http://cnx.rice.edu 以下是我和另一位休士頓大學學生Grace訪問萊斯大學前後，和朱學恆Lucifer 之間的通信內容，提供給各位參考。內容頗長，我有整理成一個word檔， 有興趣的人我可以寄給他。我的e-mail: [email protected] MSN: [email protected] (11/24) Dear Lucifer, CNX的架構精神和MITOCW略有不同。CNX把傳統的學習方式當成一種舊的教學方 式，他們認為一個教授寫一本書要花數年的時間，他們也認為一本書裡面的內 容並不是完整的知識；所以他們認為建立CNX成為一個介面，把不同資料裏的 觀念（concept）締結在一起，所以他們把人分成3個角色author, instructor, & student，從最初author所製造出來的材料，解構後重新組裝成具有連結關係 的知識，讓讀者享用，然而讀者也可以去修正其內容。所以他們線上的知識是 動態的學習方式（dynamic），如果這樣的知識內容要完全翻譯成中文版本，大 概會讓翻譯者疲於奔命。 CNX這樣的特殊觀念要如何和OOPS產生合作關係？要引導OOPS的讀者去進入他們 所建立的介面平台裡面？或者那樣的介面平台要在OOPS裏建立起來？CNX他們也 架構出可以中文閱讀及交流的方式；所以我認為兩者的合作關係可能要有進一 步的思考，這方面我下週可能無法答話；而且我認為他們可能會從CNX這樣的觀 念角度，希望OOPS來配合什麼事情，所以到時候丟出新idea的人可能是他們， 而不是我們。 目前CNX上面的課程僅有115門課，其他是衍生出來的2713個module（締結關係） http://cnx.rice.edu/content/browse_content 從另一方面來思考，CNX希望建立的community是線上的community。然而舊有的 教學方式，有修課及學分的壓力才有促使一個人唸書的動力，有設定好的考試 及作業範圍才會讓人去念他原本沒興趣念的東西；由讀者自己決定自己想念的 範圍以及尋找其連接的關係，可能會產生知識上的「偏食」行為。 還有，CNX所建立的線上community，好比電子銀行及電子商務的建立，然而電子 銀行的出現並未讓傳統銀行櫃臺消失，電子商務的出現也沒讓商家的門市店員減 少；人與人面對面對話的重要性無法取代，因為下意識會有安全感和信任感；下 週我們去和他們談，也是面對面的對話。 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 知識上的「偏食」行為. 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) 我想一切還得是要跟對方實際當面談談之後才知道。因為CNX的規格和運作方式 很有可能讓他們成為獨一無二，但卻是僅可能有一種語言版本的內容，或者是 翻譯永遠追不上修改的狀況。總之，既然他們說過有進行類似相關的翻譯計畫， 我想其實可以瞭解一下他們到底是怎麼運作的。 Lucifer 我覺得這樣是個不錯的作法....:> (12/2) 昨天十二點吃完飯後聊到五點，有很多談過的東西Grace和我可能都會忘記。 在課程內容的品管方面，他們由modules的author, editor來決定，所以他們工 作人員不負責品質管制，他們工作人員只負責提供及維持介面；所以當我問CNX 上面只有115門課時，他們強調2000 modules的部分，認為只要有人願意使用 CNX就可以了；中文方面的問題，在技術支援方面他們願意去克服、去創新， Richard說願意嘗試「直式中文」的介面建立，因為他知道希伯來文是從右邊 寫到左邊；所以說，他們認為中文不是問題，大家都可以進入CNX的世界，每 個author去編寫他們的module，在每個主題的module頁面上，當然都可以連結 到OOPS網頁的內容去。 所以，和我事前猜想的一樣：「要引導 OOPS的讀者去進入 他們所建立的介面 平台裡面？」 另一方面，如果擔心有一天每個module都有不同語言版本出現，資料卻毀壞時 ，大概是用英文版reboot. 所謂的module，編寫出來只是一頁的單元觀念，結構相當簡潔，這一頁內容還 可以print成pdf files；所以我認為author只要寫一頁的東西，應該都不難。 其他方面想到時再聊… 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 --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 219.70.252.229