We have visited MIT OCW.


Doesn’t know much about foreign OER. Heard about distance ed, 


I have heard about foreign OER, but don’t know a lot about it. I talked with a foreign colleague about it. 


Not familiar with OER. TLCP is a kind of OER. I looked at some for my discipline, students sent me links. I wish all people in society had a chance to access these lectures in the future. 


comparing MIT OCW and TLCP. More TLCP courses, but MIT much more successful. CORE is the way to bring China's courses "to the world". need to share TLCP with the world - hand-in-hand with CORE. should translate to all world languages, to take advantage of "Chinese language wave", and increase the worldwide impact of courses. should do like MIT and work with companies to increase quality of online offering.


5) 开放课件运动的国际拓展

Long and detailed paper about all the different cases, OCW, OLI, OCI, CORE, Japan etc. Also a classification of ways of collaborating with MIT. Wang Long... 王 丁兴富 


8) 国家精品课程与MIT OCW课程比较分析 

compared 14 TLCP biology courses and 22 MIT OCW courses. made a table of contents (has outline, etc). much more learning activities, group activities etc in MIT courses, TLCP is mostly based on classroom instruction. resources and teaching in MIT tied more closely together - for example giving page numbers etc. TLCP links to resources, but students have to spend time finding it themselves.


国外优质教育资源引入并利用的探索语思考 (DLUT, Zhu Hong) ilib

Zhu, Liu & Yuan (2005)

MIT OCW as part of internationalization of higher ed. 

increase quality (suzhi), and creativity. 

use foreign material to compensate for the weaknesses in our own country (mibu wo guo de bu zu)

learn from advanced universities (jiejian)

borrow foreign teaching theories, teaching methods and teching contents

increase collaboration between our institutions and foreign top-level institutions

increase modernization

top international universities, in addition to having more resources etc, also have more progressive teaching based on the latest research - more stimulating, research-based, questioning. we want to adopt that.

we should also push the best of Chinese pedagogical theory, and top-quality teaching material to the world. to help the world understand higher education in China, the development of education in China, to prepare a good platform for international collaboration.

DLUT is one of the 12 backbone institutions in the Chinese OCW project. the first to start using iLab.

Work with MIT, USU. They have an MIT mirror on campus. 

MIT sent some people to campus to help with iLab.

helped with translation work of MIT material, also tried to get own TLCP material translated to English, share with the world.



Before, we received foreign learning material, and we could only find out what they were teaching. Now, with OCW, we can also see how they are teaching, and get an understanding of the entire process of teaching, and this is very valuable to our educational research.

the material is very well structured, it's very clear what the expectations to students are, and all the relevant material - outline, homework, lectures - is bundled together. 

they demand a lot for students own learning - they cover a lot more material than us in the same amount of time. Much is not covered in lectures, and lectures are often used for discussion, but the students still have to cover that material and be tested on it, which increases their ability to self-study.

in China, still focused on teaching "the truth"

letting students get hands on, instead of just listening to teacher. not explain everything first, let them do experiments first. "foreign" method more research-based.

opening of educational material is a path to deepen the reform of teaching.

Ruth report

TLCP is not known internationally as a quality mechanism at all, however it has been very frequently mentioned in the OER literature as a Chinese version of "OpenCourseWare". This is largely because CORE, although having no formal link with TLCP, has taken it on themselves to "introduce it" to the world, using the unofficial moniker "China Quality OpenCourseWare". Because the web outputs of the program (actually a small part of the entire program, but the one visible to the world) are superficially very similar to the websites of MIT and other OpenCourseWare sites, it's natural for foreigners to believe that it's the same thing. As I wrote earlier, this also fits nicely with the pattern - Taiwan has Taiwan OCW, Japan has Japan OCW, and Korea KOCW which coordinates OCW production from many universities. It's natural to think that China would have CORE, which did the same... This misunderstanding has existed for 7 years. 

(here is a classic example of this misunderstanding from Carson, S. (2009). The unwalled garden: growth of the OpenCourseWare Consortium, 2001-2008. Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 24(1): 

In 2004 collaboration between the Chinese Ministry of Education and MIT's translation partner CORE would lead to the launch of the China Quality OpenCourseWare project, an effort to openly publish the best courses from across the Chinese higher education system. By mid-2005, materials from more than 500 Chinese courses were available through the CORE site. This collection of courseware has now grown to over 1600 total courses, some of which are now being translated into English by the CORE team.