Comments on: Chinese Opensource OpenCourseWare

By: glin

glin — Mon, 11 Sep 2006 03:23:14 +0000

Yes, going back to point#2, I, too, would love to hear anybody’s (anyone?)evaluation of CQOCW’s accessibility and quality.

By: Lyn

Lyn — Sun, 10 Sep 2006 18:46:45 +0000

Grace — thanks for the comments. What I meant by “opposite ends of ed tech spectrum” (it wasn’t phrased particularly well so I’m not surprised you ask about it) is that these represent two different approaches to ed tech. The first is topdown, Ministry of Education, rated standardized courses, member universities, and so on. The second, your OOPS, is bottom up, all-volunteer, and therefore much looser in terms of membership.
2. I did try to visit several of the linked CQOCW and yet could not manage to access any of the courses themselves. I didn’t have more time to spend…but would love to hear any others’ evaluations of the courses’ accessibility and quality.
3. Thanks for the clarification on the English sit oops.editme. I’ll edit the post.

By: glin

glin — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 21:33:03 +0000

1. Can you explain what do you mean “lie on opposite ends of the education technology spectrum”?
2. Have you visited some of the so-call CQOCW? Since you read Chinese, why don’t follow some of the links and give your evaluation of its quality? I would be curious to hear your opinion.
3. OOPS does not have an official English site. The oops.editme site exists only for the transcription project, which is a very small part of OOPS. That is why it appears low traffic.
This is for now. Thanks.