agregador de noticias

5 Tech Tools That Help Personalize PD -- THE Journal

Educación flexible y abierta - 17 Febrero, 2015 - 08:41

As more districts take advantage of social media, online surveys and more, the days of one-size-fits-all professional development are over.

See it on Scoop.it, via Educación flexible y abierta

Making sense of open educational resources

Tony Bates - 17 Febrero, 2015 - 04:45

© Giulia Forsyth, 2012

This is the second of five posts on open education from Chapter 10 of my online open textbook, Teaching in a Digital Age. The first post was ‘What do we mean by “open” education‘?

Open educational resources are somewhat different from open learning, in that they are primarily content, while open learning includes both content and educational services, such as specially designed online materials, in-built learner support and assessment.

Open educational resources cover a wide range of formats, including open textbooks, video recorded lectures, YouTube clips, web-based textual materials designed for independent study, animations and simulations, diagrams and graphics, some MOOCs, or even assessment materials such as tests with automated answers. OER can also include Powerpoint slides or lecture notes. In order to be open educational resources, though, they must be freely available for at least educational use.

For a useful overview of the research on OERs, see the Review Project from the Open Education Group.

Principles of OER

David Wiley is one of the pioneers of OER. He and colleagues have suggested (Hilton et al., 2010) that there are four core principles of open publishing:

  • Reuse—The most basic level of openness. People are allowed to use all or part of the work for their own purposes (e.g., download an educational video to watch at a later time).
  • Redistribute—People can share the work with others (e.g., email a digital article to a colleague).
  • Revise—People can adapt, modify, translate, or change the work (e.g., take a book written in English and turn it into a Spanish audio book).
  • Remix—People can take two or more existing resources and combine them to create a new resource (e.g., take audio lectures from one course and combine them with slides from another course to create a new derivative work).

This open textbook you are reading meets all four criteria (it has a CC BY-NC license – see below). Users of OER though need to check with the actual license for re-use, because sometimes there are limitations, as with this book, which cannot be reproduced without permission for commercial reasons; for example, it cannot be turned into a book for profit by a commercial publisher, at least without permission from the author. To protect your rights as an author of OER usually means publishing under a Creative Commons or other open license.

Creative Commons licenses

This seemingly simple idea, of an ‘author’ creating a license enabling people to freely access and adapt copyright material, without charge or special permission, is one of the great ideas of the 21st century. This does not take away someone’s copyright, but enables that copyright holder to give permission for different kinds of use of their material without charge or any bureaucracy, such as writing for permission.

The are now several possible Creative Commons licenses:

  • CC BY Attribution: This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation. This is the most accommodating of licenses offered. Recommended for maximum dissemination and use of licensed materials.
  • CC BY-SA This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work even for commercial purposes, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms. This is particularly important if your work also includes other people’s materials licensed through the Creative Commons
  • CC BY-ND. This license allows for redistribution, commercial and non-commercial, as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit to you.
  • CC BY-NC. This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.
  • CC BY-NC-SA. This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms.
  • CC BY-NC-ND. This license is the most restrictive of the six main licenses, only allowing others to download your works and share them with others as long as they credit you, but they can’t change them in any way or use them commercially.

If you wish to offer your own materials as open educational resources, it is a relatively simple process to choose a licence and apply it to any piece of work (see Creative Commons Choose a License). If in doubt, check with a librarian.

Sources of OER

There are many ‘repositories’ of open educational resources (see for instance, for post-secondary education,  MERLOTOER Commons, and for k-12, Edutopia). However, when searching for possible open educational resources on the web, check to see whether or not the resource has a Creative Commons license or a statement giving permission for re-use. It may be common practice to use free (no cost) resources without worrying unduly about copyright, but there are risks without a clear license or permission for re-use. The Open Professionals Education Network has an excellent guide to finding and using OER.

Limitations of OER

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that the take-up of OERs by instructors is still minimal, other than by those who created the original version. The main criticism is of the poor quality of many of the OERs available at the moment – Powerpoint slides, lecture notes, reams of text with no interaction, often available in PDFs that cannot easily be changed or adapted. Even some of the simulations available are crudely made, with poor graphics, and a design that fails to make clear what academic concepts they are meant to illustrate.

Falconer (2013), in a survey of potential users’ attitudes to OER in Europe, came to the following conclusion:

The ability of the masses to participate in production of OER – and a cultural mistrust of getting something for nothing – give rise to user concerns about quality. Commercial providers/publishers who generate trust through advertising, market coverage and glossy production, may exploit this mistrust of the free. Belief in quality is a significant driver for OER initiatives, but the issue of scale-able ways of assuring quality in a context where all (in principle) can contribute has not been resolved, and the question of whether quality transfers unambiguously from one context to another is seldom [addressed]. A seal of approval system is not infinitely scale-able, while the robustness of user reviews, or other contextualised measures, has not yet been sufficiently explored.

If OER are to be taken up by others than the creators of the OER, they will need to be well designed. It is perhaps not surprising then that the most used OER on iTunes University were the Open University’s, until the OU set up its own OER portal, FutureLearn, which offers as OER mainly textual materials from its courses designed specifically for online, independent study. Once again, good design is a critical factor in ensuring the quality of an OER.

Hampson (2013) has suggested another reason for the slow adoption of OER, mainly to do with the professional self-image of many university faculty. Hampson argues that faculty don’t see themselves as ‘just’ teachers, but creators and disseminators of new or original knowledge. Therefore their teaching needs to have their own stamp on it, which makes them reluctant to openly incorporate or ‘copy’ other people’s work. OER can easily be associated with ‘packaged’, reproductive knowledge, and not original work, changing faculty from ‘artists’ to ‘artisans’. It can be argued that this reason is absurd – we all stand on the shoulders of giants – but it is the self-perception that’s important, and for research professors, there is a grain of truth in the argument. It makes sense for them to focus their teaching on their own research. But then how many Richard Feynmans are there out there?

There is also considerable confusion between ‘free’ (no financial cost) and ‘open’, which is compounded by lack of clear licensing information on many OER. For instance, Coursera MOOCs are free, but not ‘open': it is a breach of copyright to use the material in a Coursera MOOC without permission. On the other hand, edX MOOCs usually have an ‘open’ license.

There is also the issue of the context-free nature of OER. Research into learning shows that content is best learned within context (situated learning), when the learner is active, and that above all, when the learner can actively construct knowledge by developing meaning and ‘layered’ understanding. Content is not static, nor a commodity like coal. In other words, content is not effectively learned if it is thought of as shovelling coal into a truck. Learning is a dynamic process that requires questioning, adjustment of prior learning to incorporate new ideas, testing of understanding, and feedback. These ‘transactional’ processes require a combination of personal reflection, feedback from an expert (i.e. the teacher or instructor) and even more importantly, feedback from and interaction with friends, family and fellow learners.

The weakness with open content is that by its nature, at its purest it is stripped of these developmental, contextual and ‘environmental’ components that are essential for effective learning. In other words, OER are just like coal, sitting there waiting to be loaded. Coal of course is still a very valuable product. But it has to be mined, stored, shipped and processed. More attention needs to be paid to those contextual elements that turn OER from raw ‘content’ into a useful learning experience. This means instructors need to build learning experiences or environments into which the OER will fit.

How to use OERs

Despite these limitations, teachers and instructors are increasingly creating open educational resources, or making resources freely available for others to use under a Creative Commons license. There are increasing numbers of depositories or portals where faculty can access open educational resources. As the quantity of OER expands, it is more likely that teachers and instructors will increasingly be able to find the resources that best suit their particular teaching context.

There are therefore several choices:

  • take OERs selectively from elsewhere, and incorporate or adapt them into your own courses
  • create your own digital resources for your own teaching, and make them available to others (see for instance Creating OER and Combining Licenses from Florida State University)
  • build a course around OER, where students have to find content to solve problems, write reports or do research on a topic
  • make use of a whole course from OERu, then build student activities and assessment and provide learner support for the course.

Learners can use OER to support any type of learning. For instance, MIT’s OpenCourseWare (OCW) could be used just for interest, or students who struggle with the topics in a classroom lecture for a credit course may well go to OCW to get an alternative approach to the same topic.

Still worth the effort

Despite some of the current limitations or weaknesses of OER, their use is likely to grow, simply because it makes no sense to create everything from scratch when good quality materials are freely and easily available. We have seen in Chapter 9 on selecting media that there is now an increasing amount of excellent open material available to teachers and instructors. This will only grow over time. We shall see in Section 10.10 that this is bound to change the way courses are designed and offered. Indeed, OER will prove to be one of the essential features of teaching in a digital age.

Over to you

Once again, this aims to be a fairly descriptive account of OERs. Is it accurate and balanced? Have I missed anything? (Open textbooks, open research and open data are discussed in the next post, and the implications of OER for the design of teaching is discussed in the post after that).

Next

Open textbooks, open research and open data

References

Falconer, I. et al. (2013) Overview and Analysis of Practices with Open Educational Resources in Adult Education in Europe Seville, Spain: European Commission Institute for Prospective Technological Studies

Hampson, K. (2013) The next chapter for digital instructional media: content as a competitive difference Vancouver BC: COHERE 2013 conference

Hilton, J., Wiley, D., Stein, J., & Johnson, A. (2010). The four R’s of openness and ALMS Analysis: Frameworks for open educational resources. Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 25(1), 37–44.

Li, Y, MacNeill, S., and Kraan, W. (undated) Open Educational Resources – Opportunities and Challenges for Higher Education Bolton UK: JISC_CETIS

 

What Does Unizin Mean for Digital Learning?

e-Literate - 16 Febrero, 2015 - 20:41

Speaking of underpants gnomes sales pitches, Phil and I spent a fair amount of time hearing about Unizin at the ELI conference. Much of that time was spent hearing friends that I know, trust, and respect talk about the project. At length, in some cases. On the one hand, it is remarkable that, after these long conversations, I am not much clearer on the purpose of Unizin than I was the week before. On the other hand, being reminded that some of my friends really believe in this thing helped me refill my reservoir of patience for the project, which had frankly run dry.

Alas, that reservoir was largely drained away again during a Unizin presentation with the same title as this blog post. I went there expecting the presenters to answer that question for the audience.

Alack.

The main presentation was given by Anastasia Morrone of IUPUI, was probably the most straightforward and least hype-filled presentation about Unizin that I have heard so far. It was also short. Just when I was warming to it and figuring we’d get to the real meat, her last slide came up:

Split into groups of 5-7 people and discuss the following:

How can faculty, teaching center consultants, and learning technologists contribute to best practices with the evolving Unizin services?

Wait. What?

That’s right. They wanted us to tell them what Unizin means for digital learning. That might have been a good question to ask before they committed to spend a million dollars each on the initiative.

I joined one of the groups, resolving to try as hard as I could to keep my tongue in check and be constructive (or, at least, silent) for as long as I could. The very first comment in my group—not by me, I swear—was, “Before I can contribute, can somebody please explain to me what Unizin is?” It didn’t get any better from there. At the end of the breakout session, our group’s official answer was essentially, “Yeah, we don’t have any suggestions to contribute, so we’re hoping the other groups come up with something.” None of them did, really. The closest they came were a couple of vague comments on inclusive governance. I understand from a participant in one of the other groups that they simply refused to even try to answer the question. It was brutal.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Still, in the spirit of the good intentions behind their request for collaborative input, I will list here some possible ways in which Unizin could provide value, in descending order of credibility.

I’ll start with the moderately credible:

  • Provide a layer of support services on top of and around the LMS: This barely even gets mentioned by Unizin advocates but it is the one that makes the most sense to me. Increasingly, in addition to your LMS, you have a bunch of connected tools and services. It might be something basic like help desk support for the LMS itself. It might be figuring out how an external application like Voicethread works best with your LMS. As the LMS evolves into the hub of a larger ecosystem, it is putting increasing strain on IT department in everything from procurement to integration to ongoing support. Unizin could be a way of pooling resources across institutions to address those needs. If I were a CIO in a big university with lots of demands for LMS plug-in services, I would want this.
  • Provide a university-controlled environment for open courses: Back when Instructure announced Canvas Network, I commented that the company had cannily targeted the issue that MOOC providers seemed to be taking over the branding, not to mention substantial design and deliver decisions, from their university “partners.” Canvas Network is marketed as “open courses for the rest of us.” By adopting Canvas as their LMS, Unizin gets this for free. Again, if I were a CIO or Provost at a school that was either MOOCing or MOOC-curious, I would want this.
  • Providing buying power: What vendor would not want to sew up a sales deal with ten large universities or university systems (and counting) through one sales process? So far it is unclear how much Unizin has gained in reality through group negotiations, but it’s credible that they could be saving significant money through group contracting.
  • Provide a technology-assisted vehicle for sharing course materials and possibly even course cross-registrations: The institutions involved are large, and most or all probably have specialty strengths in some curricula area or other. I could see them wanting to trade, say, an Arabic degree program for a financial technology degree program. You don’t need a common learning technology infrastructure to make this work, but having one would make it easier.
  • Provide a home for a community researching topics like learning design and learning analytics: Again, you don’t need a common infrastructure for this, but it would help, has would having courses that are shared between institutions.

Would all of this amount to a significant contribution to digital learning, as the title of the ELI presentation seems to ask? Maybe! It depends on what happens in those last two bullet points. But the rollout of the program so far does not inspire confidence that the Unizin leadership knows how to facilitate the necessary kind of community-building. Quite the opposite, in fact. Furthermore, the software has only ancillary value in those areas, and yet it seems to be what Unizin leaders want to talk about 90%+ of the time.

Would these benefits justify a million-dollar price tag? That’s a different question. I’m skeptical, but a lot depends on specific inter-institutional intentions that are not public. A degree program has a monetary value to a university, and some universities can monetize the value better than others depending on which market they can access with significant degrees of penetration. Throw in the dollar savings on group contracting, and you can have a relatively hard number for the value of the coalition to a member. I know that a lot of university folk hate to think like that, but it seems to be the most credible way to add the value of these benefits up and get to a million dollars.

Let’s see if we can sweeten the pot by adding in the unclear or somewhat dubious but not entirely absurd benefits that some Unizin folk have claimed:

  • Unizin will enable universities to “own” the ecosystem: This claim is often immediately followed by the statement that their first step in building that ecosystem was to license Canvas. The Unizin folks seem to have at least some sense that it seems contradictory to claim you are owning the ecosystem by licensing a commercial product, so they immediately start talking about how Canvas is open source and Unizin could take it their own way if they wanted to. Yet this flies in the face of Unizin’s general stated direction of mostly licensing products and building connectors and such when they have to. Will all products they license be open source? Do they seriously commit to forking Canvas should particular circumstances arise? If not, what does “ownership” really mean? I buy it in relation to the MOOC providers, because there they are talking about owning brand and process. But beyond that, the message is pretty garbled. There could be something here, but I don’t know what it is yet.
  • Unizin could pressure vendors and standards groups to build better products: In the abstract, this sounds credible and similar to the buying power argument. The trouble is that it’s not clear either that pressure on these groups will solve our most significant problems or that Unizin will ask for the right things. I have argued that the biggest reason LMSs are…what they are is not vendor incompetence or recalcitrance but that faculty always ask for the same things. Would Unizin change this? Indiana University used what I would characterize as a relatively progressive evaluation framework when they chose Canvas, but there is no sign that they were using the framework to push their faculty to fundamentally rethink what they want to do with a virtual learning environment and therefore what it needs to be. I don’t doubt the intellectual capacity of the stakeholders in these institutions to ask the right questions. I doubt the will of the institutions themselves to push for better answers from their own constituents. As for the standards, as I have argued previously, the IMS is doing quite well at the moment. They could always move faster, and they could always use more university members who are willing to come to the table with concrete use cases and a commitment to put in the time necessary to work through a standards development process (including implementation). Unizin could do that, and it would be a good thing if they did. But it’s still pretty unclear to me how much their collective muscle would be useful to solve the hard problems.

Don’t get me wrong; I believe that both of the goals articulated above are laudable and potentially credible. But Unizin hasn’t really made the case yet.

Instead, at least some of the Unizin leaders have made claims that are either nonsensical (in that they don’t seem to actually mean anything in the real world) or absurd:

  • “We are building common gauge rails:” I love a good analogy, but it can only take you so far. What rides on those rails? And please don’t just say “content.” Are we talking about courses? Test banks? Individual test questions? Individual content pages? Each of these have very different reuse characteristics. Content isn’t just a set of widgets that can be loaded up in rail cars and used interchangeably wherever they are needed. If it were, then reuse would have been a solved problem ten years ago. What problem are you really trying to solve here, and why do you think that what you’re building will solve it (and is worth the price tag)?
  • “Unizin will make migrating to our next LMS easier because moving the content will be easy.” No. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. This is the perfect illustration of why the “common gauge rails” statement is meaningless. All major LMSs today can import IMS Common Cartridge format, and most can export in that format. You could modestly enhance this capability by building some automation that takes the export from one system and imports it into the other. But that is not the hard part of migration. The hard part is that LMSs work differently, so you have to redesign your content to make best use of the design and features of the new platform. Furthermore, these differences are generally not one that you want to stamp out—at least, not if you care about these platforms evolving and innovating. Content migration in education is inherently hard because context makes a huge difference. (And content reuse is exponentially harder for the same reason.) There are no widgets that can be neatly stacked in train cars. Your rails will not help here.
  • “Unizin will be like educational moneyball.” Again with the analogies. What does this mean? Give me an example of a concrete goal, and I will probably be able to evaluate the probability that you can achieve it, it’s value to students and the university, and therefore whether it is worth a million-dollar institutional investment. Unizin doesn’t give us that. Instead, it gives us statements like, “Nobody ever said that your data is too big.” Seriously? The case for Unizin comes down to “my data is bigger than yours”? Is this a well-considered institutional investment or a midlife crisis? The MOOC providers have gobs and gobs of data, but as HarvardX researcher Justin Reich has pointed out, “Big data sets do not, by virtue of their size, inherently possess answers to interesting questions….We have terabytes of data about what students clicked and very little understanding of what changed in their heads.” Tell us what kinds of research questions you intend to ask and how your investment will make it possible to answer them. Please. And also, don’t just wave your hands at PAR and steal some terms from their slides. I like PAR. It’s a Good Thing. But what new thing are you going to do with it that justifies a million bucks per institution?

I want to believe that my friends, who I respect, believe in Unizin because they see a clear justification for it. I want to believe that these schools are going to collectively invest $10 million or more doing something that makes sense and will improve education. But I need more than what I’m getting to be convinced. It can’t be the case that the people not in the inner circle have to convince themselves of the benefit of Unizin. One of my friends inside the Unizin coalition said to me, “You know, a lot of big institutions are signing on. More and more.” I replied, “That means that either something very good is happening or something very bad is happening.” Given the utter disaster that was the ELI session, I’m afraid that I continue to lean in the direction of badness.

 

The post What Does Unizin Mean for Digital Learning? appeared first on e-Literate.

On the Horizon for Education: Blended Learning, New Learning Spaces, OERs & Cross-Institutional Collaboration

Educación flexible y abierta - 16 Febrero, 2015 - 19:15

What’s on the horizon for education? What technologies and trends will drive changes in curriculum development and teaching in one, two or even three years? New Media Consortium's latest Horizon Re...

See it on Scoop.it, via Educación flexible y abierta

What do we mean by ‘open’ in education?

Tony Bates - 16 Febrero, 2015 - 12:37

I’m just a committed and even stubborn person who wants to see every child getting quality education

Malala Yousafzai’s Nobel Prize speech, 2014

This is the first of five posts on ‘open-ness’ in education for my online open textbook, Teaching in a Digital Age, covering:

  • open education, open access and open universities (this post)
  • open educational resources
  • open textbooks, open research and open data
  • the implications of ‘open’ for course and program design
  • a scenario for a post-graduate program based on an approach to ‘open’ design.

Once again, I’m saving the best until the end!

Open education

In recent years, there has been a resurgence of interest in open education, mainly related to open educational resources and MOOCs. Although in themselves OER and MOOCs are important developments, they tend to cloud other developments in open education that are likely have even more impact on education as a whole. It is therefore necessary to step back a little to get a broader understanding of open education. This will help us better understand the significance of these and other developments in open education, and their likely impact on teaching and learning now and in the future.

Open education as a concept

Open education can take a number of forms:

  • education for all: free or very low cost school, college or university education available to everyone within a particular jurisdiction, usually funded primarily through the state;
  • open access to programs that lead to full, recognised qualifications. These are offered by national open universities or more recently by the OERu;
  • open access to courses or programs that are not for formal credit, although it may be possible to acquire badges or certificates for successful completion. MOOCs are a good example;
  • open educational resources that instructors or learners can use for free. MIT’s OpenCourseware, which provides free online downloads of MIT’s video recorded lectures and support material, is one example;
  • open textbooks, online textbooks that are free for students to use;
  • open research, whereby research papers are made available online for free downloading;
  • open data, that is, data open to anyone to use, reuse, and redistribute, subject only, at most, to the requirement to attribute and share.

Each of these developments is discussed in more detail below, except for MOOCs, which are discussed extensively in Chapter 7.

Education for all – except higher education

Open education is primarily a goal, or an educational policy. An essential characteristic of open education is the removal of barriers to learning. This means no prior qualifications to study, no discrimination by gender, age or religion, affordability for everyone, and for students with disabilities, a determined effort to provide education in a suitable form that overcomes the disability (for example, audio recordings for students who are visually impaired). Ideally, no-one should be denied access to an open educational program. Thus open learning must be scalable as well as flexible.

State-funded public education is the most extensive and widespread form of open education. For example, the British government passed the 1870 Education Act that set the framework for schooling of all children between the ages of 5 and 13 in England and Wales. Although there were some fees to be paid by parents, the Act established the principle that education would be paid for mainly through taxes and no child would be excluded for financial reasons. Schools would be administered by elected local school boards. Over time, access to publicly funded education in most economically developed countries has been widened to include all children up to the age of 18. UNESCO’s Education for All (EFA) movement is a global commitment to provide quality basic education for all children, youth and adults, supported, at least in principle, by 164 national governments. Nevertheless today there are still many millions of ‘out-of-school’ children worldwide.

Access to post-secondary or higher education though has been more limited, partly on financial grounds, but also in terms of ‘merit’. Universities have required those applying for university to meet academic standards determined by prior success in school examinations or institutional entry exams. This has enabled elite universities in particular to be highly selective. However, after the Second World War, the demand for an educated population, both for social and economic reasons, in most economically advanced countries resulted in the gradual expansion of universities and post-secondary education in general. In most OECD countries, roughly 35-60 per cent of an age cohort will go on to some form of post-secondary education. Especially in a digital age, there is an increasing demand for highly qualified workers, and post-secondary education is a necessary doorway to most of the best jobs. Therefore there is increasing pressure for full and free open access to post-secondary, higher or tertiary education.

However, as we saw in Chapter 1, the cost of widening access to ever increasing numbers results in increased financial pressure on governments and taxpayers. Following the financial crisis of 2008, many states in the USA found themselves in severe financial difficulties, which resulted in substantial cuts to the public education system. Thus solutions that enable increased access without a proportionate increase in funding are almost desperately being sought by governments and institutions. It is against this background that the recent interest in open education should be framed.

As a result, open is increasingly (and perhaps misleadingly) being associated with ‘free’. While the use of open materials may be free to the end user (learners), there are real costs in creating and distributing open education, and supporting learners, which has to be covered in some way. Thus a sustainable and adequate system of publicly funded education is still the best way to ensure access to quality education for all. Other forms of open education are steps towards achieving fully open access to higher education.

Open access in higher education Open universities

In the 1970s and 1980s, there was a rapid growth in the number of open universities that required no or minimal prior qualifications for entry. In the United Kingdom, for instance, less than 10 per cent of students leaving secondary education in 1969 went on to university. This was when the British government established the Open University, a distance teaching university open to all, using a combination of specially designed printed texts, and broadcast television and radio, with one week residential summer schools on traditional university campuses for the foundation courses (Perry, 1976). The Open University started in 1971 with 25,000 students in the initial entry intake, and now has over 200,000 registered students. It has been consistently ranked by government quality assurance agencies in the top ten U.K. universities for teaching, and in the top 30 for research, and number one for student satisfaction (out of over 180). It currently has over 200,000 registered students. However, it can no longer cover the full cost of its operation from government grants and there is now a range of different fees to be paid.

There are now nearly 100 publicly funded open universities around the world, including Canada (Athabasca University and Téluq). These open universities are often very large. The Open University of China has over one million enrolled undergraduate students and 2.4 million junior high school students, Anadolou Open University in Turkey has over 1.2 million enrolled undergraduate students, the Open University of Indonesia (Universitas Terbuka) almost half a million, and the University of South Africa 350,000. These large, degree awarding national open universities provide an invaluable service to millions of students who otherwise would have no access to higher education (see Daniel, 1998, for a good overview). It should be noted however that there is no publicly funded open university in the USA, which is one reason why MOOCs have received so much attention there.

As well as the national open universities, which usually offer their own degrees, there is also the OERu, which is basically an international consortium of mainly British Commonwealth and U.S. universities and colleges offering open access courses that enable learners either to acquire full credit for transfer into one of the partner universities or to build towards a full degree, offered by the university from which most credits have been acquired. Students pay a fee for assessment.

10.7.2 Limitations of open access education

Open, distance, flexible and online learning are rarely found in their ‘purest’ forms. No teaching system is completely open (minimum levels of literacy are required, for instance). Thus there are always degrees of open-ness. Open-ness has particular implications for the use of technology. If no-one is to be denied access, then technologies that are available to everyone need to be used. If an institution is deliberately selective in its students, it has more flexibility with regard to choice of technology for distance education. It can for instance require all students who wish to take an online or blended course to have their own computer and Internet access. It cannot do that if its mandate is to be open to all students. Truly open universities then will always be behind the leading edge of educational applications of technology.

Despite the success of many open universities, open universities often lack the status of a campus-based institution. Their degree completion rates are often very low (the U.K. OU’s degree completion rate is 22 per cent – Woodley and Simpson, 2014 – but nevertheless still higher for whole degree programs than for most single MOOC courses). And as noted previously, there are no comparable publicly funded open universities in the USA (the Western Governors’ University is the most similar), although private, for-profit universities such as the University of Phoenix fill a similar niche in the market.

Lastly, some of the open universities have been around for more than 40 years and have not always quickly adapted to changes in technology, partly because of their large size and their substantial prior investment in older technologies such as print and broadcasting, and partly because they do not wish to deny access to students without the latest technology. Thus they are now increasingly challenged by both an explosion in access to conventional universities, which has taken up some of their market, and new developments such as MOOCs and open educational resources, which are the topic of the next section.

Feedback, please

This part is fairly descriptive, but still necessary, I believe. However, here are some questions I have:

  1. Open education is a huge topic. Have I done it justice in the space available – given that I have separate sections on other aspects such as OERs and open textbooks?
  2. Do you think it is necessary to provide the context of ‘education for all’ and ‘open universities’ when discussing approaches to open-ness today? Or is all this now irrelevant? (I have to say this is the impression I’m sometimes given by advocates of OER and MOOCs).
  3. I clearly have a bias towards adequate, publicly funded education as the best way to increase access and open-ness. Do I push this too much, or not enough?
  4. Is there a future for open universities?
Up next

Open educational resources: principles; Creative Commons licenses; sources; limitations; how to use OERs

References

Daniel, J. (1998) Mega-Universities and Knowledge Media: Technology Strategies for Higher Education. London: Kogan Page

Perry, W. (1976) The Open University Milton Keynes: Open University Press

Woodley, A. and Simpson, O. (2014) ‘Student drop-out: the elephant in the room’ in Zawacki-Richter, O. and Anderson, T. (eds.) (2014) Online Distance Education: Towards a Research Agenda Athabasca AB: AU Press, pp. 508

 

Last Opportunity to submit Abstracts for the END 2015 conference!

Open Education Europa RSS - 16 Febrero, 2015 - 12:35
Summary: 

Today is the last opportunity to hand in abstracts in order to contribute to the END 2015 International Conference on Education and New Developments. The END 2015 seeks to provide some answers and explore the processes, actions, challenges and outcomes of learning, teaching and human development.

Interest Area:  Higher Education Training & Work Learning & Society

Páginas