitious letters, etc. might be a bit of a stretch but it’s not my area, so maybe others could do it more easily. Techniques I think could work:
- Dialogues (the Hospers (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GreoY3oMvaQC&pg=PR6&lpg=PR6&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false) intro to philosophy makes extensive use of this, which I always liked because it emphasized the discursive and contested nature of philosophy in a way that beginners can appreciate)
- Cartoons / Illustrations (The Introducing… (http://www.iconbooks.com/introducing2/) series is basically just a load of these and really helped me as un undergraduate)
- Data Visualization (not sure how easy to get clearance to use some of these but I believe they can be helpful for some. Maybe we can produce some of our own?)
Perhaps there are others which will emerge as we go forward. I think mixing up the visual styles a bit can be helpful but I bow to those with superior knowledge of these things.
Hi, all – belatedly joining up. I have no philosophy subject knowledge to speak of, but sign me up for some copy-editing responsibilities. If there are other tasks to which an academic librarian might be particularly suited, let me know.
Forgive me if I got anything wrong here, but looking at our rough table of contents: [TOC]
And the list of interests expressed in the threads above (with a bit of possibly pff-base shoehorning from me) I get the following list of potential contributors/editors:
- Introduction: @clhendricksbc
- Metaphysics: @methylated.orange, @joll.nicholas
- Logic: @knache, @rzach
- Epistemology: @drrobertfarrow, @fellows-jill, @unfalsify
- Aesthetics: @cliftows, @pablo.markin
- Social & Political philosophy: @drrobertfarrow, @bolaigeefealabi, @joll.nicholas
- Ethics: @drrobertfarrow, @dr-wpdavis, @cliftows, @bolaigeefealabi, @paul.s.boswell
I am surprised to see that, in fact, we some coverage, more or less, for all the sections we have sketched out for this book. Which is good news!
Next step is to pin down a curator/manager/editor for each section …
Hi, my name is George Matthews and I am a philosophy professor, and have taught intro courses in philosophy, ethics, philosophy of mind, environmental ethics and political philosophy mostly to non-major undergrads for more than 20 years. I’ve been interested in open textbooks for a while and in the context of an open education initiative in New Hampshire, have been developing some web-based anthologies for some courses I teach.
Just the other day I was wondering about what it might take to do an open text for an intro to philosophy course, since there just doesn’t seem to be enough good and appropriate online material to cobble one together in a way that compares well with the texts I use in online intro classes. These mix historical and topic approaches along with some basic concepts in logic and critical thinking. Just today a colleague sent me a link to your project, so I thought I’d ask if you needed any help. I’d be happy to contribute in any way needed, as an author of a chapter or two, as a proof reader or copy editor.
Welcome, George! Happy to have help. As you can see from above, we are looking for people to do many things. Authoring a chapter would be fantastic if you’re willing; that’s the sort of thing that takes the most effort, and we’re looking for people willing to do that.
We’re also looking for section editors: people who will take on a whole section (like ethics, political philosophy) and be in charge of the chapters for that section–making sure they get written, making suggestions to improve them (though we’ll also have others reading and reviewing along the way, hopefully). Would you possibly be interested in that sort of role?
By the way, what New Hampshire open education initiative are you part of?