First of all, it is probably a good idea to decide what is
meant by the big and little OER ‘approaches’. The word 'approach' implies
something deliberate or strategic maybe and, in my view, while this can
certainly be applied to many big OER projects, it is more challenging to
understand what a little OER ‘approach’ might be.
When talking about big OER, it seems that we are generally
referring to MOOCs or certainly some type of course or ‘package’ of learning
materials. (does an OER repository such as Jorum, Connexions etc. count as a
big OER?)
Big OER
Legitimacy: There is a significant financial and reputational investment for those
involved in producing (or hosting) big OER (e.g Harvard, MIT, Edinburgh, OU, Coursera etc), and to a certain extent this investment, and the name of the institution, give the courses and materials legitimacy, and there is an underlying assumption that the
content provided will be of a high quality. [I think here it’s certainly valid to ask what
exactly is meant by high quality. The
course may well feature world-renowned experts in a field delivering their
pearls of wisdom for the masses absolutely free, but what about the learning
itself, what about the processes around the content, the activities the
students engage in, the quality of interaction on any discussion platforms
provided, or the associated assessment and feedback processes, if there are
any? Does quality content equal quality learning? As we know, the dropout rates
from many of these MOOCs are extremely high, so perhaps the measures used to
determine quality are the wrong ones?]
Openness: If we look at David Wiley’s 4 criteria for openness: Revise, Remix, Reuse, Redistribute, then
two of these often do not seem to apply to many of the big OERs. It
appears to be relatively rare that other institutions or individuals revise and
remix the content of these courses. As Martin Weller points out: “the
experience of the OpenLearn project has been that very few units are changed or
adapted for use.” (Weller, 2010) It could be that they are in fact not
particularly open, and that institutions providing them retain a fairly strong
control over how they are used. As Patrick McAndrew (OU) pointed out at the
recent OER13 conference: “Often you can’t actually see into the [course]
materials until you make a commitment,” and “They are creating a sort of closed
community in the open.”
Pedagogy: A common criticism of big OERs, and particularly xMOOCs, is
that pedagogically they are simply replicating outdated educational models. Many commentators believe that the
new technological landscape is encouraging a move towards more social
constructivist and connected forms of learning, and perhaps in some ways xMOOCs
embody the old ‘transmission’ or ‘sage on the stage’ model of education, and
fail to take into account this changing learner landscape.
As Knox et al. point out:
“All of these MOOC platforms appear to justify their status
by promoting curricula that are equivalent to campus-based courses, with a
strong focus on content delivery and an emphasis on the rigor and formality of
their assessment methods. However, some of the most interesting and
innovative practices in online education have emerged by challenging these very
ideas; loosening institutional control of learning outcomes and assessment
criteria, shifting from a focus on content delivery to a foregrounding of
process, community and learning networks, and working with more exploratory
assessment methods – digital and multimodal assignments, peer assessment and
group assignments, for example.” (2012)
Having said that, one size does not fit all, and there is
probably an argument to say that this model is entirely suitable for many of
the students taking these courses, and that there is a certain comfort to be found in these familiar structures.
Little OER approach? It is more difficult to ascertain what constitutes a little
OER ‘approach’. It seems rare for a Higher Education institution to have
specific policies or strategy objectives related to the use of OERs. Instead,
where they are used, the process appears to be fairly disorganised and random, involving a relatively small number of staff engaging with new
technologies and creating and sharing resources, but often on an ad hoc basis.
These resources may well not end up in an OER repository, or have any wider
reach than the department or university in which they are produced. This, then, is one disadvantage of little OERs – whilst
they are quick, relatively easy and cheap to produce, they may not exist within
a coherent framework or be easily accessible for others to find. They frequently
also ‘reinvent the wheel’ and lack any form of scaffolding or information as to
how they might be used. In terms of quality, because they can be produced
individually, on a small-scale, there is often no guarantee of quality or
reliability. However, despite these drawbacks, little OERs can be more flexible
as they allow other educators to reuse and remix them for their own purposes, and
provide a framework to match their own particular teaching and learning
context. New technologies also provide a plethora of relatively simple new ways for educators to express themselves and breathe new life into their subject and teaching, and for some this can be a highly motivating experience.
It may be interesting to consider what a little OER ‘approach’
would actually look like. In terms of creating OERs, if their development is to
be encouraged among academics (e.g. uploading a presentation to slideshare, creating
a video or screencast, writing a blog etc.) then attention will need to be paid
to the digital literacies of teaching staff and also the ‘what’s in it for me?’
question will need to be addressed. This is a huge challenge and one that is,
in my view, far from frictionless. To a certain extent, the much maligned VLE
(or LMS) already provides one way of giving context to little OERs – think of
the lecturers using the Mashup feature in Blackboard Learn to integrate YouTube
videos, Slideshare and Flickr for example. Of course, as long as they are
inside an institutional VLE they are OERs not OERs, but perhaps the VLE could
serve as a kind of testing ground and quality control mechanism from which the
best OERs produced by a Faculty or in a Subject Area could subsequently be
disseminated more widely and openly among the HE community. In terms of finding
and using little OERs which already exist, consideration needs to be given to
issues of copyright and making staff aware of these, how to locate useful
OERs and how to integrate these effectively into a specific learning and
teaching context, none of which are necessarily easy.
ps: I have a problem with words like ‘frictionless’ and ‘seamless’.
Whenever I see or hear the word seamless in a higher education context, I can
be sure that the reality will be the exact opposite. I fear that frictionless
might fall into the same category. In fact, a bit of friction is, in my view,
inevitable and probably necessary.
Hi Jim
ReplyDeleteThanks for raising the very important question "Does quality content equal quality learning?". I quite agree with you that even good quality content cannot stand on its own. It's the activities and processes that learners engage in that are crucial for in-depth learning to happen. Good quality content can give you facts and figures and introduce you to thoughts and ideas, but you may not make much of this if you're not asked to express yourself on the topic and engage in a dialogue with other learners. Who said content is king? I say well-designed learning activities are king :-)
Well put, Inger-Marie
DeleteThanks, Deb :-)
DeleteExcellent analysis here--thank you. You point to some drawbacks I hadn't thought of, like the "openness" issue for big OER and the lack of scaffolding for use for little OER (and reinventing the wheel in little OER, though, of course, that's what most of us do in teaching F2F also!).
ReplyDeleteI agree completely with the pedagogical issues in terms of xMOOCs and big OER that are courses taught in that sort of way, but also wonder if some courses that are online that don't have this problem might be counted as big OER as well. In particular, I'm thinking of some connectivist MOOCs (cMOOCs) that don't rely on traditional transmission models but do operate along the more constructivist and connectivist lines you point to. Things like the "Change" MOOCs (e.g., Change '11), or the ETMOOC (Educational Technology and Media MOOC) come to mind. I think those could be counted as big OER too, in which case the pedagogy issue only fits some big OER.