All of the featured Open CourseWare items contain open educational resources and all of them have the general aim of sharing content to a wide audience. The things that I think matters that differ between them are the more specific intended audience, whether the courses are offered with actual credit, the quality of the courses, and the modularity of the content.
Open University (UK) Open Content Initiative
Open University contains courses that range in many different subject areas including language, technology and philosophy. The courses are college level and each course ranges in time from 5 hours to 40 hours or more. The Open University Open Content Initiative can lead to actual college credit hours and offers media that is mainly text and graphics. The audience is limited to college level students.
Rice Connexions
Rice offers many college level courses but is not restricted to these. Connexions sees its users as re-sharers of courses and as collaborators on the effectiveness of the same. This is evidenced by the fact that they allow users to comment on content and share their own if they want. Most of the content is text and picture based. Connexions does not organize its content into linear lessons but tries to provide content piece by piece. This modularity seems to add to the idea of allowing easy remix of content but makes Connexions difficult to navigate in my opinion.
Carnegie Mellon Open Learning Initiative
Carnegie Mellon offers a much smaller number of courses but increases the instructional quality of their courses. They take user data and use it for formative evaluation processes. The courses on Carnegie Mellon can be taken for college credit or not. The audience is college level but can also extend to other life-long learners. the courses feature instructional tools such as cognitive tutors, virtual laboratories, group experiments and simulations.
UNESCO Open Training Platform
UNESCO caters to a more worldwide audience featuring instructional materials that are not from college classes, but are more focused on social and economic issues. The resources often had a third-world use and were more localized than the other open education projects. UNESCO's site includes many different ways of exporting content, and a variety of media formats.
MIT OCW
MIT was the largest of the open education projects with over 3000 courses. The courses are meant for the specific audience of college level students. MIT OCW is made up of content that is mostly in a non-remixable format, pdf, but there are also some text classes and videos. The courses are very linear and they allow for downloading of an entire course.
National Repository of Online Courses
The National Repository of Online Courses offers a limited number of college and high school level open courses. They evaluate the quality of their courses using user evaluations, and other important tools. The media that they use is generally more sophisticated than the other sites. It involves pictures text and audio in a type of slideshow presentation on each topic. This makes and enjoyable experience for the learner, but does not readily allow for remix of the media.
Quality
I am not sure what quality means to those who work on the open education projects listed above. There are many ways to think of quality in Open CourseWare. For some, quality probably means accessibility. Quality could mean accuracy or remixability of content. Quality could mean a high amount of content. Quality could mean giving the users the ability to comment on content to help make it better. I prefer the methods that the Carnegie Mellon Open Learning Initiative and the National Repository of Online Courses use to evaluate the quality of their content. Both of these projects report that they gain feedback from the user to improve their courses. The Carnegie Mellon Open Learning Initiative also takes user performance data to determine where instruction is lacking and where they can add remediation. Instructional effectiveness should be considered as a quality measurement too.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Open Ed Week 4: On constructivism and knowledge and...
The three readings from the past weeks have all been somewhat of an overview of the Open Education Movement (see posts below for synopses and reactions). The text, Giving Knowledge for Free, Talks mainly about the movement, reasons behind it and the models that it embodies. This text gives little suggestion for the direction that the OER movement needs to take in the next few years, rather, it tells about the movement based on survey information. Interesting notes about this article can be seen in previous posts under Open educational resources and the decentralized development model. It is interesting that most who share educational resources rarely do it for personal benefit or money. As Karen wrote in her blog, wikinomics explains how open resources and capitalism are not mutually exclusive, “And once you start thinking about changing the world, who cares how much money you make?” Great point Karen. It seems like those who share OERs already do well financially anyway. But this is a loaded comment, because open educational resources are out there to help the disadvantaged (financially and otherwise), yet in order to localize it purveyors of OER will have to rely on those same people who do not have money or time.
An interesting note about using the word knowledge (as in this text's title) to describe open educational resources or open content is made by David Wiley on his blog. I couldn't agree more with him, free knowledge can never be provided on the internet. Last year at OpenEd 2006, Dr. Paul Kirschner said something about how learning does not happen online or at a university, it happens in the mind of the learner. It takes a knower to have knowledge, and until the knower interacts with the content, it cannot become knowledge. what is on the web will always remain content.
A random video:
The OLCOS road map also provides a survey of the OER movement but talks more in depth about the end user/remixer/re-sharer. This person is often viewed as a mere user (see below under learning with media, not from). Of all of the three readings, this one resonated better with me because it talks about how the open education resources movement will have to provide support for users of OERs to help them appropriately use OERs in the classroom etc. and reshare them for continuing spread of OERs. This is where I believe the field of open educational resources converges with instructional technology. Practitioners need to be supported in using open educational resources in appropriate ways to effectively instruct (see below under learning with media, not from).
This text also talks a lot about constructivist virtues such as end users remixing and re-sharing resources. A post by Rob Barton, on a relevant blog entry not associated with this class talks about a constructivist learning environment, the results of which indicate that, "the effectiveness of the constructivist environment relies heavily on the learner's task management and decision-making processes." Rob mentions that this is a loaded conclusion. I believe that students in the information age need to have quality task management and decision-making processes that they use. Rob continues, “so do constructivist learning environments fail because of inherent problems in the process or because we have trained students (and been trained ourselves) that the teacher's job is to stand in front of a classroom expounding and exhorting while the student's role is to sit there and bask in our glory, soaking up the knowledge that we spew forth? ” I think that this is hitting the nail on the head. The OLCOS roadmap talks a lot about supporting learners to be able to analyze the quality of information, use self-directed learning skills, practice task management, and make good decisions etc. to become lifelong learners. Students will increasingly need these skills as they get into a knowledge based economy. The old model of “sage on the stage” will not achieve these results. But a paradigm shift will need to take place in our education system.
The OLCOS report clearly advocates such a paradigm shift and is quite ambitious. Sylvia put it very well when she said, “I liked the fact that OLCOS looked beyond the provision of OERs and LOs and recognized many of the inherent barriers in our current educational systems. I just have some serious doubts that there is any possibility of achieve their goals by 2012!” Yet this paradigm shift will have to happen if the potential of OERs is going to be achieved. Otherwise it could just become the next in a series of failed innovations in education.
In A Review of the Open Educational Resources Movement, The authors talk specifically to the hewlett foundation and give recommendations to the foundation about where to put their money in the future. This text overviews prominent projects dealing with open educational resources and then talks about future technologies that will allow for the spread of open educational resources. What is noticeably left out in this text is any mention of instructional effectiveness. The authors are focused mainly on technologies that are used to share OERs. The author mentions that content + context is king. I don't agree. I think that content + context is great, but content + context + effective instruction is king. Sometimes advocates of OERs miss the point. The point is to help more people get more education, not more content or more access to the internet or digital resources. These are only the means to the end.
An interesting note about using the word knowledge (as in this text's title) to describe open educational resources or open content is made by David Wiley on his blog. I couldn't agree more with him, free knowledge can never be provided on the internet. Last year at OpenEd 2006, Dr. Paul Kirschner said something about how learning does not happen online or at a university, it happens in the mind of the learner. It takes a knower to have knowledge, and until the knower interacts with the content, it cannot become knowledge. what is on the web will always remain content.
A random video:
The OLCOS road map also provides a survey of the OER movement but talks more in depth about the end user/remixer/re-sharer. This person is often viewed as a mere user (see below under learning with media, not from). Of all of the three readings, this one resonated better with me because it talks about how the open education resources movement will have to provide support for users of OERs to help them appropriately use OERs in the classroom etc. and reshare them for continuing spread of OERs. This is where I believe the field of open educational resources converges with instructional technology. Practitioners need to be supported in using open educational resources in appropriate ways to effectively instruct (see below under learning with media, not from).
This text also talks a lot about constructivist virtues such as end users remixing and re-sharing resources. A post by Rob Barton, on a relevant blog entry not associated with this class talks about a constructivist learning environment, the results of which indicate that, "the effectiveness of the constructivist environment relies heavily on the learner's task management and decision-making processes." Rob mentions that this is a loaded conclusion. I believe that students in the information age need to have quality task management and decision-making processes that they use. Rob continues, “so do constructivist learning environments fail because of inherent problems in the process or because we have trained students (and been trained ourselves) that the teacher's job is to stand in front of a classroom expounding and exhorting while the student's role is to sit there and bask in our glory, soaking up the knowledge that we spew forth? ” I think that this is hitting the nail on the head. The OLCOS roadmap talks a lot about supporting learners to be able to analyze the quality of information, use self-directed learning skills, practice task management, and make good decisions etc. to become lifelong learners. Students will increasingly need these skills as they get into a knowledge based economy. The old model of “sage on the stage” will not achieve these results. But a paradigm shift will need to take place in our education system.
The OLCOS report clearly advocates such a paradigm shift and is quite ambitious. Sylvia put it very well when she said, “I liked the fact that OLCOS looked beyond the provision of OERs and LOs and recognized many of the inherent barriers in our current educational systems. I just have some serious doubts that there is any possibility of achieve their goals by 2012!” Yet this paradigm shift will have to happen if the potential of OERs is going to be achieved. Otherwise it could just become the next in a series of failed innovations in education.
In A Review of the Open Educational Resources Movement, The authors talk specifically to the hewlett foundation and give recommendations to the foundation about where to put their money in the future. This text overviews prominent projects dealing with open educational resources and then talks about future technologies that will allow for the spread of open educational resources. What is noticeably left out in this text is any mention of instructional effectiveness. The authors are focused mainly on technologies that are used to share OERs. The author mentions that content + context is king. I don't agree. I think that content + context is great, but content + context + effective instruction is king. Sometimes advocates of OERs miss the point. The point is to help more people get more education, not more content or more access to the internet or digital resources. These are only the means to the end.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Open Ed: Learning with media, not from
I have recently finished reading the OLCOS road map. One important point in the OLCOS report is that models and guidelines for proper use of Open Educational Resources need to be provided if OER initiatives are to grow based on user input. This, I believe, is where instructional design fits into the big picture of open educational resources. Instructional designers can provide guidelines and models on the effective use of open educational resources for learning. The OLCOS report also states that too often, producers of open educational resources look at consumers as merely users of the content. They do not see them as collaborators on the usefulness and effectiveness of resources, or as colleagues who re-share resources that they have remixed. Consumers of resources should also re-share resources when they have used or remixed them. Clearly to do all these things, the users and re-sharers of resources will need support.
The OLCOS report also makes the point that open educational resources will be better used in situations that foster learner-centered approaches to instruction rather than teacher-centered ones. This represents a change in practice for most educational institutions. There are different ways to use media in education. Students can learn from media in a passive role. Verbs that fit this approach are watching, viewing and reading. Students can also learn with media in an active role. Verbs that fit this approach are watching, viewing, reading and then downloading, collecting, changing, and sharing. I certainly believe more in the latter. Giving students the opportunity to learn with media will better prepare them for the knowledge economy.
My favorite quote from the report is from David Weinberger, he talks about the virtues of collaborative software such as wikipedia, “We hope they’re learning that they can’t be passive recipients of knowledge. But they’re also learning that authority doesn’t come only through chains of credentials; that we can get on the same page about what we know; that knowing involves being willing to back away from your beliefs at times; that knowledge is a social product, or at least heavily socially contextualized; that the willingness to admit fallibility is a greater indicator of truth than speaking in a confident tone of voice; that knowledge lives in conversation, not in the heads of experts; that certain people who do not need to be named are just impossible.” (Weinberger 2006)
Open educational resources serve as a way to promote lifelong learning and help others build on knowledge that is already there instead of “reinventing the wheel.” I like this point of view with regard to open education because there is more knowledge in our day than there ever has been. We have the opportunity to learn from it only if it is accessible to us. If it is not accessible, does it really exist? This is going back to the old saying that if a tree falls in the middle forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? So much of what people do in academics is not widely spread at all. Professors make a break through discovery and then publish the results in a magazine. The published article is read by a few of the professors colleagues who actually subscribe to the high priced magazine. The publisher retains rights to the article so that it cannot be shared further. No change happens from the published breakthrough beyond the professor and a few of his colleagues.
The OLCOS report also makes the point that open educational resources will be better used in situations that foster learner-centered approaches to instruction rather than teacher-centered ones. This represents a change in practice for most educational institutions. There are different ways to use media in education. Students can learn from media in a passive role. Verbs that fit this approach are watching, viewing and reading. Students can also learn with media in an active role. Verbs that fit this approach are watching, viewing, reading and then downloading, collecting, changing, and sharing. I certainly believe more in the latter. Giving students the opportunity to learn with media will better prepare them for the knowledge economy.
My favorite quote from the report is from David Weinberger, he talks about the virtues of collaborative software such as wikipedia, “We hope they’re learning that they can’t be passive recipients of knowledge. But they’re also learning that authority doesn’t come only through chains of credentials; that we can get on the same page about what we know; that knowing involves being willing to back away from your beliefs at times; that knowledge is a social product, or at least heavily socially contextualized; that the willingness to admit fallibility is a greater indicator of truth than speaking in a confident tone of voice; that knowledge lives in conversation, not in the heads of experts; that certain people who do not need to be named are just impossible.” (Weinberger 2006)
Open educational resources serve as a way to promote lifelong learning and help others build on knowledge that is already there instead of “reinventing the wheel.” I like this point of view with regard to open education because there is more knowledge in our day than there ever has been. We have the opportunity to learn from it only if it is accessible to us. If it is not accessible, does it really exist? This is going back to the old saying that if a tree falls in the middle forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? So much of what people do in academics is not widely spread at all. Professors make a break through discovery and then publish the results in a magazine. The published article is read by a few of the professors colleagues who actually subscribe to the high priced magazine. The publisher retains rights to the article so that it cannot be shared further. No change happens from the published breakthrough beyond the professor and a few of his colleagues.
Friday, September 7, 2007
Open Ed: Open educational resources and the decentralized development model
Much of the discussion in week 1 was about the right to education and whether governments should mandate education and compel people to attend. I spoke of the right to not go to school and Dr. Wiley gave a good answer to that point “...but how should a government respond if an overwhelming majority of its school-aged children choose to refuse? What would be the future consequence of such widespread illiteracy and innumeracy? Would the government have an obligation to step in and “do what’s best” for the future of the people and the country?” The answer to this question for me is YES. The government should step in and begin to mandate education for its citizens in the interest of the advancement of that society. The problems that would arise from not doing so would far outweigh the issues of personal freedom that would result from compelling people to go to school. What a government does in such times of crisis is and should be different from what it does in times of normalcy. For times when a society is desiring to go to school as a majority and a small minority does not want to go to school, it may be appropriate to make a joint decision on the local and national level whether to compel this minority to attend and bypass their personal freedom to not get an education. I have to admit that I do not know the answer to this dilemma.
So if a government has interest in educating its citizens for the advancement of society, then the government should certainly provide a quality education to its citizens (and I believe that this should be free if it is mandatory) and perhaps more. So what more can a government give to its citizens to support self-directed learners who are no longer compelled to go to school? How can a government increase the availability of information? How can a government support the need for its teachers to continually learn and update skills? Pedro has a great thought “By having access to the knowledge -whatever it be- is a way to educate yourself. But most of times, it is not enough. The knowledge needs to be organized in some other way than an alphabetic sort. "Open education" (in the sense thar is organized knowledge) can be useful to achieve the goal to satisfy the right to education for some people, like adults looking for knowledge in a life-long-learning situation.” I agree that this is where open educational resources come in. These are a great way to continue to spread knowledge to those who want it.
Hylen gives a great overview of open educational resources in Giving Knowledge for Free. I spoke to him at the OpenEd 2006 conference after he presented many similar facts there. I find it interesting that the survey results say that the most compelling reasons for producing and disseminating open educational resources are to have someone else review your material for quality, and be acknowledged as the creator. Most people are not asking for much when the produce open educational resources, the factors that deal with financial recompense are the lowest in the scale. To me this means that people who produce OERs care about the cause and want education to spread along with their own personal notoriety.
Another point of note is the fact that open educational resources tend to help out the instutions that produce them. Hylen mentions that these resources and the institutions that produce them are subject to “rapid quality improvement and faster technical and scientific development.” This decentralized development “increases quality, stability and security; and free sharing of software, scientific results and educational resources reinforces societal development and diminishes social inequality. From a more individual standpoint, open sharing is claimed to increase publicity, reputation and the pleasure of sharing with peers.” These are very good results that come from the production of OERs.
This idea of decentralized development has been an interesting shift in United States business models over the past few years. Proctor and Gamble, for instance, has reduced its internal research and development efforts and instead relied upon outside customer and expert feedback to improve its current products and create new ones. National Public Radio has followed a similar pattern in the development of its radio programs. This model is nothing new, it has been followed very extensively in open source software, the quality of which is undeniable.
My hope is that the education sector can catch on to this model by allowing for decentralized development of quality educational materials, decreasing the amount of time it takes for professors themselves to improve and revise materials.
So if a government has interest in educating its citizens for the advancement of society, then the government should certainly provide a quality education to its citizens (and I believe that this should be free if it is mandatory) and perhaps more. So what more can a government give to its citizens to support self-directed learners who are no longer compelled to go to school? How can a government increase the availability of information? How can a government support the need for its teachers to continually learn and update skills? Pedro has a great thought “By having access to the knowledge -whatever it be- is a way to educate yourself. But most of times, it is not enough. The knowledge needs to be organized in some other way than an alphabetic sort. "Open education" (in the sense thar is organized knowledge) can be useful to achieve the goal to satisfy the right to education for some people, like adults looking for knowledge in a life-long-learning situation.” I agree that this is where open educational resources come in. These are a great way to continue to spread knowledge to those who want it.
Hylen gives a great overview of open educational resources in Giving Knowledge for Free. I spoke to him at the OpenEd 2006 conference after he presented many similar facts there. I find it interesting that the survey results say that the most compelling reasons for producing and disseminating open educational resources are to have someone else review your material for quality, and be acknowledged as the creator. Most people are not asking for much when the produce open educational resources, the factors that deal with financial recompense are the lowest in the scale. To me this means that people who produce OERs care about the cause and want education to spread along with their own personal notoriety.
Another point of note is the fact that open educational resources tend to help out the instutions that produce them. Hylen mentions that these resources and the institutions that produce them are subject to “rapid quality improvement and faster technical and scientific development.” This decentralized development “increases quality, stability and security; and free sharing of software, scientific results and educational resources reinforces societal development and diminishes social inequality. From a more individual standpoint, open sharing is claimed to increase publicity, reputation and the pleasure of sharing with peers.” These are very good results that come from the production of OERs.
This idea of decentralized development has been an interesting shift in United States business models over the past few years. Proctor and Gamble, for instance, has reduced its internal research and development efforts and instead relied upon outside customer and expert feedback to improve its current products and create new ones. National Public Radio has followed a similar pattern in the development of its radio programs. This model is nothing new, it has been followed very extensively in open source software, the quality of which is undeniable.
My hope is that the education sector can catch on to this model by allowing for decentralized development of quality educational materials, decreasing the amount of time it takes for professors themselves to improve and revise materials.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)