The Open University
In April 2015 am participating in a panel session at #OER15 led by @YishayMor and Laia Canals. MOOCs enable new forms of organisation mediated by digital technology. However, governments, universities, educators and even learners still apply conventional metrics around learning, assessment, completion which limits the potential of #MOOCs.
MOOC providers seem to be concerned with completion rates – but are learners content to drop in (and out) to learn the knowledge they need? (eg see our paper on Patterns of Engagement in Connectivist MOOCs http://jolt.merlot.org/vol9no2/milligan_0613.htm)
During our panel session we will debate important questions such as
In the spirit of openness, we invite you to participate in this event by contributing to the online discussion. During the conference, we will conduct a live panel with some of the contributors which will be joining us in person or virtually. Panelists will refer to the contributions online, and we will use social media to facilitate live interaction with the audience outside the room. So you dont need to be at the conference to join in.
We invite you to participate in the debate by leaving your comments or video responses on the following 4 discussion spaces:
Certification, completion, and measures of success: while some MOOCs participants and employers see certification as important, others are happy with their own sense of achievement, getting what they want and moving on. MOOC providers seem to be concerned with completion – but are learners happy dipping in and getting the bits they need? Some learners find certification attractive, even if they don’t need the formal proof – perhaps as an indicator of the MOOC’s quality.
What makes an effective MOOC learner? Is effectiveness in the eyes of the provider identical to effectiveness in the eyes of the learner? What do employers see as effective learning? Are some learners more “qualification effective” and others more “growth effective”? Is lurking sometimes an effective strategy? Do analytics capture effectiveness?
What are the appropriate pedagogies for massive open online vocational learning? How do we support collaborative learning? Project based learning? Game based learning? How do MOOCs fit into our view of life-long learning?
Are we seeing the emergence of new educational ecosystems, and the fracture of old hegemonies? Will employers, civic organisations, and learners have an equal voice? Or, do we need to maintain academic authority? Where do we want to go – and how do we get there?
The event’s online space is: http://openeducationeuropa.eu/
As healthcare knowledge grows exponentially, health professionals around the world need to continually engage in high quality learning. Health professionals seeking ways to upskill their knowledge are participating Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs); free, online courses with unlimited participation offered by some of the world’s leading universities. MOOCs enable access to thousands or hundreds of thousands of co-learners, opening up opportunities for new forms of learning.
A recent study found employers generally viewed MOOCs positively for recruiting, hiring and training employees. However, a study by researchers at Glasgow Caledonian University, funded by the Gates Foundation, was the first to examine the learning behaviours of professionals in MOOCs. The findings show MOOCs may encourage passive learning, missing opportunities to exploit the knowledge and expertise diverse groups of professionals bring to the course.
“MOOCs have quickly grown in popularity, but we know very little about whether MOOCs improve learning,” said Professor Allison Littlejohn, (PhD), principal investigator and Director of the Caledonian Academy, a research centre at Glasgow Caledonian University. “Our knowledge of learning in MOOCs is based mainly on anecdotal accounts. The lack of scientific evidence around how people learn in MOOCs is risky, considering the investment of public resources being channeled into MOOCs by universities and governments. We wanted to know if MOOCs allow health professionals to improve their learning and whether there is any impact on their professional practice.”
The researchers from Glasgow Caledonian University worked with educationalists from the Harvard Medical School, Harvard School of Public Health, and Harvard Catalyst, the Harvard Clinical and Translational Science Center. Between November 2013 and February 2014 they surveyed almost 400 participants of ‘Fundamentals of clinical trials’, a MOOC for health professionals offered via the edX platform. The team measured participants’ capability to self-regulate their learning, then interviewed 35 health professionals in 23 countries to investigate their learning behaviours. Lou McGill, a Caledonian Academy researcher, explained, “While MOOC designs take a variety of shapes and forms, the Fundamentals of Clinical Trials MOOC represents a course design typical of the key MOOC providers, therefore we could build some generalizable conclusions.”
“We had an indication of each individual’s capacity to self-regulate their learning and were interested in exploring whether high ability would make a difference in terms of their qualitative learning behaviours within the MOOC,” said Dr Colin Milligan (PhD), co-investigator on the project and researcher within the Caledonian Academy. “We’ve observed that the highly structured MOOC design focuses on content provision, which the participants are very positive about. However the structure does not encourage learners to actively self-regulate their learning. If anything, participants, even those with high self-regulated learning ability, tend to limit their activity to reading and interacting with course content, overlooking opportunities to use the theory they’ve learned to improve their practice.”
Participants had a range of reasons for signing up for the MOOC, ranging from filling gaps in their current knowledge to preparing for future career opportunities. The researchers found that highly self-regulated learners articulated more precise learning goals and expectations compared with low SRL participants, even where their motivations for joining the MOOC were the same. However, when they participated in the course, there were few differences in the behaviours of high and low self-regulated learners. All learners exhibited fairly passive behaviours in the highly structured MOOC environment.
Learners focused on activities such as watching videos and taking tests, with little evidence of learners relating new knowledge into practice, or of connecting to their peers though the discussion board. To be effective, professional learning should provide opportunities to integrate theoretical and practical knowledge. But even those learners who said they wanted to improve their professional practice did not integrate the scientific knowledge they learned through the MOOC with practical, on-the-job learning.
We need a cultural shift around conceptions of learning and teaching and of learner and teacher roles to capitalise on the experience and expertise that professionals bring to their learning.
The data provides a basis for recommendations for the design of MOOCs to support professional learning. The first three focus on improving the link between theory and practice while the second three capitalise on the diversity of the people participating in the MOOC environment, encouraging the development of regulatory expertise.
These recommendations are available from: http://tinyurl.com/PL-MOOC-recommendationsRead More
In examining the usefulness of open, online resources for learning, we have to look not only at the resource but also relationships between resources, users, and the ways resources were used (Engestron, 2007: Littlejohn, Falconer & McGill, 2008; ).
Use is critical because online resources do not encapsulate the scientific and instrumental knowledge needed to support learning and development (Francis, 2013; Falconer & Littlejohn, 2007). Scientific knowledge is (generally) explicit and codified while instrumental knowledge involves solving specialist, practical problems (Boshuizen & van de Wiel, 2013). Learning scientific and instrumental knowledge requires open interactions with other people (teachers, experts, peers) (Engeström, 1999). Paavola & Hakkarainen’s (2005) work illustrates learning interactions around online resources to gain scientific and instrumental expertise through collaborative knowledge construction. In these examples open, online resources serve as a focal point for the co-ordination of learning (either by a teacher or expert, or by learners themselves), rather than as ‘learning materials’ in the conventional sense.
As learners gain expertise there is a qualitative change in the way they use resources to realise activities, moving from rule-based actions to fluid, self-directed activities (Dreyfus and Dreyfus, 2000). Therefore expertise is illustrated by the ways an individual uses the resources and how they relate to other people in their environment (Holland et al, 1998, p121; Edwards, 2010a, p25).
While working on a new book exploring the reuse of open, online resources for learning (Littlejohn & Pegler, 2014) I’ve been reflecting upon the different types of digital resources available for learning in networks, revisiting the idea of use.
Resources serve different purposes depending on how they are used, therefore resources could be characterised by use. Use can be viewed broadly at three levels: knowledge, experiential and analytic resources:
The education domain has pioneered the open release of knowledge resources often created by teachers or experts for learners. With these resources, users are largely are unknown to the resource creators, since users can be anyone, anywhere, using the resource in any context; students registered for a course, professionals learning for work or lifelong learners. Knowledge resources are typified by (though not limited to) Open Educational Resources (OER), Open CourseWare (OCW) or Open Courses, including Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Thee resources are available in a range of media, from textual materials (articles, e-textbooks, blogs, micro-blogs) to images, videos, audio and aggregations of these, generally sourced via search engines. Resources were created and released by universities, notably MIT (USA) and the Open University (UK), though many other universities, companies, charities and professional bodies are now producing and releasing resources, often under Creative Commons licences (McGill et al, 2013; Falconer et al, 2013). Materials are purposefully created to support learning, however open learning resources can also include dynamic resources that form and morph in a less predictable way than traditional educational resources. Knowledge resources can be created or co-created and adapted by learners themselves. Beyond this are other types of open, online information resources that are routinely created and shared with others (or contributed to the collective) in ways that enable their reuse. For example the creation and development of a base of common or shared knowledge for professional learning or learning for work (Johnson et al, 1999). Professionals create codified resources as an output of work activity. Some resources have restricted access (emails, classified reports, and so on) but other resources are open, including reports, blogs, microblogs (for example hosted on Twitter or Yammer), images (for example Flickr, Slideshare), videos (for example YouTube), audio files and bookmarks (for example Delicious).
Experiential resources are widely used for professional and lifelong learning. These resources support the development of expertise that underpins practice. Experiential resources range from simulations in serious games or virtual worlds to digitally mediated interactions with people with relevant expertise. Interactions around these sorts of resources are sometimes qualitatively different than with knowledge resources. For example the linux community – a community of people distributed around the world who share programming expertise by working collaboratively on the linux kernel computer code – use code as an experiential resource (Moon & Sproull, 2002). The openness of the kernel and fragments of code serve provide resources supported by community forums and others as learning resources for people who want to extend their programming expertise.
Analytic resources support learners in planning and instantiate their learning. As learners interact online, learning choices and behaviours can be captured, analysed and released as analytics data to allow individuals to plan and manage their learning. Systems and tools based on analytics provide an organising focus for learning (Littlejohn, Milligan and Margaryan, 2011). Each learner can manage his/her interaction with the people and resources that are important for learning, developing a personal view of learning which, in turn, relates to the learning of others. The significance of this sort of open system is that it brings together the individual with the collective in ways that are impossible with conventional closed (restricted access) learning resources. These data resources include user identity data generated through direct entry by the user, cross-referencing of identity information from different sites or from user behaviour. These resources can be used to support learners in expanding their relational expertise – or their capacity to understand who or what to connect to accelerate their learning – capitalizing on the collective expertise of people and knowledge resources within the network (Littlejohn, Milligan and Margaryan, 2012). Though relational expertise extends beyond the rational decision-making afforded through systems based on Artificial Intelligence and involves human interactions with the environment medicated by expertise (Edwards, 2010, p21).
Learners use and reuse open resources in and across these diverse contexts – education, work and lifelong learning- which provide the framework for exploration of reusing open learning resources in the ‘Reusing Open Resources’ published in May 2014 (Littlejohn & Pegler, 2014).
Dreyfus, H., & Dreyfus, S. E. (2000). Mind over machine. Simon and Schuster.
Edwards, A. (2010b). Being an expert professional practitioner: The relational turn in expertise. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
Engeström, Y. (2007). Enriching the theory of expansive learning: Lessons from journeys toward coconfiguration. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 14(1-2), 23-39.
Falconer, I., and Littlejohn, A. (2007). Designing for blended learning, sharing and reuse. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 31(1), 41–52
Falconer, I., McGill, L., Littlejohn, A., & Boursinou, E. (2013). Overview and Analysis of Practices with Open Educational Resources in Adult Education in Europe Review, JRC Scientific and Policy Reports, C. Redecker., J. Castaño Muñoz., & Y. Punie (Eds.). European Commission http://tinyurl.com/pk6nuvt
Johnson, B., Lorenz, E., & Lundvall, B. Å. (2002). Why all this fuss about codified and tacit knowledge?. Industrial and corporate change, 11(2), 245-262.
Holland, D., & Lachiocotte, W. D., & Cain, C.(1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds.
Littlejohn, A., I. Falconer & L. McGill (2008) Characterising effective eLearning resources, Computers and Education 50 (3), 757–771 http://tinyurl.com/63okour
Littlejohn, A. Milligan, C. & Margaryan, A. (2011). Collective learning in the workplace: Knowledge sharing behaviours. International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning (iJAC) Available from: http://online-journals.org/i-jac/article/viewArticle/1801
Littlejohn, A., Milligan, C., & Margaryan, A. (2012). Charting collective knowledge: Supporting self-regulated learning in the workplace. Journal of Workplace Learning, 24(3), 226–238.
Littlejohn & Pegler (in press) Reusing open resources, Routledge, New York.
McGill, L., Falconer, I., Dempster, J.A., Littlejohn, A. & Beetham, H. (2013). Journeys to Open Educational Practice: UKOER/SCORE Review Final Report. Retrieved from https://oersynth.pbworks.com/w/page/60338879/HEFCE-OER-Review-Final-Report
Moon, J. Y., & Sproull, L. (2002). Essence of distributed work: The case of the Linux kernel. Distributed work, 381-404.
Katie Vale and I recently wrote a chapter on Massive Open Online Courses: a traditional or transformative approach to learning which will be published in 2014 in Reusing Open Resources (Routledge) http://www.taylorandfrancis.com/catalogs/educational_technology_e-learning/2/2/. In the chapter we explore the conflicting opinions and perspectives around MOOCs. These perspectives are rooted in the diverse origins of the concept of open education and open learning. Ideas around open courses emerged from three different arenas: universities, open learning researchers and the Open Access social movement.
The Open Access movement is a global network of people who support the transformation of work and learning practices towards free sharing and peer collaboration in society through open sourcing, open resources and the (re)use of open knowledge (Kaiwen & Fang, 2005). A central aim is to change societal expectations of how, when and where people learn. One strategy has been to eliminate barriers of entry into university-level education through opening access to the ‘fundamental building blocks’ of learning (Seely-Brown, 2008). These building blocks are viewed as Open Educational Resources (OER) – digital materials that can be used, re-used and repurposed for teaching, learning or research, made available online through open licenses, such as Creative Commons (McGill et al, 2013). OER and open courses are a lever sometimes used by universities to attract learners to move from informal to formal learning programmes, encouraging them to pay for subsequent, follow-on courses (Gillet et al, 2010). Thus, motivations to develop and openly release OER are complex and can be placed on a spectrum ranging from ‘academic commons’ to the marketization of courses (Falconer et al, 2012).
A second arena promoting the open courses were learning researchers and advocates of a pedagogical approach termed ‘connectivism’. Connectivist principles emphasise that learning occurs through network connections, as learners connect with experts, peers and with knowledge resources (Siemens, 2005). MOOCs can be viewed as an instantiation of the pedagogic approach of ‘connectivism’ (Siemens, 2005; Downes, 2009), opening up opportunities for learning as part of a learning community or group of learners (Downes, 2008). Despite these key principles, discussions around informal open learning, emphasising the learner, are sometimes conflated with formal open education, highlighting the design of activities, environments, networks, tools and resources. Some MOOC designs can mimic university courses, rather than focusing on building learner autonomy (Milligan, Littlejohn & Margaryan, 2013; Nurmohamed et al, 2013).
A third origin is the educational activity in the academy. Universities, often operating as consortia, have provided most open courses and open educational resources. An early example is the Open CourseWare Consortium (established in 2003), a consortium of universities committed to the open release of educational resources, often from contemporary, campus-based courses (OCW, 2013) This initiative has had significant impact in terms of opening access to a broad spectrum of resources, ranging from syllabi, lecture notes and supplemental materials to video materials (Forward, 2012). For example the founding partner, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has released resources from 1,800 courses that have been viewed by over 100 million people (MIT, 2013). Funding organisations such as UNESCO, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation collectively have donated millions of dollars to the development and release of Open Educational Resources. There are numerous examples of consortia and collections of educational resource materials around the world, including OER Africa , OER Asia , Open Education Europa , Latin America Learning , DEHub Australia , Nordic OER , MERLOT and JORUM UK Some MOOC design teams attempt to capitalise upon these resource collections by packaging OERs around specific learning objectives and activities, then sequencing these activities in orchestrated, synchronous courses with regular, automated assessments. Course design may be based on equivalent campus based courses. The design teams often recognise that exposure to the course’s resource materials is not a sufficient condition for learning. However, an assumption is that learners can self-regulate their own learning, utilising learning resources with limited instructor interaction. Interest in the potential of open courses to open access to universities led to a fourth origin of MOOCs: MOOC platform providers.
A number of MOOC platforms were established during the period 2011-13, mainly in the US and UK. Some are ‘for profit’ organisations such as Udacity (https://www.udacity.com) and Coursera (https://www.coursera.org). Others are organisations operated within non-profit universities, notably edX (https://www.edx.org/). and Futurelearn (https://www.futurelearn.com/). Thus, some of the perspectives around MOOCs can be expressed as follows. Universities –particularly elite institutions – recognise the competitive advantages of MOOCs on branding, marketization and extending reach. Their response is often to open up established courses to learners globally, seeking to imitate the ‘campus experience’.
Practitioners acknowledge the potential of MOOCs, viewing them as a sustaining rather than a disruptive innovation. They habitually align MOOC development and implementation within the confines of existing higher education models. Recognise that the student experience is changed and that their own workflow models are not sustainable in MOOCs, practitioners are concerned with problems of student engagement, feedback, quality and assessment, focusing efforts on improving the quality and engagement potential of educational content. Open Access activists are concerned that the view of MOOCs as a marketisation tool for traditional university education blocks alternative, viable futures for learning and learners. As MOOCs mature as a platform for learning, there is a growing acceptance that conventional metrics (completion rates, contributions to forums) are not useful to measure the effectiveness of open learning. Metrics and models have to be reconceptualised drawing on learning analytics (McNeill et al, 2014, this volume).
Learners (largely) have enthusiastically embraced MOOCs, signing up in their thousands to participate. Many act as passive observers or ‘lurkers’ (Milligan, Littlejohn and Margaryan, 2013), raising concerns amongst practitioners and universities around completion rates. However, motivations across diverse groups of learners are broadly defined and extend beyond gaining credit (OBHE, 2013). A more pressing concern are the baseline capabilities – literacies, skills and dispositions – of learners as they learn in a new environment (Mackness, Mak, & Williams, 2010; Kop and Fourier, 2011; Milligan, Littlejohn & Margaryan, 2013). Educational and learning researchers are sceptical of this learner enthusiasm, recognising that social expectations of ‘university schooling’ constrain transformative opportunities around learning (Fiedler, this volume). In their view recognition of what constitutes learning needs to be broadened (McGill et al, 2013). Governments hold pole position in cultural definitions of learning, but few seem willing to radically redefine learning and redraw business and workflow models. All the same, governments’ view that MOOCs merit serious attention because of their potential for significant disruption and, at the same time, widening access to higher education (OBHE, p53).
On April 28th 2013 the outcomes of OER4Adults provided policy makers within the European Commission with evidence on how to incorporate the use of OER into a Vision for Adult and Lifelong Learning to 2030. This Vision was drafted with the help of a group of over 20 experts from more than 10 countries who met at IPTS in Seville to discuss, debate and advise on the Vision. Our goal was to provide the EC with evidence of existing initiatives and practices to enable them to optimise the socio economic impact of OER.
In the OER4Adults survey, we identified over 170 OER Initiatives across Europe and other countries (mainly the US). Many of these initiatives – those who provide OER for adult and lifelong learning – are from the higher education, vocational and school sectors. These initiatives assume that the primary users of OER are teachers and registered students, but the might not necessarily think about ‘nonformal’ learners.
Many examples of open learning are within open fora (eg discussion groups around health or hobby areas). These groups are seldom recognised as having an explicit remit for learning. Also they are not associated with the sorts of formal institutions that MOOCs tend to be associated with (eg think about EdX, Coursera, Futurelearn and so on).
From the OER4Adults survey we know that little is known about what lifelong learners are doing with OER resources. Even the leaders of the major OER initiatives know little about the use of the OERs outside their immediate communities. Yet this knowledge is critical to planning future directions in open education, open learning, OER and MOOC.
We carried out a SWOT analysis (analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats, see http://oer4adults.org/highlights-of-the-oer4adults-swot-survey/) of OER and identified a number of tensions in the following areas:
OER Resources - We recognised a tension between open versus free resources. Use of the term ‘Open’ in MOOC is blurring the distinction between what is ‘free’ and what is ‘open’. While many MOOCs are free of charge, the resources within these courses are not always ‘open’. Will mass participation push forward on this area? In other words, will the large numbers of people involved in MOOCs make it irrelevant that the resources in a MOOC are not open?
Learning – The OER4Adults SWOT survey identified a tension between conventional pedagogy (largely teacher led) versus appreciation that learners should be able to take control of their own learning. Do resources have learner intentionality? Most don’t. OER tends to be viewed as a resource with a specific learning outcome. There are examples of ‘dynamic’ resources that evolve as learners use them. However, these resources don’t readily ‘fit’ with educational technical infrastructure (eg quality policy etc). In many aspects of society organisational infrastructures are becoming rapidly outdated, thus inhibiting progress – and this is one example. The tension between pedagogy versus appreciation is exemplified in the papers for the EC Vision for Adult and Lifelong Learning in 2030 where none of the visions view teachers as having a traditional role in the future (the papers are at http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/openeducation2030/files/2013/04/OE2030_LLL_Booklet.pdf).
Motivations for releasing OER The SWOT survey surfaced a tension between two key motivations to release OER: altruism versus marketization, where ‘altruism’ is the desire to openly share resources and ‘marketisation’ is where institutions and individuals want to build a ‘brand’. Marketisation examples include EdX, Futurelearn, Khan Academy. Its possible that organisations pitch ‘marketisation’ to governments to gain funding, but, at the same time, institutions sometimes state altruistic motivations (such as sharing knowledge freely).
A previous study by Falconer, Littlejohn, McGill and Beetham (2012) https://oersynth.pbworks.com/w/page/63710786/Motives%20and%20tensions%20in%20the%20release%20of%20Open%20Educational%20Resources identified that the stated motivations to release OER may be different from the real, underlying motivations. Real and stated motivations are complex and blurred. During the workshop discussions we found examples of complex/mixed motivations.
Workshop participants agreed that the focus of the vision for lifelong learning to 2030 should be on the socio cultural impact rather than on motivations to release OER. Yet they recognised that motivations ultimately determine peoples’ actions. Much of the focus of OER release has been on ‘introductory level learning’, rather than more specialist areas, and there has been lots of duplication. How do we create resources that are ‘done’ and translated – particularly in the introductory areas (for example look at alison.com which has been translated by volunteers).
Capacity building – There is an inherent tension between ‘community’ versus ‘openness’. During the workshop we had extensive discussion about ‘communities’ and how capacity it built. ALISON provides an excellent and relatively unique model where volunteers contribute their time to translate resources for adult and lifelong learning. Community building requires engendered trust – for example within the ALISON community there is a level of trust that spending time translating resources will not be exploited.
The workshop participants noted that ‘nothing is for free’. Voluntary action is funded, though the funding is from individuals, rather than governments and organisations.
Openness – A previous study (UKOER) we identified a tension between communities (which are important for capacity building) and openness (See http://www.slideshare.net/loumcgill/openedweek2013). This tension also emerged during the OER4Adults SWOT analysis. An effective way to develop resources is within a trusted and bounded community. The effort required to translate the resources for use within another community cannot be underestimated, however we found examples (from Athabasca University) where people overestimated the amount of time required to readapt a resource for reuse (eg teachers thought they had to change every detail within a resource, rather than using resources as they exist).
Numbers of learners – Organisational controls and norms break down in circumstances of mass participation. There is a tension between mass participation versus quality. Where large numbers of people learn, it is more difficult to retain ‘control’ around quality. Recommender systems don’t always help – a ‘massive stamp of approval’ doesn’t always signal quality. Lifelong learners don’t always understand how to assess or evaluate the quality of resources and tend to rely on ‘trusting’ the source. Learners were more inclined to use resources from another “trusted organisation” than “from a university”. This finding raises questions around current quality systems. Should we change the current validation systems or should we try to ensure that learners have better developed digital literacies so they can evaluate quality? These questions are complicated by the fact that quality shifts as we move across disciplinary and cultural boundaries.
Sustainability – Another tension was around add-on versus embedded funding models. Most of the OER initiatives we identified were funded through governments or institutions. The adult and lifelong learning community are less concerned (than Higher Education groups) that government or institutional funding may diminish. These groups are more focussed on sustainable models, including ‘freemium’ models.
Key findings and questions:
1 Many examples of open learning are not recognised as learning.
Idea 1: change public perception of what they recognise as learning.
2 To move forward with lifelong learning, we need a fundamental shift in the way society perceives peoples’ roles (eg learners, teachers, others, etc) and organisations’ roles (eg HES, companies, publishers, etc).
Idea 2: change public perception of the roles of learners and teachers – and of organisations more broadly.
3 Within the OER arena, there is little focus on the bigger societal issues. For example the tension between the public and private sectors which have different values and norms. We don’t have a clear idea of the outcome when these values and norms come into conflict.
Idea 3: consider the longterm impact of vested interests of various stakeholders in different sectors.
4 Little is known about what lifelong learners actually do with OER. OER initiatives have little concern about this and don’t view it as significant.
Idea 4: investigate how learners use OER to learn.
5 The focus of attention could shift from open resources (OER) or open courses (MOOC) to the ability of people/learners to learn in open environments.
Idea 5: change the focus of attention from OER or MOOC to learners
Acknowledgements: These ideas were collated as part of the validation of the OER4Adults project (on April 29 and 30, 2013) and may not reflect the views of IPTS
Isobel Falconer, Lou McGill, Eleni Boursinou and I have been commissioned by the EC to carry out a SWOT analysis of Open Educational Resource initiatives for adult learning. In 2012 we carried out a scoping of adult learning initiatives using OER. We identified over 150 different initiatives distributed across Europe.
In March we invited the leaders of the initiatives to fill in a structured questionnaire. We’re in the early stages of data analysis and plan follow up interviews. Here are four observations:
1 European OER initiatives are based (largely) on the traditional view of instructor using OER as content for teaching
2 Most European OER initiatives rely on government or institutional funding
3. OER is often viewed as content curated by ‘experts’
4 Significant groups of people are not being considered as key users of OER
These initial findings raise the question – how can we ensure OER initiatives are sustainable and are not locked into models of operation that exclude potential groups of learners or emerging forms of learning?
Our data analysis is ongoing so check oer4adults.org as the story unfolds.Read More
Authors: Allison Littlejohn, Lou McGill, Isobel Falconer, Helen Beetham
For Open Education week at 11am (GMT) on Thursday at Lou McGill, David Kernohan and Allison Littlejohn will present some of the key findings from the UKOER programme ‘What you can learn from the UKOER experience‘. The programme included over 80 projects aiming to release OER ,funded by two UK government agencies, Jisc (www.jisc.ac.uk) and the Higher Education Academy (HEA www.hea.ac.uk). The programme was based on the idea that widespread involvement of faculty and support staff within the programme would bring about a sustainable change in culture from focusing on content ownership, to focusing on open sharing; and that building a critical mass of OER would bring about sustainable change in practices of reuse and re-purposing. The lessons learned from evaluation and synthesis of the programme are available from http://bit.ly/oerevalsynth
One set of key findings was around the role of communities in the release of Open Educational Resources (OER). How professional practice is transformed to support activities underpinning the release of OER, sometimes called open educational practice (OEP), is not well understood. Communities of practice provide a positive environment for changing professional practice. Examples of communities are subject discipline communities or communities within an institution. Each community will have members with different roles (for example academics, support staff, learners), regulated by specific rules. These sorts of communities are important if the benefits of a culture of open resources, open knowledge, free sharing and peer collaboration in education are to be realised. The UKOER programme provided a context to explore these tensions and highlight the benefits and limitations of communities in transforming professional practice.
The UKOER Evaluation and Synthesis team, Allison Littlejohn, Isobel Falconer, Lou McGill and Helen Beetham, analysed the contradictions evident in OER release by UKOER project teams. We drew data from our programme-wide synthesis and evaluation (McGill et al, 2010), using project reports and focus group discussions to surface, 1) common issues, key barriers and enablers around OER release,and 2) cultural differences across the sector, detailing evidence of norms, roles, rules and reward structures that foster effective professional practice. Analysis was through mapping the actions of project team members against an activity framework (see figure 1). In our study, the activity systems were UKOER projects where project team members (subjects) work on OER (object), transforming it into an outcome using technological and conceptual tools (Engeström, 1987 & 2005). The tool-mediated action of the project teams was mediated by rules and the broader social context of the community within which the activity takes place. Labour was divided among the community members (roles). This framework provided an analytic socio-cultural lens for understanding complex relationships across different groups.
Figure 1: activity framework for a UKOER project
This analysis provided evidence that OER projects made best progress where project team were within existing communities. Examples included subject communities, where people already sharing teaching materials. However we also found that in projects where people did not have existing, working relationships, new collaborations were difficult to initiate. For example, project teams found it difficult to convince university support staff to allow collaborators from outside their community access to institutional repositories.
A key factor within communities that helped change professional practice was trust. In many cases, when trust was not apparent, peoples’ willingness to open access to resources was reduced (for a more detailed description Falconer et al, 2013). Faculty wanted to retain control over which communities or sub-communities they opened up their resources to, preferring to release content within a closed community. Yet controlled release of resources within closed communities is antithetical to the philosophy of open access, mitigating against the successful release of OER.
In summary, while communities may encourage first steps into open practices, they sometimes seem antithetical to the basic philosophy of open release of resources. We found a contradiction between the aim of the UKOER programme to openly release OER and limited practices within some communities, resulting in release of OER within bounded communities. These contradictions present major barriers to successful OER release.
Beetham, H. (2011) Reflections, blog post, http://oersynthesis.jiscinvolve.org/wp/2011/01/25/reflections/ [accessed 23/12/11]
Engeström, Y. (1987) Learning by expanding, Helsinki: Orienta-konsultit. Available from http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/Engestrom/expanding/toc.htm [accessed 23/12/11]
Engeström, Y. (2005).’ Knotworking to create collaborative intentionality capital in fluid organizational fields.’ In M. M. Beyerlein, S. T. Beyerlein, & F. A. Kennedy (Eds.), Collaborative capital: Creating intangible value (pp. 307–336). Amsterdam: Elsevier
Falconer, I, Littlejohn, A., McGill, L., and Beetham, H. (2013) ‘Motives and tensions in the release of Open Educational Resources: the JISC UKOER programme’ Draft available from https://oersynth.pbworks.com/w/page/63710786/Motives%20and%20tensions%20in%20the%20release%20of%20Open%20Educational%20Resources
JISC (2009) HEFCE/Academy/JISC Open Educational Resources Programme: Call for Projects http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/funding/2008/12/oercall.doc [accessed 18/10/2010]
McGill, L., Beetham, H., Falconer, I., and Littlejohn., A. (2010) JISC/HE Academy OER Programme: Pilot Phase Synthesis and Evaluation Report. Available from https://oersynth.pbworks.com/w/page/29688444/Pilot%20Phase%20Synthesis%20and%20Evaluation%20Report