I think this is an excellent start to an open source model and like the ethos behind it. My only thought is around the whole nature of youth work and it's inherent values.
Currently there is a big trend towards curriculum and accreditation in youth work with various programmes springing up. I struggle with that approach as youth work is about process rather than outcomes, journeying with young people and having a commitment to democracy and conversation instead of pre-approved targets.
With open source youth work there must be a programme (or product) at its core (as you described well), so I am asking myself how can this model be developed while avoiding the pitfalls of pre-designated outcomes and still maintaining the commitment to process?
Did that make sense?! ;)
mas
· 1 year ago
Hi Jon - yes - and I think the answer to that will come in the strength of the community that develops it.
At the moment we have a top down model - so the powers that be enforce the requirement for programme sto seek accredited outcomes - those responsible for delivery work towards that (because they're told to). The consideration to involving young people is 'participation' or 'consultation' - but this is on the basis of things that are really already in place.
With the open source approach the model can be changed & shaped by anyone. So in theory if the demand is for programmes that are not driven by accreditation but by something else then programmes will take that shape. This of courses depends on the strength of the community involved in shaping those programmes too.
It also depends in part in the tools we use to allow people to make those changes - a point Tim mentions in his video response (I don't have the answers to that just yet)
Now the interesting bit will be that if we can get to the stage of having a programme developed with a reasonable community input (ie. not just me!), I imagine there will be some historical similarities between the development and the early stages of open source software - disregard from the existing power holders, confusion from the general 'consumer' & so on. What will ultimately win that over of course is whether the programmes any good!
Anyway - short answer to your question - yes I think we can design a programme based on process not on outcomes (but we can explore that more when we get to looking at methods of assessment & evaluation etc.)
PS thanks for the video response Tim - I want to do a bit more on the theoretical stuff then get on to looking at what tools we can use for making it 'open'. I think probably thats something best opened up for people to feedback what they are most comfortable using it rather than me determining it - I do like the look of commentpress for shaping the policy type stuff though.
One page guides will fit very well into the programme too!
Tim Davies
· 1 year ago
Just a quick reply for the mo -
If you're looking at Comment Press then you may also want to take a look at this site. Similar model but slightly different implementation: http://www.co-ment.net/
All Comments
I think this is an excellent start to an open source model and like the ethos behind it. My only thought is around the whole nature of youth work and it's inherent values.
Currently there is a big trend towards curriculum and accreditation in youth work with various programmes springing up. I struggle with that approach as youth work is about process rather than outcomes, journeying with young people and having a commitment to democracy and conversation instead of pre-approved targets.
With open source youth work there must be a programme (or product) at its core (as you described well), so I am asking myself how can this model be developed while avoiding the pitfalls of pre-designated outcomes and still maintaining the commitment to process?
Did that make sense?! ;)
At the moment we have a top down model - so the powers that be enforce the requirement for programme sto seek accredited outcomes - those responsible for delivery work towards that (because they're told to). The consideration to involving young people is 'participation' or 'consultation' - but this is on the basis of things that are really already in place.
With the open source approach the model can be changed & shaped by anyone. So in theory if the demand is for programmes that are not driven by accreditation but by something else then programmes will take that shape. This of courses depends on the strength of the community involved in shaping those programmes too.
It also depends in part in the tools we use to allow people to make those changes - a point Tim mentions in his video response (I don't have the answers to that just yet)
Now the interesting bit will be that if we can get to the stage of having a programme developed with a reasonable community input (ie. not just me!), I imagine there will be some historical similarities between the development and the early stages of open source software - disregard from the existing power holders, confusion from the general 'consumer' & so on. What will ultimately win that over of course is whether the programmes any good!
Anyway - short answer to your question - yes I think we can design a programme based on process not on outcomes (but we can explore that more when we get to looking at methods of assessment & evaluation etc.)
PS thanks for the video response Tim - I want to do a bit more on the theoretical stuff then get on to looking at what tools we can use for making it 'open'. I think probably thats something best opened up for people to feedback what they are most comfortable using it rather than me determining it - I do like the look of commentpress for shaping the policy type stuff though.
http://www.futureofthebook.org/commentpress/
One page guides will fit very well into the programme too!
If you're looking at Comment Press then you may also want to take a look at this site. Similar model but slightly different implementation: http://www.co-ment.net/