http://cnx.rice.edu 以下是我和另一位休士顿大学学生Grace访问莱斯大学前後，和朱学恒Lucifer 之间的通信内容，提供给各位参考。内容颇长，我有整理成一个word档， 有兴趣的人我可以寄给他。我的e-mail: [email protected] MSN: [email protected] (11/24) Dear Lucifer, CNX的架构精神和MITOCW略有不同。CNX把传统的学习方式当成一种旧的教学方 式，他们认为一个教授写一本书要花数年的时间，他们也认为一本书里面的内 容并不是完整的知识；所以他们认为建立CNX成为一个介面，把不同资料里的 观念（concept）缔结在一起，所以他们把人分成3个角色author, instructor, & student，从最初author所制造出来的材料，解构後重新组装成具有连结关系 的知识，让读者享用，然而读者也可以去修正其内容。所以他们线上的知识是 动态的学习方式（dynamic），如果这样的知识内容要完全翻译成中文版本，大 概会让翻译者疲於奔命。 CNX这样的特殊观念要如何和OOPS产生合作关系？要引导OOPS的读者去进入他们 所建立的介面平台里面？或者那样的介面平台要在OOPS里建立起来？CNX他们也 架构出可以中文阅读及交流的方式；所以我认为两者的合作关系可能要有进一 步的思考，这方面我下周可能无法答话；而且我认为他们可能会从CNX这样的观 念角度，希望OOPS来配合什麽事情，所以到时候丢出新idea的人可能是他们， 而不是我们。 目前CNX上面的课程仅有115门课，其他是衍生出来的2713个module（缔结关系） http://cnx.rice.edu/content/browse_content 从另一方面来思考，CNX希望建立的community是线上的community。然而旧有的 教学方式，有修课及学分的压力才有促使一个人念书的动力，有设定好的考试 及作业范围才会让人去念他原本没兴趣念的东西；由读者自己决定自己想念的 范围以及寻找其连接的关系，可能会产生知识上的「偏食」行为。 还有，CNX所建立的线上community，好比电子银行及电子商务的建立，然而电子 银行的出现并未让传统银行柜台消失，电子商务的出现也没让商家的门市店员减 少；人与人面对面对话的重要性无法取代，因为下意识会有安全感和信任感；下 周我们去和他们谈，也是面对面的对话。 Alvin (11/24) Let me see if I could "try" to respond to some of Alvin's questions. 1. CNX's contents constantly change (kind of like wikipedia): a problem for translators to keep track of the changes. Richard said they have the programs almost ready to help a translator keep up with the changes. We will have to see how that piece of software works when we meet with them. In my personal opinion, as a translator, I am not sure I like to keep chasing a moving object. But if this is the case, where would be the common ground between OOPS & CNX? How much can OOPS or CNX compromise? 2. CNX's model is what called learning object in that each object - or module is created and then can be re-purposed/re-used for different course. This concept is very similar to the object-oriented programming language with reusable components. As an educator, I have not yet to see this great ideal materialized in real world in a convincing way. In other words, I think it is a great concept, but I am not sure how it can be implemented. I once asked Richard that question: how many of CNX's modules have been re-purposed and he did not answer my question. My guess is - none. For OOPS, CNX's modular approach actually might work very well with our distributed work model: volunteers now adopt "module" instead of the entire course. At the beginning, maybe OOPS can start by opening up *only* modules that are already part of a full-fledged course - 115 of them. Of course a follow-up question would be: who is there to "verify" that a course/module is "ready"? 3. Because Richard is a computer science professor, CNX has developed into a full system of tools, not only to share content, but to develop, author, and re-purpose those contents. MITOCW, for example, on the other hand, is just a site full of content. So, my concern is, CNX might not be something that can be "mirrored" into another server, like MITOCW could. So I share Alvin's observation. I am not sure how, infrastructure wise, OOPS & CNX can work together, Alvin, you asked many good questions. I love your expression 知识上的「偏食」行为. Talking about picky-ness of food, I have no comment because I am a vegetarian. Ha. See you next week. If you have a place to stay, you should go visit NASA if you have not done so. Grace (11/30) 我想一切还得是要跟对方实际当面谈谈之後才知道。因为CNX的规格和运作方式 很有可能让他们成为独一无二，但却是仅可能有一种语言版本的内容，或者是 翻译永远追不上修改的状况。总之，既然他们说过有进行类似相关的翻译计画， 我想其实可以了解一下他们到底是怎麽运作的。 Lucifer 我觉得这样是个不错的作法....:> (12/2) 昨天十二点吃完饭後聊到五点，有很多谈过的东西Grace和我可能都会忘记。 在课程内容的品管方面，他们由modules的author, editor来决定，所以他们工 作人员不负责品质管制，他们工作人员只负责提供及维持介面；所以当我问CNX 上面只有115门课时，他们强调2000 modules的部分，认为只要有人愿意使用 CNX就可以了；中文方面的问题，在技术支援方面他们愿意去克服、去创新， Richard说愿意尝试「直式中文」的介面建立，因为他知道希伯来文是从右边 写到左边；所以说，他们认为中文不是问题，大家都可以进入CNX的世界，每 个author去编写他们的module，在每个主题的module页面上，当然都可以连结 到OOPS网页的内容去。 所以，和我事前猜想的一样：「要引导 OOPS的读者去进入 他们所建立的介面 平台里面？」 另一方面，如果担心有一天每个module都有不同语言版本出现，资料却毁坏时 ，大概是用英文版reboot. 所谓的module，编写出来只是一页的单元观念，结构相当简洁，这一页内容还 可以print成pdf files；所以我认为author只要写一页的东西，应该都不难。 其他方面想到时再聊… Alvin (12/8) Grace's field notes (based on my fading memory and my thoughts) CNX's overall issues: (and they admit these themselves too) People don't understand what CNX is. (did you know that CNX is really about an open-source textbook system that is not OCW, not wikipedia, not even a place for an instructor to upload powerpoint?) System is not that easy to use (actually pretty hard to use in my opinion) CNX's Nice features – in terms of OOPS-CNX collaboration Modular approach (module level instead of course level) They are not concerned about quality (we might be finally able to break the editor shortage issue by not having pre-publishing editing) Use CSS (might be able to create a skin with OOPS' look, feel and logo) User profile (click on names to get to this profile page with pictures, bios, etc that the authors can update, quite nice) Community links to contents: unlike the OLS approach, CNX has some better ideas of how to interlink a community (say Chinese translator community) to a piece of translation. They have some pretty good ideas and they showed us the beta version. Creating textbooks: this is really what CNX is and maybe this could be another way to attract volunteers as their work could be part of a textbook. Allow commercialization: be careful of backfire but maybe this is another way to attract certain volunteers. (for example, if you translate a module, if this module eventually becomes a part of a textbook, then your name is printed when people buy that textbook) Reusability: CNX seems to really make this very tricky idea (in my view) work in their system. Many tools: they have many tools and are willing to develop more if needed. Possible challenges (for anyone to work with CNX) to sell the modular approach: can volunteers see the value of a stand-alone module when most of the modules in CNX do not belong to a course? the system is hard to use: the search, forking, workgroup, etc. Require registration to make changes and cannot share registration with OOPS. Cannot keep track of changes (like the word – track changes). Will have to talk to them if OOPS wants to keep the current edit-then-publish workflow. Many issues here but also many possibilities. Allow multiple translations. CNX does not plan to keep track of who is translating what and they don't see the need for a time-period requirement (like we have 2 months). They encourages multiple translations of the same content in the same language. We asked if we could at least know who else is translating and they said they can think about it. Tricky to make it work with their current system though. Hosting issue: CNX is a complete system that cannot just be mirrored. We brought up the connection issue (like from China) and they didn't have an answer for that. They want us to "join" them. Maintain our own identity and community: if we join them, we need a way to keep our identity. OOPS volunteers "work" for OOPS, not for MIT or CNX. OOPS user support would be an issue as no one in CNX speaks Chinese. They said they would be happy to support our volunteer questions but when asked if they are ready to support 1,700 volunteers tomorrow, basically the answer is no. Moving forward CNX will provide a document of how they think the users (translators) would like the system to work. Richard is planning on visiting you in Taiwan soon. (evidently he has a brother who has visited Taiwan three times and loves it Richard asked twice if we need a proof of concept to move forward or if this is truly grassroots ( i.e. do we need to go through you) Alvin and I promised we will talk to you about our meeting Alvin had many good questions and suggestions, one of which he suggested that OOPS can try to get several volunteers try CNX out and give CNX their feedback after using the system. CNX likes that idea. I imagine this to be a small coordinated effort on OOPS' part. Maybe OOPS could offer to translate some CNX help manual and pages first (but those help manuals are for authors to create content, no volunteer manual yet. But they do have some help on how to use the system, etc) Grace signs off now. Get Alvin's perspectives too. He has many good ideas. Grace --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 219.70.252.229