Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
SlideShare a Scribd company logo

ICDE Disruptive Open Educational Resources

•Download as PPTX, PDF•
•
Terry Anderson
Terry Anderson

The document discusses open educational resources (OERs) and whether educators are ready to adopt disruptive OER technologies. It addresses common myths about OERs, barriers to adoption, and models for funding and producing OER content. The author argues that OERs can be adapted and recontextualized to local contexts through tools like wikis and mashups. Adopting disruptive OER technologies may be challenging but can provide advantages like lower costs. Networks and social software may help connect teachers and students to generate and share knowledge through OERs.

1 of 27
Are we ready for Open Educational Resources? Terry Anderson, Ph.D. Canada Research Chair in Distance Education Terrya@athabascau.ca
• Effect of music notation • Effect of networks on OERs (from Rob Koper)
Online Conferences 17 years Later! • International Computer Conferencing for Professional Development: The Bangkok ProjectTerry Anderson and Robin Mason.American Journal of Distance Education, 7(2), 5-18 • http://auspace.athabascau.ca:8080/dspace/h andle/2149/775
Overview • OER Myths • Re-using Educational Content • Adoption of disruptive OERs • Funding and Production models
Values • We can (and must) continuously improve the quality, effectiveness, appeal, cost and time efficiency of the learning experience. • Student control and freedom is integral to 21st Century life-long education and learning. • Education for elites is not sufficient for planetary survival
OER Myths we love to hold dearly • My job is to createoriginal course content. • My course/content/context is so different that I can’t use external resources. • If we put enough good courseware out there, teachers will use it. • It is harder to contextualize others materials than to create my own. • If I put my course materials online, someone will steal them.
Why don’t we use, reuse and republish? • “An analysis of these 80 derived modules revealed that 88% (70) of them involved author users manipulating their own content. The remaining 12% (10) of the derived modules were published by authors who were not the original authors…” this suggests a hesitancy to reuse other’s content,Petrides, Nguyen, Cynthia, &Karaglani, A. (2008) Open educational resources: inquiring into author use and reuse
• Why Create a Lesson/Learning Object or Course if you Don’t share it? – Is it about me or about learning? – What is really personal about personal? – Can students, their groups and networks supply the personal? – How can I use my personal time, energy, commitment, expertise etc.) more effectively?
4 R’s of Functionality of OERs • Reuse - Use the work just exactly as you found it. • Rework - Alter or transform the work so that it better meets your needs. • Remix - Combine the (verbatim or altered) work with other works to better meet your needs. • Redistribute - Share the verbatim work, the reworked work, or the remixed work with others. – Dave Wiley http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/355
Indigenous Knowledge Systems or Resources in a Flat World • Indigenous – “coming from within” • Holistic assumptions that relevant knowledge must be indigenous deny the power and application of social appropriation • Re-contextualizing forms of knowledgehonoursboth the contextual nature of content and the capacity to mould that knowledge into frames of understanding and use, appropriate to diverse groups and networks.
Forms of Recontextualization • Traditional Wrap around- text or verbal aides to interpreting and making relevant external educational resources: – Tools for Collaborative Writing – Wikis, google docs etc. • Mashups and editing – – necessity that CC licensing allows “derivative products” – Providing source code – Retaining comments, documentation • User generated comments/edits – Wikis – Threaded discussions – VoiceThread.com !
Learning Objects OER Content Delivery Student Support Assessment Infrastructure Social Assignments Collaboration Localized re- constitution, to integrate with local Contexts From Frank Rennie
Pedagogical Integration Technical Integration Personal Effective OER Administrative Integration Applications Integration Ease of Use Social Integration
‘classical adoption theory’ Rogers 2001 Relative Advantage Not paying for re-invention, paying for effective adaptation Compatibility Run in Browser, Use of open LMS systems, moving all DE components online Observability Adding use, stymergy and tracking to OER repositories Trialability Chunking, multiple bandwidth editions
Adopting Disruptive Technologies • Constant attention to where the “puck is going to be” • Disruptive technologies may not be valued or provide advantage to existing customers • “Products based on disruptive technologies are typically cheaper, simpler, smaller, and frequently more convenient to use” (Christensen, 1997). • Bottom up disruptions - new providers using OER’s are most likely threat to established OU’s
Disruptive Technologies • “digital dissonance” - neither teachers nor students fully recognize and utilize the potential of emerging technologies for learning”Clark, Logan, Luckin, Mee, & Oliver, 2009). • Yet they continue to block each others’ use – ie banning of mobile tech and many social sites at school, lack of collaborative engagement on school based wikis, failure to license for re- use.
Barriers to Adoption of Disruptive Technologies • Lack of understanding of the technology’s viability or strategic implications. • Lack of knowledge about how the technologies could be developed and used most effectively. • Uncertainty about adequate levels of acceptance by stakeholders. • Lack of skills. Particularly technical, design, development and operations skills • Lack of finance/funding/investment – Adapted fromElliot, Williams & Bjorn-Andersen, 2005
“Disruptions are often a function of actions or inactions by dominant competitors” Paap& Katz, 2004 • Our competitors (traditional and new private universities) are adding online resources to their programming, thus creating demand for higher quality of online services from open universities. • Since we cannot afford to build it all, we need to share development costs and risks via OERs and Open Source Software
4 OER Ownership Models • Institutional ownership – Default under most ‘work for hire’ law • Shared institutional and Academic – Often unworkable – Tragedy of the anti-commons • Individual (academic ownership) – Rights of succession? Multiple authors? • Produsage(Axel Bruns) – Assume that each producer does not enforce their rights, all can treat product as a private good • (copyleft, public domain)
Drivers for Producers • Branding • Self-improvement, • Networking • Social capital building • Multiple products – differential pricing for audio, text, ad free, accredited
Funding Models (from Downes, 2007) • Endowment model (Hewlett Foundation) • Membership Model - Merlot • Donation - Wikipedia • Producer contribution • Sponsorship - Itunes University • Government funding • Only sustainable one may be student pays for use
OER Dominant Production Models Produser Model Produser/Consumer Ex. WikiEducator Ex. MIT OCW Open participation Restricted participation Emergent governance Staff production Unrestricted licensing Institutional governance Mass growth potential Non commercial license Networks, Mora, M. (2008) Groups Collectives Dron & Anderson 2008
Comparing OERs to Scholarly Production (books and articles) OERs Scholarly Publications Producers Faculty, Students, Technical Faculty, Students, Lab and ID managers Publishers Universities, societies, Commercial, societies NGOs, consortia Reviewers Consumers, INFORMAL Peers FORMAL peers (MERLOT) Rewards Teachers Researching Scholars NOT ASSESSED ASSESSED Funding Ad hoc Government, University Libraries, Presses, subscriptions, Data bases Beneficiaries Every teacher and students Narrow discipline groups www.irrodl.orgInternational Review of Research on Open and Distance Learning
Promise of Social Software • Networking tools that allow users to get to know each other, produce artifacts, share information and generate knowledge together. OER Social Software Learners Teachers
Hybrid open access/proprietary publisher http://www.flatworldknowledge.com/
Hybrid open access publishers aupress.ca • Current and upcoming Titles: – Theory and Practice of Online learning (2nd Ed.) (2008) - Terry Anderson – Mobile Learning: Transforming the Delivery of Education and Training (2009)- Mohamed Ally – A Designer's Log: Case Studies in Instructional Design (2009) - Michael Power – Accessible Elements: Teaching Science at a Distance (2009) Kennepohl& Shaw
Slides available on Slideshare http://www.slideshare.net/terrya/icde- disruptive-o-e-rs Your comments and questions most welcomed! Terry Anderson terrya@athabascau.ca http://cde.athabascau.ca/faculty/terrya.php Blog: terrya.edublogs.org

More Related Content

ICDE Disruptive Open Educational Resources

  • 1. Are we ready for Open Educational Resources? Terry Anderson, Ph.D. Canada Research Chair in Distance Education Terrya@athabascau.ca
  • 2. • Effect of music notation • Effect of networks on OERs (from Rob Koper)
  • 3. Online Conferences 17 years Later! • International Computer Conferencing for Professional Development: The Bangkok ProjectTerry Anderson and Robin Mason.American Journal of Distance Education, 7(2), 5-18 • http://auspace.athabascau.ca:8080/dspace/h andle/2149/775
  • 4. Overview • OER Myths • Re-using Educational Content • Adoption of disruptive OERs • Funding and Production models
  • 5. Values • We can (and must) continuously improve the quality, effectiveness, appeal, cost and time efficiency of the learning experience. • Student control and freedom is integral to 21st Century life-long education and learning. • Education for elites is not sufficient for planetary survival
  • 6. OER Myths we love to hold dearly • My job is to createoriginal course content. • My course/content/context is so different that I can’t use external resources. • If we put enough good courseware out there, teachers will use it. • It is harder to contextualize others materials than to create my own. • If I put my course materials online, someone will steal them.
  • 7. Why don’t we use, reuse and republish? • “An analysis of these 80 derived modules revealed that 88% (70) of them involved author users manipulating their own content. The remaining 12% (10) of the derived modules were published by authors who were not the original authors…” this suggests a hesitancy to reuse other’s content,Petrides, Nguyen, Cynthia, &Karaglani, A. (2008) Open educational resources: inquiring into author use and reuse
  • 8. • Why Create a Lesson/Learning Object or Course if you Don’t share it? – Is it about me or about learning? – What is really personal about personal? – Can students, their groups and networks supply the personal? – How can I use my personal time, energy, commitment, expertise etc.) more effectively?
  • 9. 4 R’s of Functionality of OERs • Reuse - Use the work just exactly as you found it. • Rework - Alter or transform the work so that it better meets your needs. • Remix - Combine the (verbatim or altered) work with other works to better meet your needs. • Redistribute - Share the verbatim work, the reworked work, or the remixed work with others. – Dave Wiley http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/355
  • 10. Indigenous Knowledge Systems or Resources in a Flat World • Indigenous – “coming from within” • Holistic assumptions that relevant knowledge must be indigenous deny the power and application of social appropriation • Re-contextualizing forms of knowledgehonoursboth the contextual nature of content and the capacity to mould that knowledge into frames of understanding and use, appropriate to diverse groups and networks.
  • 11. Forms of Recontextualization • Traditional Wrap around- text or verbal aides to interpreting and making relevant external educational resources: – Tools for Collaborative Writing – Wikis, google docs etc. • Mashups and editing – – necessity that CC licensing allows “derivative products” – Providing source code – Retaining comments, documentation • User generated comments/edits – Wikis – Threaded discussions – VoiceThread.com !
  • 12. Learning Objects OER Content Delivery Student Support Assessment Infrastructure Social Assignments Collaboration Localized re- constitution, to integrate with local Contexts From Frank Rennie
  • 13. Pedagogical Integration Technical Integration Personal Effective OER Administrative Integration Applications Integration Ease of Use Social Integration
  • 14. ‘classical adoption theory’ Rogers 2001 Relative Advantage Not paying for re-invention, paying for effective adaptation Compatibility Run in Browser, Use of open LMS systems, moving all DE components online Observability Adding use, stymergy and tracking to OER repositories Trialability Chunking, multiple bandwidth editions
  • 15. Adopting Disruptive Technologies • Constant attention to where the “puck is going to be” • Disruptive technologies may not be valued or provide advantage to existing customers • “Products based on disruptive technologies are typically cheaper, simpler, smaller, and frequently more convenient to use” (Christensen, 1997). • Bottom up disruptions - new providers using OER’s are most likely threat to established OU’s
  • 16. Disruptive Technologies • “digital dissonance” - neither teachers nor students fully recognize and utilize the potential of emerging technologies for learning”Clark, Logan, Luckin, Mee, & Oliver, 2009). • Yet they continue to block each others’ use – ie banning of mobile tech and many social sites at school, lack of collaborative engagement on school based wikis, failure to license for re- use.
  • 17. Barriers to Adoption of Disruptive Technologies • Lack of understanding of the technology’s viability or strategic implications. • Lack of knowledge about how the technologies could be developed and used most effectively. • Uncertainty about adequate levels of acceptance by stakeholders. • Lack of skills. Particularly technical, design, development and operations skills • Lack of finance/funding/investment – Adapted fromElliot, Williams & Bjorn-Andersen, 2005
  • 18. “Disruptions are often a function of actions or inactions by dominant competitors” Paap& Katz, 2004 • Our competitors (traditional and new private universities) are adding online resources to their programming, thus creating demand for higher quality of online services from open universities. • Since we cannot afford to build it all, we need to share development costs and risks via OERs and Open Source Software
  • 19. 4 OER Ownership Models • Institutional ownership – Default under most ‘work for hire’ law • Shared institutional and Academic – Often unworkable – Tragedy of the anti-commons • Individual (academic ownership) – Rights of succession? Multiple authors? • Produsage(Axel Bruns) – Assume that each producer does not enforce their rights, all can treat product as a private good • (copyleft, public domain)
  • 20. Drivers for Producers • Branding • Self-improvement, • Networking • Social capital building • Multiple products – differential pricing for audio, text, ad free, accredited
  • 21. Funding Models (from Downes, 2007) • Endowment model (Hewlett Foundation) • Membership Model - Merlot • Donation - Wikipedia • Producer contribution • Sponsorship - Itunes University • Government funding • Only sustainable one may be student pays for use
  • 22. OER Dominant Production Models Produser Model Produser/Consumer Ex. WikiEducator Ex. MIT OCW Open participation Restricted participation Emergent governance Staff production Unrestricted licensing Institutional governance Mass growth potential Non commercial license Networks, Mora, M. (2008) Groups Collectives Dron & Anderson 2008
  • 23. Comparing OERs to Scholarly Production (books and articles) OERs Scholarly Publications Producers Faculty, Students, Technical Faculty, Students, Lab and ID managers Publishers Universities, societies, Commercial, societies NGOs, consortia Reviewers Consumers, INFORMAL Peers FORMAL peers (MERLOT) Rewards Teachers Researching Scholars NOT ASSESSED ASSESSED Funding Ad hoc Government, University Libraries, Presses, subscriptions, Data bases Beneficiaries Every teacher and students Narrow discipline groups www.irrodl.orgInternational Review of Research on Open and Distance Learning
  • 24. Promise of Social Software • Networking tools that allow users to get to know each other, produce artifacts, share information and generate knowledge together. OER Social Software Learners Teachers
  • 25. Hybrid open access/proprietary publisher http://www.flatworldknowledge.com/
  • 26. Hybrid open access publishers aupress.ca • Current and upcoming Titles: – Theory and Practice of Online learning (2nd Ed.) (2008) - Terry Anderson – Mobile Learning: Transforming the Delivery of Education and Training (2009)- Mohamed Ally – A Designer's Log: Case Studies in Instructional Design (2009) - Michael Power – Accessible Elements: Teaching Science at a Distance (2009) Kennepohl& Shaw
  • 27. Slides available on Slideshare http://www.slideshare.net/terrya/icde- disruptive-o-e-rs Your comments and questions most welcomed! Terry Anderson terrya@athabascau.ca http://cde.athabascau.ca/faculty/terrya.php Blog: terrya.edublogs.org

Editor's Notes

  1. [src:'http://www.youtube.com/v/oCwR7uePCU4',width:'425',height:'350']