… the US Embassy has sent this helpful message to all registered US Citizens in the UK:
“U.S. Embassy London informs U.S. citizens that planned demonstrations regarding the death of former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher will take place at various locations throughout London from April 13-17. The planned demonstrations have been widely reported in local media and U.S. citizens are encouraged to monitor local media for updates about these planned events.
There is no indication that the demonstrations will be violent. However, even demonstrations intended to be peaceful can turn confrontational and escalate into violence. You should avoid areas of demonstrations, and exercise caution if in the vicinity of any large gatherings, protests, or demonstrations.”
As if any US Citizen would be so rude as to join such nonsense.
… to say “Goodbye” to the Open University MOOC, h817open. I’ve not been giving sufficient time and effort to participating in the community and course over the past couple of weeks and other priorities have now to take precedence.
Thank you to the Open University for making it available and to all of the community of moocers who have commented, encouraged and argued with my posts, and provided real stimulus through their own posts and contributions in blogs, forums and social media channels that make up the magnificent moociness. Good luck to those who are sticking it out: I’ve learned a lot from you.
A teacher, relatively new to Social Media networks for professional development and education, posted this with a link to an interesting but not uncommon “test” of the power of Twitter:
We’ve seen these kinds of thing before, and they are a standard gimmick for presenters of CPD workshops on the use of social media. Do these tricks represent power, however? I think they demonstrate something: connectivity, reach, that the new “community” isn’t restricted by geography or even timezone. By themselves, they do not demonstrate power. What is power? Whether you take the common usage or a stricter scientific definition, one could characterise “power” as the ability to change things.
Now, perhaps through jealousy or feelings of inadequacy, or maybe it’s just my age (I should be buying a Harley), I’m deeply suspicious of philanthropy. I regard the motivations of those who would throw money around with suspicion. The arrogance of those who, through whatever means have found themselves with serious amounts of money, then pityingly and patronisingly share life-changing amounts of it with the “poor” or “disadvantaged”, has always irritated me. If we had a fairer society, these benefactors wouldn’t have such disgusting wealth in the first place, and nor would those who needed the help, need it as much, if at all. More to the point, the pet projects and politics of the philanthropist wouldn’t prevail unfairly over more objective criteria.
So, in studying OER (Open Educational Resources) in the h817open mooc, it is mentioned in passing that, “Many OER projects have received funding from bodies such as the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation“. My own experience in state education made me flinch at reading this. Whether open or not, I have seen that almost all educational resources used in public (state) schools are developed by the class teacher – often on their own time and at their own expense. Hours of time are spent preparing differentiated and engaging resources, often laminated and produced in expensive coloured paperstock, or set up as an online resource for all to use. The latter, as often as not, because the school-provided system is so awful and difficult to use as to become rendered useless. (I’m trying to get this written without mentioning GLOW. Ooops.). All of this, provided in a billion small acts of philanthropy, in those extra unpaid hours and the extra ten- or twenty-dollar expenses not reclaimed.
I read Bill Hewlett’s biography with admiration and recognition that yes, he was a lovely man who leaves a lovely legacy. I have a positive regard for his company (I still carry around an HP-15C from the 80′s). I just find that philanthropy is an unpleasant basis to built a sustainable society upon.
Progressing in this mooc on Open Learning, the course now turns its attention to licensing by referring to David Wiley’s 4 R’s Framework:
- Reuse – the right to reuse the content in its unaltered / verbatim form (e.g., make a backup copy of the content)
- Revise – the right to adapt, adjust, modify, or alter the content itself (e.g., translate the content into another language)
- Remix – the right to combine the original or revised content with other content to create something new (e.g., incorporate the content into a mashup)
- 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)
I’d like to add a fifth, or, in true Physics style, a “zeroth” R of reuse, based upon my own experience:
- Ripoff – the unchallengeable right of anyone beyond litigation to just steal your stuff and use it or pass it off as their own.
It comes before all the others because it overrides them all. Only rarely have I ever successfully challenged the leeching or theft of my images and content by other publishers. The most recent instance was in fact by a well-known Scottish University who made unauthorised use of an image I owned. After some serious pursuing of the case, they finally paid a royalty fee. The usual outcome is deafening silence.
Having said that, I’ve been more often flattered when somebody takes a post or article, photographs included, and replicates it in their own context, especially if that context involves translation. I had an article on measuring the speed of light in the kitchen replicated with permission which is now one of several versions of this resource on the web. There are other versions around in other languages.
My default position for copyright is to assert “all rights reserved” in the hope that those who would use my material would do so only after having sought and obtained permission, but if I had to choose an open license for OER, it would be Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 UK: Scotland. The rationale would be that (i) I live and work in Scotland and I like Scottish Law, (ii) I don’t mind other people making use of my work, (iii) provided that they don’t make money out of it (I don’t) and (iv) they pass on the same obligations to their users.
This post is about an imaginary digital skills course for teachers. It forms part of the assignments for the Open Learning MOOC, h817open, from the Open University, which I am following, along with about 500 others around the world.
Let’s imagine we are constructing a course in digital skills for an identified group of learners (in this case, secondary school teachers). It is a short, online course aimed at providing these learners with a set of resources for developing ‘digital skills’. It runs for five weeks, with a different subject each week, accounting for about six hours study per week.
Week 1 – Overview of the course and applications
The first week will provide an orientation for students of the meaning of “digital” in context of the course aims. It will provide examples of the application of digital systems including information storage, service providers, platforms and software. The course teaching channels will be exercised and illustration of productivity tools will be included.
Week 2 – Finding information
This week will consider the public repositories of knowledge and how this information is accessed. Search engine skills will be developed, licensing and copyright briefly addressed, and the issue of using crowdsourced repositories such as Wikipedia will be considered.
Week 3 – Blogging and other forms of publishing to the web
A look at the different ways that publishers of blogs and other material on the web do so. We will look at hosting, domains, tagging and search engine optimisation.
Week 4 – Media production and publishing
Audio podcasting and video methods will be explored including equipment, tools and software to produce both audio and video pieces for publication. An evaluation of some of the available channels will be made.
Week 5 – Getting interactive and a miniproject
The final week will look at video conferencing and collaboration and will include a joint project to produce a multi-channel digital artefact from the school curriculum for pupil use. Students will be expected to plan and produce a homework task for pupils from which pupils may obtain all of the necessary information to complete and digitally submit a short assignment. The task should be available online and should include at least three of text, video, audio or image.
Repository survey and evaluation
The following table identifies how useful each of the six OER repositories seem to be for the above course outline.
|1||Overview and applications||Bad||Good||Bad||Medium||Bad||Good|
|5||Interactive and project||Bad||Good||Medium||Bad||Good||Bad|
I used the same search string for each week’s intention, in each of the six providers’ search engines. Notice that this is bit of a blunt instrument to make comparisons about these organisations but for the purpose of this exercise I found that Ariadne and Merlot both reported almost nothing of any use, whereas Jorum reported a rich set of useful results in every search. Ironically, the Jorum results often included materials from the Open University when the OU search drew a blank. The OU, MIT and Rice were a mixed bag.
Clearly there is something worthy of further investigation here, and as an OER user I would expect to spend considerably more time looking into the best way to make use of these repositories in order to find great resources for my online courses.
There is nothing in this exercise that has made me alter the course content, although this is quite broadly defined in my head at the moment. I took the approach of looking out resources within the search results that might provide sufficient appropriate material so as to offer a good learning experience for the intended students when put together in the course. I think that there is the potential for significant time saving in the use of OER within online learning provision and certainly when it is used as extension or support material in more traditional or blended learning environments.
Accessibility should be addressed where demand exists by offering information and guidance on the use of appropriate services. Material formats can be altered where this aids transcoding for, e.g., text-to-audio renderers.
Activity 7 in the h817open mooc on Open Learning from the Open University asks us to read three articles from a suggested reading list and identify three key issues in Open Educational Resources (OER) and how these are being addressed. This post is my response to that task.
The three readings I have chosen from the list are:
- Wilson and McAndrew’s Evaluating how ﬁve Higher Education Institutions worldwide plan to use and adapt Open Educational Resources (2009)
- Harley et al, Use and Users of Digital Resources: A Focus on Undergraduate Education in the Humanities and Social Sciences (2006)
- Caswell et al, Open Educational Resources: Enabling universal education (2008)
I selected these because they are fairly recent and seemed to address a range of issues around the use of OER in Higher Education. Because time is quite short, and I am already falling behind with this mooc, I have used the readings to prompt and inform my own thinking about what the issues are with OER so as to identify three issues based on my own experience both as a consumer and provider of OER.
Issue 1: Differentiation
If open resources are used by educators as part of, or to provide additional support for, their own teaching, there is no direct way to know how effectively students have engaged with them. As a consequence of this, the educator has to try to create or select materials for his or her OER which suit the majority of the cohort, perhaps by pitching to the median ability. OER used this way are therefore undifferentiated. More able students may feel patronised whilst students of a lower ability might struggle to realise the benefit.
There are plenty of examples of this, including the present mooc, which has an international student body and yet the readings are presented in English. Not only that but the language of the readings is substantially academic, restricting the richest understanding to those who already are fluent in this dialect.
The mitigation for this issue lies in the community of students following the course. Forums and the unofficial social groups which spring up like camp followers around the course, offer a place for questions to be asked, shared understanding and peer support to be provided.
Issue 2: Cost of production
Good resources, specifically resources which are of a professional-looking production quality, are expected as people get used to the quality of the average YouTube post, for example. Nobody seriously expects the incredible quality of recent BBC science programmes but if OER are to be taken seriously and thereby to be effective as a learning resource, they have to be produced to a reasonably high standard. This costs money and time. The credibility of OER can be weakened by poor or outdated production. I remember roaring with laughter at some of the Open University TV programmes which were used in my degree studies. I had an even harder job of keeping a straight face when I met the presenters in person at summer school.
Fortunately, there are tools increasingly available which make the production of high-quality resources possible, such as VideoScribe, which puts professional-quality video scribing in the hands of just about everyone, or the ubiquitous smartphone with its array of media publishing apps.
Issue 3: Cultural dominance and localisation
I didn’t see this mentioned in the readings I picked for this task but one issue with OER that worries me is the dominance of cultural influence (or worse, bias) in resources that are produced in cultures which are dominant in the production of OER. I see this influence when inexperienced teachers (I teach teachers) use resources within their lesson planning which contain American spellings, phrases or terminology. It’s equally bad when student teachers in Scotland try to use lesson plans from England, which has a different curriculum (and therefore different contexts and assumptions). Without challenge or adaptation, these resources would find their way into the classrooms of Scotland and the important cultural and local distinctions might be eroded or eventually lost. This is no nationalist mantra: there are important and significant differences which must be taken into account – the direction of electric current flow, for example. Scotland uses electron current direction by default, the rest of the world does the other thing.
This issue mitigates against OER’s usefulness in the global sense. There is a limit to the extent that an OER can be globally applicable and localisation will be necessary in almost every case. For video resources for example, this might be by way of captioning (for which, software is fairly readily available) or overdubbing, but the re-usability of OER has at least this as an associated cost if localisation or the avoidance of cultural infiltration is important.
Activity 5 of the h817open mooc is a reading of Stephen Downes’ 2001 paper, Learning Objects: Resources for distance education worldwide. Before I read this, I set out some thoughts from my own experience in the area of instructional design.
Earlier in my career, I was involved in the development and manufacture of training systems which included fully immersive simulation environments which often had associated part-task or mission simulations in partial mock-ups or computer-based training suites. These were usually for pilots but also had application for crew operators, train drivers, and even surgeons. The principle underlying these systems is that mission or procedure training on relatively cheap devices saves many hours of operation in the live environment and for some specialisms, many lives and millions of dollars’ worth of wrecked equipment when the student got it wrong during training. So effective have these systems become, that it is possible that the co-pilot of the aircraft you are flying in (who might be landing it) has never set foot inside that particular type before today. He or she will, however, have many hours in the trainers and simulators before taking the controls of the real thing for the first time.
When costing the design of computer-based training suites, I remember we used ratios of around 20:1, meaning that it would take an instructional designer 20 hours to put together 1 hour of courseware. This courseware wasn’t particularly sophisticated by the standards you might see on your tablet computer today, although there were lesson plans, outcomes and artefacts like images or simple semi-dynamic graphics elements. Sometimes there were efficiency gains to be made by reusing modules and components from other projects but more often than not there would be a lot of adaptation of the models to the specifics of the system being modelled. The development costs of these models were high but the investment was justified by the savings in operational or flight time.
Did we get the models wrong? Almost never. The number of real-world consequences of failures in the training due to bad modelling or design are vanishingly small. Why? Because the training was validated against data from the real environment where it exists. In the case of the B767, for example, it took three months to prove it against hundreds of thousands of data points from the systems we were simulating. Evidence was the key.
Why have I set these ideas out before reading Downes’ paper? Because I wanted to remind myself of my perspectives on the importance of good quality instructional design. Since entering education, I have noticed that there is an acceptance across sectors and national boundaries of a wide range of standards of effectiveness, most of which are in the “we don’t know, we think it’s OK” category. I continue to be surprised that we have educational systems in which no evidence-based analysis of need (e.g. a TNA) or effectiveness exists. Ben Goldacre has recently written about the importance of knowing what works, which means obtaining proper randomised trial-based evidence instead of the usual subjective “evaluation” which pervades teaching. We are encouraged to be reflective practitioners which is not a bad thing, but alone it is certainly not sufficient to inform the development of good system-wide practice.
Right. Now I’m ready to read Downes. The question in my head is, “what is a learning object and how do you know it’s a good one?”.
“Imagine you are advising a funding organisation that wishes to promote activity and research in the area of open education.
Set out the three main priorities they should address, explaining each one and providing a justification for your list.”
I’ve thought about this for a few days and tried not to peek at what others are writing in response. I’ve drawn substantially on my own experience of open learning for my own set of three priorities.
Priority 1: Is there a correlation between open learning drop-out rates and the level of study skills of initial applicants?
I left school before completing my A-levels and found myself in my late twenties as a Project Manager with responsibility for multi-million pound budgets and teams of graduate engineers. From experience with these teams, I developed a perspective on how common sense correlated with academic attainment (see graph).
As part of my work, I found myself dealing with contract terms and felt that a law degree might be useful, so I enrolled as an external student on the University of London LLB degree programme. After about two years of struggling with this, I gave it up as a bad job. I tried again with another course from the Open University, which I completed without sitting the exam. Eventually, I figured out how to study and obtained a BSc in Physics and Mathematics, also with the OU.
Recent experience with the Edinburgh University/Coursera MOOC, eLearning and Digital Cultures, showed that of the 43,000 who registered, 2,000 completed the course. I almost wrote “almost completed” but actually, I think 5% is a pretty good conversion rate given the absence of entry requirements.
So my question is this: if all 43,000 of those people had the necessary study skills required to complete the course when they signed up, how many would have completed it? Seeking to identify any correlation might encourage course providers to be clear about the expectations of students before they sign up.
Priority 2: Does open education have to be free?
The RAF used to make some wonderful posters for school physics departments. Initially, they would provide them for free to any school that asked for them. They discovered that most of these posters finished up in cupboards and back rooms. When they started charging a nominal fee (£15 a set, I think) for them, the posters almost always found their way to the walls of classrooms and corridors.
If education is valuable, surely it has to be given a value? How many of those 43,000 would have signed up if there was a five-dollar registration fee? My own thoughts are that people value things that they pay for. I have often suggested that disruptive pupils would be a lot less so, and their parents much keener on ensuring this, if they handed over a pound every time they crossed the classroom threshold. Would this deny access to education for anyone? In the classroom, those who “can’t afford” to buy a pencil often have £300 mobile devices in their pockets. If you’re signing up for a mooc, you’re doing it on more than a few quid’s worth of computer equipment.
Should there be a registration fee as a matter of course (no pun intended) for all open courses?
Priority 3: How valid is peer assessment?
One of the most interesting things about following the community dialogues in learning communities is that there is rarely anything robustly critical ever said. Sugata Mitra suggests that there is an important place for learners for the “grandmother”, one who offers encouragement and praise to the student when things are produced or the study get hard. Whilst I don’t disagree with him at all (and I’m a big fan of Alfie Kohn and Carol Dweck’s findings that praise should be for effort, not outcome), I wonder if this leads to a false overstatement of the quality of work produced in the context of peer-assessed learning communities?
Within the open learning environment, is peer assessment skewed towards the award of praise, even where none is due? Are we afraid of critical commentary and grading because we’re too polite? As a consequence of this, does open learning that is peer assessed result in a driving down of quality?