MOOC as Learning Experience – #OpenEdMOOC Week 3

Format ImagePosted on by David Truss

For Week 1 I shared ‘Open Matters‘ with a bit from the reading, and an Open Education Manifesto that I put together in 2011.

For Week 2 I shared ‘“More Free” #OpenEdMooc Week 2‘ with a reflection on Stephen Downe’s 2012 post on the topic of why BY-NC-SA is more free than suggested in the Creative Commons.

I really haven’t done much more that summarize the readings, add a bit of reflection, and some of my thinking (previously) influenced by others… nothing really new, just summaries and review of things I’ve already thought about.

For that reason, it was refreshing to see Lisa M. Lane discuss OERs again.

“I’ve posted a number of times on Open Educational Resources, and mentioning these might help explain why I subject the entire issue to serious criticism, a small sigh, and a raised eyebrow…”

Go ahead and read the post, and the comments (please).

I found this refreshing because this was the first of the learner contributions to the course that went beyond summarizing the reading or past thinking, and it was also critical of the conversation.

Even my post on “More Free”, while somewhat argumentative on the Creative Commons ideas of what is more or less free, was still just reiteration of Stephen Downe’s idea, which he again mentioned in the last 38 seconds of his video, in this week’s course content (shared below).

In the course so far, Lisa’s post was the first student contribution that I’ve found, which promoted conversation and discourse. Discourse is actually the thing I most appreciated about a previous project involving George Siemens and Stephen Downes, “Online Connectivism Conference: Healthy Discord”

This discourse is something that I have seldom seen in the world of educational blogs. There seems to be an unspoken etiquette about being non-confrontational when discussing ideas on other’s blogs. Essentially teachers don’t criticize others’ opinions. Even when there is disagreement it is often polite, reserved and… well, annoying. On the other hand, there seems to be thoughtful discord and discourse happening in the Connectivism conference forums.

Yesterday, Donna Fry connected with me on Twitter (she is the reason I jumped on board to take this course ‘with’ her and others. She linked to a Tweet about another open course Learning Creative Learning, and also said, “…I am so far behind in already (right ?)”

My response:

This morning we connected and had a great Facetime conversation. This conversation was the second time my thinking has been challenged in the course. Donna helped me re-evaluate the value of the ‘No Derivatives’ aspect of CC, which I didn’t see a purpose for, because I thought of it as equally as restricted as copyright. Her example was sharing something controversial, where ‘altered’ works could then cause mis-attribution and confusion about your original message.

Another key topic discussed was that we both learn from healthy discourse (and even discord)… something lacking (so far) in this course.

Donna shared with me (and on Twitter with #OpenEdMOOC) an article by Margaret Wheatley, “Willing to be Disturbed“:

“There are many ways to sit and listen for the differences. Lately, I’ve been listening for what surprises me. What did I just hear that startled me? This isn’t easy – I’m accustomed to sitting there nodding my head to those saying things I agree with. But when I notice what surprises me, I’m able to see my own views more dearly, including my beliefs and assumptions”

and Doug Belshaw “On CC0”

• CC0/Public Domain: “No Rights Reserved” — I have created this thing, and you can do whatever you like with it.

…For me, the CC0 decision is a no-brainer. I’m working to make the world a better place through whatever talents and skills that I’ve got. While I want my family to live comfortably, I’m not trying to accumulate wealth. That’s not what drives me. So I definitely feel what Alan says that he’s “given up trying to be an attribution cop”.

Both of these articles have pushed my thinking a bit, both are initiated not by the course content, but rather learner relationships.


And so with the following 2 tweets in mind, I planned to call this post “Open Discourse”:

@_Ms_J contributed:

However, I started thinking about why this idea of disagreement and discourse was missing, and that got me thinking about course design. So far, I can see this course being more informational that conversational and that makes me question the value of it being a MOOC, and not just an online course where the student, teacher and content are the primary focus.

To me, the value of a MOOC is that the participants get to openly engage with each other and the curriculum in a way that fosters greater value than if students immerse themselves in the course without the networked connections of other participants.

So here is a little image that I’ve put together to look at the MOOC as Learning Experience.

Venn diagrams are about the relationships between things and I think these relationships are key in a MOOC. Donna says above, ‘MOOCs are more about conversations & connections than content’, and I think learner experience in a MOOC is really about the relationships we have with each other, as much or more than the relationships with the content… if not, where is the value in being ‘open’?

Here is a brief description of the relationships that I see between a MOOC, the teacher(s), and the participants:

MOOC content <-> Teacher

  • If the material is Open and Online, the design around how things are shared needs thoughtful consideration.
  • Participant contributions are distributed and so a component like the ‘Learner Activity‘ page is essential.
  • Social sharing/hashtag/conversation beyond learner activity content is essential.

Participants <-> MOOC Content

  • Content is open and easy to access and share.
  • Learning activity is open and easy to access and share.
  • Content is designed to go beyond information delivery and designed to promote dialogue and discourse.

Teacher <-> Participants

  • Focus on open, publish sharing
  • Teacher as provocateur, agitator. The course delivers the content, the teacher inspires the conversation.
  • Teacher as questioner, not answerer (more socratic rather than a focus on content delivery).
  • Social interaction – connections and conversations with other learners – are fostered.
  • I think there also needs to be intentional teacher presence if the conversation isn’t happening, and perhaps intentional teacher ‘tongue-biting‘ when participants are asking the right questions and contributing to each others’ learning.

Ultimately, learner experience in a MOOC is about fostering relationships between the teacher, the content, and the other participants to add value to what the course would be if it were not open.

It is about connectivity and networked learning, not just a student <-> teacher <-> content relationship.

I invite conversation, by all means, go ahead and disagree with me… ask questions, provide alternative perspectives. Help me learn.

The 5R’s, CC, and Open Licensing

Format ImagePosted on by Merle
Another challenging week of reading and video consumption. I had not realised how complicated issues of copyright and licenses with varying amounts of permissions could be. It is important information to be able to learn, remember, and use.


David Wiley’s presentation at LCCOER Defining OER was most illuminating. David used a lot of metaphor and examples and made the content so clear and entertaining. He spoke about education as sharing. In fact, he went as far as to say that “all the things that are actually truly educative about our work are all acts of sharing, full stop.” Yes, I agree 100%. That is what drew me to Open Education. Sharing is the key.


When competing my OER Evangelism video, I was impressed by Alby Fitisemanu also saying that education is not selfish… that education is sharing. It is so true. I have always loved teaching and I have always been a teacher surrounded by love. I truly have always loved my students. I have shared myself, shared my ideas, shared my insights, and been the recipient of so much knowledge that my students have shared with me. I have so many wonderful tributes from students. I will share two briefly. Selena mentioned I had, “unwavering support, passion and commitment to education, and to the students of South Auckland.” And Rebecca stated, “She has shown me how to be gentle towards others and myself and when I'm down, to brush myself off and get back on the horse and start again.”

Where's Wally? Or, should I say Where's Merle?

In New Zealand the Māori and Pasifika peoples have cultures of sharing, and, thankfully, this has had an impact on the beliefs and practices of educators. The most collaborative and sharing group of educators I have ever met, are those I have had the pleasure of working with in virtual worlds since 2008. My first presentation at my first conference was about the collaborative nature of virtual world education (eFest, 2009).

Meeting of the Virtual Worlds Working Group

David went on to tell the story of a beautiful land with meadows, flowers and bees that didn’t sting. Travel across this beautiful land was made possible by the invention on the automobile and roads. A law was passed that whatever “whiz-bang” gadget was used, it had to stay on the roads. With the exciting development of the airplane, the law to stay on the roads became stifling and unproductive. In this little analogy, copyright is the airplane of education. David highlighted the fact that all the powerful things the Internet makes possible are harnessed and even prohibited by copyright. David’s solution: “So the answer to how do we get this plane in the air is open educational resources.” It certainly makes sense.

Get this plane in the air with OER


The 5 R’s: retain, reuse, revise, remix, and redistribute (the permissions described by the Creative Commons license system – for more explanation see the previous post, dated 14th October, Understanding the Commons or check out the delightful little video from Creative Commons called Wanna Work Together). Retain is the most basic permission because if you do not have the resource in hand, you cannot reuse, revise, remix, or redistribute it!


The idea of faux-pen (fake open) was mentioned in David’s presentation. I love this term!!!!! It immediately brought to mind my first experiences using Canvas, at the start of this year. I had been a power user in BlackBoard for 16 years. At the end of 2016, with only a couple of month’s warning, the institution switched from BlackBoard to Canvas. In my first Canvas training session, I was elated seeing the long, long list of Apps that could be used in Canvas. I was going to have fun!!!


As the months went on, I discovered how few apps were really available! I even asked for a list of freely accessible apps, and after receiving a list of over a hundred, narrowed it down to 24 I wanted to investigate for the purposes of preparing my new course, Appreciation of eLearning Tools. After hours of disappointments, I found four that I could use. I had an equally frustrating time hunting down free online apps. They were free for a time and then required payment.


Stephen Downes mentioned another related problem with the CC Licensing system. The dichotomy of whether open can be commercial or whether it should be non-commercial. Could legal, commercial use of a CC Licensed product cause it to be labelled as faux-pen?


One of the most inspirational parts of David’s presentation was in his description of the 3 R’s relating to the adoption of an OE resource: replace, realign, and rethink. David used a delightful analogy of going to a buffet. A wide array of dishes is available. You know you like beef and broccoli, so you only eat the beef and broccoli. What a shame to not try the other available delicacies. To replace or substitute is fine, but there is more to a buffet than beef and broccoli.

Whi limit yourself to beef and broccoli?

Realign refers to making sure that whatever replacement you choose, satisfies the Learning Objectives of the course you are delivering. David suggests using the Learning Objectives or Learning Outcomes as the Table of Contents for an OE replacement text. David uses another analogy of selecting the furnishings in a living room. The objectives or outcomes are the items in the living room. As an educator, you can use the range of OERs available as a catalogue of possible furnishings. And then Rethink takes the OER adoption further into decisions based on Open Learning Pedagogies.

OERs online - your catalogue of furnishings

I was very motivated and excited to read about renewable assignments. I am busy preparing course material for a Certificate in Tertiary Teaching course in Creative Delivery. David’s ideas for the Kung Fu assignment, the student adapted and edited book on Project Management, and the idea of the project management certified professional certificate, to motivate students to collect their own exam preparation content in an OER, are all brilliant! Great ideas from a great mind!


Norman Bier, from Carnegie Mellon’s Open Learning Initiative, spoke (very quickly) about One Superpower of OER. This superpower refers to the ability of OER to tackle the Gordian Knot, the seemingly intractable and complicated issue of institutional creation, use, and ownership. OER can provide a solution that addresses the needs of the educators, their institutions, and their legal departments and associated organisations.

Representing the Tertiary Teaching Unit







sharing is loving, loving is sharing

Format ImagePosted on by ARAS

Reflections on Week 3: #OpenEdMOOC


Reading Ken Bauer's blog, Licenses: Data, Code, Practices, the image he used inspired me to write a few lines on sharing. 

Credit: TalkingPlant

We already talk about 5Rs, copyright and creative commons. What about original motive to share? Beyond many positive purposes covered in #OpenEdMOOC, I believe that sharing is loving. We should share to love ourselves, others, nature, world, souls, and the learning ecosystem we breathe in....

When we were kids, we loved sharing cos it was an intrinsic, naturally inherited motive. As we grow up, we learned to keep, hide, confine, lock and put those precious in "boxes". Thus, to be human, to be pure and innocent, to go back to origins when only loved everything, we should share with love...

Credit: Binny V A

OER Evangelism

Format ImagePosted on by Merle
This week we were charged with engaging in OER Evangelism on my campus. Well, I am not a very social person and generally keep to myself and my students. This week I went out of my way to be social! ? I made appointments with a number of Senior Lecturers and Management, including our Chief Executive, Gus Gilmore. It was an interesting experience. I interviewed really good people who truly believe in Open Education.


I must admit to a panic attack every time I was on my way to interview a member of the Executive! I felt my heart beat through my ears as I rounded the corner of C Block! But, our Chief Executive, Gus Gilmore, and the Director of External Relations, Stuart Middleton, were charming, helpful, and generous of their time and expertise. Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, our new Deputy Chief Executive Pasifika and former cabinet minister, made the trip to the offices of the Tertiary Teaching Unit, where I work! He was the epitome of kindness.


I even felt nervous interviewing people I know and love dearly! Our Kaiārahi Ako, Luana Te Hire, was no exception. But, what a wonderful and knowledgeable woman, with a huge heart of gold. Dr Clive Cornford, Associate Dean of the Faculty of Consumer Services and Melanie Wong, the Research Coordinator for our faculty, were welcoming and pleasant. We actually chatted far longer than I anticipated! I cannot miss mentioning Jo and Alby, my two workmates, and exceptional people in every way.


I must admit to leaving one interview in a rather emotional state. I was so touched by the things I heard from Stuart Middleton, our Director of External Relations. I wish I could have included the whole interview, but the video would have doubled in length. I had no idea what a pioneer he has been in New Zealand in Open Education. Winning a NZ Media Award, way back in 2002, speaks to the impact he has made on education and in our local community.


Well, I hope someone takes the time to go through my video. It is far from professional, but it comes from the heart. It allows you an insight into the beliefs and practices of a small institution in South Auckland, New Zealand, an area renowned for its mixed ethnic population and low socio-economic status. Needless to say, given the environment in which we live and work, Open Education is seen to be of vital importance.




Escape From LMS

Format ImagePosted on by Terry Greene @greeneterry

I love the concept and the practices of Domain of One’s Own as a foil to the LMS. For students and for learning professionals. It’s empowering. It’s rewarding. It centres your work around yourself rather than it being all chopped up in different tools in an LMS. You retain full control of your work with a domain. If it’s work towards a credential, then your assessor comes to you. You don’t hide your work in some assignment dropbox or discussion board.

But have you tried explaining DoOO to someone who hasn’t even really had the opportunity to consider the infrastructure of where their learning is occurring? Most people, instructors and students alike, put stuff in the LMS because that’s the thing to put it in. They’ve had no cause, yet, to think about why it might not be the best set up for their own learning.

I hadn’t really yet come up with a succinct reason or way to try to persuade someone of the benefits of running your own domain for learning purposes. It wasn’t until watching the initial week 3 video for #OpenEdMOOC that it hit me; The first step is to try to show students why they should not be too happy about what happens to their work in the LMS. It’s nuked as soon as the course is over. Gonzo. The students are the ultimate “customers” for an LMS and it is designed to purge anything they do as soon as a course is rolled over. I say poo poo to that.

They don’t just lose access to the curriculum material, they lose access to their own contributions to that curriculum.

~George Siemens

Anyway, my point is, (and as the ultra high-end MS Paint skills that I used to edit the poster below shows) it’s all about the escape first. Talk about getting out of the LMS first before you hit them with DoOO as a place to land and build a home. Snake wasn’t worrying about where he was going to go after he got out. He just needed to get the hell out of L.A.

EFLA

“Escape” flickr photo by Metaphox https://flickr.com/photos/lonelyfox/2961899020 shared under a Creative Commons (BY) license

 

Licenses: Data, Code, Practices

Format ImagePosted on by Ken Bauer

Open, but not just about Linux

Licenses can be a dry topic for some but have been key to my teaching. Any of my students and colleagues during the past twenty plus years know me as the teacher who was always pushing the use of Linux, Eclipse, Apache Emacs and other open source tools that use open source licensing. This is an important part of my practice and my tool set and remains so.  Read on to get a view on how my teaching has changed to include more focus on open data and open practices.  

WWW and Licenses

When Tim Berners-Lee had his first visions of what we now know as the World Wide Web, the key was the linking of data across the internet via the hypertext transfer protocol.  He and we want to see data linked so that we can discover data relevant to our work and follow the links from that data to related data or sources relevant to our search. While doing the reading and video views for this week, I remember back to a workshop that I gave on Open Education Resources at our campus in Querétaro in 2015. Before, during and after that session I had curated various links to share with the faculty which included a link to this Tim Berners-Lee article on Linked Data. In this article, Tim lays out the 5 stars or Open Data, I include a table from that article here below:
★ Available on the web (whatever format) but with an open licence, to be Open Data
★★ Available as machine-readable structured data (e.g. excel instead of image scan of a table)
★★★ as (2) plus non-proprietary format (e.g. CSV instead of excel)
★★★★ All the above plus, Use open standards from W3C (RDF and SPARQL) to identify things, so that people can point at your stuff
★★★★★ All the above, plus: Link your data to other people’s data to provide context
Another page for a good resource on the five star deployment scheme is 5 star data (the content of this page is available under a CC0 license). That page includes this graphical step view of the 5 stars to help explain the escalation of openness:
Open Licenses remind me of this Image of 5 star steps of open data as described by Tim Berners-Lee
Original at http://5stardata.info/en/

David Wiley’s 5 Rs

The 5 star model came back to me when looking at the 5 Rs of open content as defined by David Wiley:
  1. Retain – the right to make, own, and control copies of the content (e.g., download, duplicate, store, and manage)
  2. Reuse – the right to use the content in a wide range of ways (e.g., in a class, in a study group, on a website, in a video)
  3. Revise – the right to adapt, adjust, modify, or alter the content itself (e.g., translate the content into another language)
  4. Remix – the right to combine the original or revised content with other material to create something new (e.g., incorporate the content into a mashup)
  5. Redistribute – the right to share copies of the original content, your revisions, or your remixes with others (e.g., give a copy of the content to a friend)
When thinking about open licenses, we can view the 5 star model of open data as enabling the 5 Rs of open content, or perhaps the 5 Rs are in fact guiding or choice of licenses for our data in a 5 star model.

Creative Commons Licences

That brings us to the Creative Commons and the licenses that they provide for us to use with our work. We can look at how each component (or option) of a creative commons license applies to the 5 Rs of open content:
  • Attribution (BY)  – Here we have the base, that one gives the right to reuse, remix, revise and redistribute our work but requiring that credit is given to the original author.
  • ShareAlike (SA) – adding what we know in the Open Source Software license domain as a viral component to the license. Anyone using (remix, reuse, revise, redistribute) a work with this component SA must also license their work based on the work in question under a similar license. This is similar to the GPL and CopyLeft as put forth by Richard Stallman.
  • NoDerivs (ND) – This is a way to freeze the work. Redistribution is fine (with attribution) but removes the ability to remix and revise the work.
  • NonCommercial (NC) – Another restrictive component that can be placed on a license is to restrict the use of the work in question to only noncommercial uses. I struggle when to place this restriction on my work and currently all of my images on my Flickr account use NC.
Licenses to Remix All the Things When I had that first exposure that I had in 2003 to Creative Commons licenses in a talk by Lawrence Lessig (see my first post in this series), the word that stuck with me most was “remixing”. Larry used examples of musicians during his talk. When choosing which license to put on your work, this excellent chart from the Creative Commons website can help you decide what works best for you and the work in question:
image of Creative Commons licenses compatibility
Source: https://creativecommons.org/faq/

Feature Image Credit

CC License promotion via image of children working on a laptop
Kids Share flickr photo by cogdogblog shared under a Creative Commons (BY) license
    The post Licenses: Data, Code, Practices appeared first on Connecting is Learning.

OERs and Open Education: An Open Invitation (#OpenEdMOOC)

Format ImagePosted on by Benjamin L. Stewart, PhD

For week 3 of an Introduction to Open Education – #OpenEdMOOC, I decided to extend an invitation to my colleagues at the Universidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes to consider open educational resources (OERs) and to share how they might impact their own teaching practice.  I chose to share this video via Yammer and to also upload it to Microsoft Stream which both form part of an intranet for sharing and communicating within the institution.

This video was produced using LumaFusion on an iPad Pro before being uploaded to YouTube and Internet Archive under a Creative Commons license.

Las 5R’s en la Escuela

Format ImagePosted on by berenicemelo

El caracter de abierto, pedagógicamente, permite el acceso de los alumnos a las más diversas actividades y situaciones de aprendizaje y al auge y la expansión de la educación abierta con fenómenos como son primero los OER, el courseware y después  los MOOC, es el carácter abierto de los recursos, básicamente textos, vídeos y lecciones.

Es importante mencionar que el contenido abierto es un contenido con autoría, copyright y licencia de uso regulado y protegido por las leyes. La definición más precisa es la que da Wiley (2014) en relación con las actividades 5R:

El término “contenido abierto” se aplica a cualquier trabajo con copyright (excepto o el software, que tradicionalmente es descrito como “código abierto”, open source) con licencia, de manera que  los usuarios tienen un permiso  libre de participar en unas actividades perfectamente delimitadas.

En la definición de Wiley,  las actividades las define como actividades 5R:

1. Retener.- Consiste en el derecho de hacer, poseer, y disponer de ejemplares de
control de los contenidos, da derecho a descargar, duplicar, almacenar y administrar.

2. Reutilizar.- Consiste en el derecho a utilizar el contenido en repetidas y distintas
formas, en clase, en un grupo de estudio o de trabajo, en una conferencia, en un sitio web, en un video, etc.

3. Revisar.- Consiste en el derecho a adaptar, ajustar o modificar el contenido
original, incluye traducir los contenidos originales a otro idioma.

4. Remezclar (Remix).- Consiste en el derecho a combinar el contenido original o
revisado con otro contenido abierto para crear un producto que, de esta forma,
es nuevo.

5. Redistribuir.- Consiste en el derecho a compartir copias del contenido original,
de sus revisiones, o de sus mezclas con terceros, como es, repartir copias del contenido con los amigos.

En un curso en linea, los alumnos pueden inscribirse libremente y acceder sin límite a esos materiales. Pero sin percatarse de que las condiciones de uso son más restrictivas que el pentágono¡¡.

Por ejemplo si un profesor se inscribe en un curso de Edx, firma su declaración de uso de materiales, y después utiliza esos materiales en su propio curso en su escuela, u otra institución académica sin el expreso permiso por escrito de Edx, está cometiendo una violación  y es perseguible legalmente. Dejo la pregunta: ¿esto sera cierto?.

50581971-prisionero-masculina-en-estilo-de-dibujos-animados

Imagen recuperada de: https://es.123rf.com/

Referencia:

Zapata-Ros, Miguel (s.f.). Calidad en enseñanza abierta online universitaria: Del aula
virtual al MOOC. Recuperado el 20 de octubre de 2017 de: http://eprints.rclis.org/25532/1/calidad_MOOC.pdf


Open Education as a Precursor to Making Learning Personal (#OpenEdMOOC)

Format ImagePosted on by Benjamin L. Stewart, PhD

For week 3 of An Introduction to Open Education, I read, My Personalized Learning Experience (Week Three), after being prompted to do so from a recent Twitter exchange:

 

 

 

 

Personalized Learning, Differentiated Instruction, and Open Licensing

I have always been interested in how others see personalized learning and differentiated instruction in combatting “traditional” teaching methods.  Lifeexamined22’s post does not mention differentiated instruction, but instead addresses “personalized learning” – as a reflective process – which I would like to follow up on here.  I have spoken about the notion of “personalized learning” on prior occasions.

Why am I shifting away from traditional education and towards personalized learning?

Moving away from a traditional education is, generally speaking, a good thing… I’m just not sure how “personalized” this process ends up becoming simply by giving students choices in how they engage in their own learning trajectory. Teachers may employ a teaching approach that allows learners to choose between content, process, product, and/or environment, but the actions learners take represent any learning strategies employed to make decisions and to develop skill sets for a particular purpose. Making learning personal, then, is a collection of personal learning strategies intentionally imposed by the individual (or network), for the individual (or network), through a growing level of self-awareness as to how to best engage with ideas, materials, and others (a PLN).

Setbacks and Opposition

It’s possible that “setbacks” come from learners being inexperienced and unaware (i.e., metacognitive unawareness).  When using ICTs or social media in unfamiliar (learning) contexts, it’s possible that initially, students feel distracted, which can hinder the learning process for a period of time.  But it’s never just the technology.  Technology often brings new forms of communication or engagement that is uncomfortable for the learner but still may be beneficial.  Technology can promote new relationships with other people that may be different in how ideas are exchanged and what additional ideas (concepts, conflicts, etc.) emerge.  When evaluating setbacks, consider the entire PLN as a whole since technology (materials) is only part of the issue.

If students are missing the lecture-based classes, it could be simply them getting used to a new way of learning.  It could be they were given no choice in the removal of the long lecture.  It could also be that a dynamic lecture – a talk broken down into shorter segments followed by some brief activity – works for some and not for others.  Regardless, the professor is not attempting to “personalize” learning, but rather is trying a new pedagogical approach that might (or might not) impact a learner’s self-awareness of a PLN (i.e., making learning personal).  Stated another way, teachers cannot personalize learning for students; students can, however, become more self-aware of their own PLN that serves a particular purpose (e.g., learning objectives/outcomes).  Teachers can help learners develop this metacognitive skill through ongoing, transparent communication.

The best way to analyze student success is to understand the decisions and actions they took that led to some favorable outcome.  Students become aware of what they did and did not do, and teachers become aware of their part in this process and what they could have done differently.

Moving away from traditional methods of teaching (which is not all bad) has more to do with differentiated instruction (i.e., understanding the impact of student and teacher decision-making processes), awareness of one’s PLN, and personal reflection, and happens best when education remains open.  Transparency of teaching and learning occurs when stakeholders understand and engage with OERs and how they function throughout the network: 5Rs, Creative Commons, and Public Domain.  Understanding licensing is the foundation of making learning personal (as opposed to personalized).

Photo Attribution

OERs again

Format ImagePosted on by Lisa M Lane

I’ve posted a number of times on Open Educational Resources, and mentioning these might help explain why I subject the entire issue to serious criticism, a small sigh, and a raised eyebrow.

And now? I’m even more skeptical, because now my own institution is pushing them. I think it was Alan Levine who first turned me on to the idea that state legislatures in the U.S. want OERs because it saves them money — they can decrease their education budget if everyone’s using “free” textbooks.

CC BY-SA 4.0 Opensource.com

It’s easy to see who makes the money with a textbook – the publishers, then the authors. With OERs it’s harder to see. In this case, it’s the state saving money, or pulling it from education. In other cases, it’s more commercial. I remember how happy I was, many years ago, when MIT released hours of lecture on YouTube. Then I discovered a company that had built a “shell” for this content, adding some discussion boards and a document that looked like a syllabus. As an instructor, you bought access to their platform for the semester, and used it like an LMS, with all the content comprised of MIT’s “free” videos. The company got money, but not MIT, not the professor. It seemed wrong then. It seems wrong now.

So now my question is, cui bono? Who benefits from OERs?

Lest you think I’m just a grumpy old prof, I don’t have to whine about my own institution’s intellectual property policy. It was developed in the first year we offered online classes (1998) by my prescient and exceptional colleague, Louisa Moon. She saw immediately the potential for online classes to be taken over by institutions, and taught without the faculty member being needed at all. One could develop a class, and the college could decide to take it and have “staff” teach it instead.

So our policy not only preserves ownership by faculty of the things we create, but even our sabbatical policy says we keep ownership so long as we don’t make excessive use of campus resources when creating stuff. I think that’s fair.

However, I work at a public community college. We do not have the same issues as universities, with their endowments and grants. But we do have a recent push to adopt OERs, and I’ve argued against it as a requirement. Not that I like textbooks (just search “textbooks” here on my blog to see how much I despise them and the whole publishing model), but if there aren’t even good open textbooks for History, there must be other areas where nothing good is available. So for me, the four priorities for using OERs are:

  1. The academic freedom of the professor in choosing what to assign
  2. The quality of the materials
  3. Whether commercial entities benefit from their use
  4.  Everything else discussed in this unit: the 5 Rs, open licenses, etc.

I guess that’s a little different than what this unit intended.