Electronic Resources El30 (Week 5)
Time-vortex initiated... loading Week 5 of EL30 ;-)
eL30's topic in Week 5 was all about resources, and specifically OER. This is a fun topic to return to from time to time to discuss, especially now given that my state seems to have taken it a step further by having a Massachusetts Open Education initiative which my university is promoting. There were a few things that came up as interesting in the interview, some newer to me, and some things that have come up in previous posts about OER.
One interesting comment that came from the discussion is when Stephen mentioned during the chat that he is more reluctant to share a resource if it goes through a vetting/accrediting/QA process; not because he doesn't like quality, but because someone can just say "this resource doesn't deserve to be shared". I found this quite interesting. It's not that I disagree with Stephen, I too would be reluctant to share in an official capacity any work of mine if it meant that someone I don't know may be judging my contribution on some unknown set of criteria, hence making the sharing and vetting process opaque. This small, and potentially throw-away comment, really brings to the fore the importance of gate-keeping with OER. When it's relatively easy for me, as a creator, to contribute my work to the open by sharing a link to an ePub or PDF that I made what is the value of having such gate-keepers?† In hearing this comment I also was reminded of similar situations. When I was a graduate student I was president of one of the student associations. I thought it would be nice for students to get together outside of the classroom context to socialize (taking a cue from previous presidents) and I attempted to organize some get-togethers during and after the semester ended. Invariably there were many who complained for one reason or another - the dates were no convenient, or the locations proposed weren't convenient, or the times proposed weren't convenient, or something else. I realized (again) that you can't please everyone, and when someone decides to share something, freely, the expectations (by others) should also also be elastic since you didn't design the deliverable for them specifically (but people seem to forget that).
Another interesting point brought up was by Sukaina Walji who made an interesting point about OER and that it may be growing toward something that is marketed (or commercialized?) as people want to adopt them because they don't want to create, or edit, their own materials. This was an interesting point to be made because it really feels like a colonization of OER by corporatist entities. It reminds me a lot of what happened with MOOCs after Coursera et al came to the game. Will there be a point where we're starting to debate the meaning of "open" in OER in the near future? Also, as educators, aren't we responsible for creating some of our own materials? If everything is a collage (take some of column A and some from column B) without creating something of our own, what does that mean for the profession of teaching? Having been in contact with a variety of faculty in the past, I am constantly surprised as to how many faculty use canned lecture PowerPoint that come with the textbook for example (and it's usually bad PowerPoint design to begin with). I get that we don't have the time to create everything ourselves, but where does the creative process fit if we just buy something (or even discover something for free in an OER directory) without really thinking and tailoring its use for our classrooms?
Finally, from the point of the weekly chat, an issue that emerged with OER is the categorization of resources, aligning those OERs with curriculum, and determining level of difficulty of the OER. These add to the level of complexity of sharing and finding OER. This, for the discussants, connected with Wiley's reusability paradox. The thing that jumped out at me here is that categorization of some types of OER is really a local-level issue. For instance, if I am creating an OER assignment-bank for my introduction to instructional design course then I am designing with local considerations in mind which include local degree requirements, local curriculum requirements, and local conceptions of level of difficulty. If this assignment-bank makes it into an OER repository it's up to the end-user to do most of the work to determine level of difficulty, where in the curriculum it fits, and how it fits in with their educational objectives. However, if a few colleagues and I decide to come together to create an OER textbook - let's call it introduction to instructional design & learning technologies then we are thinking more broadly at the time of creation and we can make recommendations as to where it can fit. The end-user still needs to determine some specifics, but the authors can help in alleviating some of that overhead.
Personally I've found issues with finding OER, in repositories, because looking for specific material to match my needs usually doesn't provide me with much. However, if you approach the search for materials material in a manner that is more like browsing items at a flea market then you could come away with some interesting gems, especially if you are flexible in how you arrange your class. You should still be prepared to edit the materials, but there is potential there for serendipity.
Last thing that came to mind as I was composing this post: Tenure, promotion, and OER. I would be curious to know how many institutions consider OER as a substantial part of tenure and promotion of their faculty. My economics knowledge is fairly rudimentary (ECON 101 & 102 in college) but it seems that faculty (like most other rational actors) would pick things to do (research, publish, committees, etc.) that provide substantive returns in them being able to keep their job (by means of tenure). If OER isn't really considered to be that important by an institution, who is left caring about creating quality OER? In a recent email, for example, my institution was promoting the fact that faculty could earn a $200 stipend for reviewing OER. I think that's great but I think the calculus is wrong: $200 is far less valuable in the long run for an employee than doing something else that would allow them to keep their job.
Your thoughts?
*-*Marginalia*-*
† Yes, I know there is value in having peer review and certain amount of gate-keeping so that there isn't fake material out there, but I pose to the question as a means of poking at the question.
eL30's topic in Week 5 was all about resources, and specifically OER. This is a fun topic to return to from time to time to discuss, especially now given that my state seems to have taken it a step further by having a Massachusetts Open Education initiative which my university is promoting. There were a few things that came up as interesting in the interview, some newer to me, and some things that have come up in previous posts about OER.
One interesting comment that came from the discussion is when Stephen mentioned during the chat that he is more reluctant to share a resource if it goes through a vetting/accrediting/QA process; not because he doesn't like quality, but because someone can just say "this resource doesn't deserve to be shared". I found this quite interesting. It's not that I disagree with Stephen, I too would be reluctant to share in an official capacity any work of mine if it meant that someone I don't know may be judging my contribution on some unknown set of criteria, hence making the sharing and vetting process opaque. This small, and potentially throw-away comment, really brings to the fore the importance of gate-keeping with OER. When it's relatively easy for me, as a creator, to contribute my work to the open by sharing a link to an ePub or PDF that I made what is the value of having such gate-keepers?† In hearing this comment I also was reminded of similar situations. When I was a graduate student I was president of one of the student associations. I thought it would be nice for students to get together outside of the classroom context to socialize (taking a cue from previous presidents) and I attempted to organize some get-togethers during and after the semester ended. Invariably there were many who complained for one reason or another - the dates were no convenient, or the locations proposed weren't convenient, or the times proposed weren't convenient, or something else. I realized (again) that you can't please everyone, and when someone decides to share something, freely, the expectations (by others) should also also be elastic since you didn't design the deliverable for them specifically (but people seem to forget that).
Another interesting point brought up was by Sukaina Walji who made an interesting point about OER and that it may be growing toward something that is marketed (or commercialized?) as people want to adopt them because they don't want to create, or edit, their own materials. This was an interesting point to be made because it really feels like a colonization of OER by corporatist entities. It reminds me a lot of what happened with MOOCs after Coursera et al came to the game. Will there be a point where we're starting to debate the meaning of "open" in OER in the near future? Also, as educators, aren't we responsible for creating some of our own materials? If everything is a collage (take some of column A and some from column B) without creating something of our own, what does that mean for the profession of teaching? Having been in contact with a variety of faculty in the past, I am constantly surprised as to how many faculty use canned lecture PowerPoint that come with the textbook for example (and it's usually bad PowerPoint design to begin with). I get that we don't have the time to create everything ourselves, but where does the creative process fit if we just buy something (or even discover something for free in an OER directory) without really thinking and tailoring its use for our classrooms?
Finally, from the point of the weekly chat, an issue that emerged with OER is the categorization of resources, aligning those OERs with curriculum, and determining level of difficulty of the OER. These add to the level of complexity of sharing and finding OER. This, for the discussants, connected with Wiley's reusability paradox. The thing that jumped out at me here is that categorization of some types of OER is really a local-level issue. For instance, if I am creating an OER assignment-bank for my introduction to instructional design course then I am designing with local considerations in mind which include local degree requirements, local curriculum requirements, and local conceptions of level of difficulty. If this assignment-bank makes it into an OER repository it's up to the end-user to do most of the work to determine level of difficulty, where in the curriculum it fits, and how it fits in with their educational objectives. However, if a few colleagues and I decide to come together to create an OER textbook - let's call it introduction to instructional design & learning technologies then we are thinking more broadly at the time of creation and we can make recommendations as to where it can fit. The end-user still needs to determine some specifics, but the authors can help in alleviating some of that overhead.
Personally I've found issues with finding OER, in repositories, because looking for specific material to match my needs usually doesn't provide me with much. However, if you approach the search for materials material in a manner that is more like browsing items at a flea market then you could come away with some interesting gems, especially if you are flexible in how you arrange your class. You should still be prepared to edit the materials, but there is potential there for serendipity.
Last thing that came to mind as I was composing this post: Tenure, promotion, and OER. I would be curious to know how many institutions consider OER as a substantial part of tenure and promotion of their faculty. My economics knowledge is fairly rudimentary (ECON 101 & 102 in college) but it seems that faculty (like most other rational actors) would pick things to do (research, publish, committees, etc.) that provide substantive returns in them being able to keep their job (by means of tenure). If OER isn't really considered to be that important by an institution, who is left caring about creating quality OER? In a recent email, for example, my institution was promoting the fact that faculty could earn a $200 stipend for reviewing OER. I think that's great but I think the calculus is wrong: $200 is far less valuable in the long run for an employee than doing something else that would allow them to keep their job.
Your thoughts?
*-*Marginalia*-*
† Yes, I know there is value in having peer review and certain amount of gate-keeping so that there isn't fake material out there, but I pose to the question as a means of poking at the question.
Comments