Scheduled Seminar Discussions

Joyce wrote:

I am not sure if such time constraints affect open software developers as well but I am fairly sure I speak for others here...many of us would be glad to share as long as we get "credit" here...this is especially true of some our most creative professors who are still working their way through the tenure process and first and foremost have to show this institution that they are valuable contributors.

Having spent the majority of my career working at universities and trying to forward the open agenda I understand the challenges -- we can share battlescars in BC. When all is said and done, the OERu is making steady progress.

Out of interest, the majority of open source software developers are in full-time employment working in companies which understand the benefits of the open source development model. When I first moved to New Zealand, a little more than a decade ago, there were no open source learning management systems used as enterprise systems. Today, 70% of New Zealand's tertiary education providers use open source learning management systems.  A few committed individuals can make a huge difference, even on a national level.

OERu is making steady progress -  one small step at a time. Our OERu anchor partners agree to allocating a 0.2 Full time equivalent (FTE) staff member to work on their OERu contributions. Some insitutions allocate more time -- for example, Otago Polytechnic has the equivalent of about 3 FTE staff working full time on the OERu.  I appreciate that at some instituions the executive signoff doesn't always filter through to the operational level in terms of recognition -- but we will get there.  

One initiative to consider OERu and related discussions at the senior leadership level is the establishment of the OERu Coucil of Chief Executive Officers. The inaugural meeting will be hosted at Kwantlen Polytechnic University on 5 November 2013 after the anchor partner meeting. We have a good turnout currently with 11 senior executives attending this meeting and I anticipate that the number will grow by the RSVP date 0f 30 September. Another step in the right direction to help forward the integration of the OERu model on the campuses of many of our partner institutions.

Keep the faith -- were past the tipping point :-)

Thanks for that Gail,

Extremely valuable feedback from the perspective of someone who has first hand experience in designing and developing an OERu course plus authentic experience from the learner's perspective given your participation in the recent Open Content Licensing for Educators mOOC prototype. This discussion is helping us sharpen the focus for implementable mOOCs in the OERu model.

So to summarise the mOOC guidelines the OERu could think about: 

• Target a mOOC for roughly 4 weeks of learning interaction for cohort based offerings. That would fit rather well assuming approximately 10 hours of study per week which is pretty much in line with what many single-mode distance teaching providers use thus totalling about 40 hours of learning which seems to be the minimum for authentic and meaningful summative assessment. This would not preclude “continuous” or open registration alternatives.

• The mOOCs should be designed to accommodate a continuum of learner needs, for example learners participating for personal interest who can sip and dip into topics of interest right up to learners studying for formal academic credit.

• The ability to deliver OERu mOOCs where cohort learners registered for full time study could interact with OERu independent learners including those who are participating for personal interest.

• Designing OERu mOOCs for reuse in different modalities, for instance, integrated into full-time study on campus plus free OERu learning (parallel mode). Thinking creatively we could also have one mOOC with multiple exit points, eg 1st yr bachelor's degree level, 3rd yr bachelor's degree level and master''s degree level moving towards a competency model. These mOOCs could cover the same topics, but the assessment will differ substantially depending on level. (This would not work for all disciplines – but certainly something we could try in subject areas where this could work.)

• Clearly state prerequisite skills, for example social media skills with student support tutorials to help those who don't have these skills to get up to speed.

• Partner mOOCs – that is the associate courses required for gaining full course credits should be clearly identified. This means that we must take course credit as the point of departure ensure that when a learner successfully competes the “set” they can get formal credit towards the courses leading to credible credentials.  

Hi Joyce, 

No need to feel grumpy. I intentionally chose the example of a 3-year 90 credit Bachelors Degree to highlight the issues and solutions which exist. The Transnational Qualifications Framework developed by the Commonwealth of Learning is designed to address these differences. That's our solution -- a wheel we don't need to reinvent because it is openly licensed. 

North America provides an excellent example of how course articulation works across state and national borders using a "standard" credit system. US credits are readily recognised by Canadian univeristies because there is a common understanding of "3 credit" courses adding up to 120 credits for the more widely used 4-year bachelor's degree in the US (and Canada). 

The 3 -year Bachelors degree is common in many countries of the Commonwealth (former British colonies.) and there are examples of 4-year bachelors degrees in this part of the world.

I do want to clear a common misconception about these differences and an illustration of the value of a Transnational Qualifications Framework (TQF)  - John mentioned that first year of the US system would be the last year of high school [[in many Commonwealth countries]]. This is not true, In New Zealand for example, we have an optional Year 13 which is an "extra" year of high school. This is not a replacement for the first year of university study to make up the "difference" between a 3-year and 4-year Bachelors degree. Year 13 is an option used by many New Zealand students to widen their range of credits providing wider choice and options for tertiary study. Year 12 high school graduates can gain entry into first-year university study in New Zealand.  This highlights the importance of level descriptors in the TQF distinguishing, for example between the learning outcomes for high school, 1st year degree, 2nd year degree levels etc. 

In Commonwealth countries which use a 3-year bachelor's degree, we would not allow entry into Master's degree study without the "additional" year. We have what is known as an "Honours Degree" which for practical purposes is the parallel of the 4th year of a Bachelors Degree in North Amercia. Some Master's programmes will allow 3-year bachelor degree graduates entry into the programme, but these Master's courses will typically embed  an additional  year (the "4th year") within the Masters degree.

Joyce -- in short the US system does map internationally, but I was using the example to highlight the importance for the OERu to adopt a TQF so that we are comparing apples with apples (so to speak) when managing course articulation on an international level.

This is less complicated than it appears. All OERu anchor partners will have internal mechanisms and policy protocols to recognise offshore study for learners who migrate to their country having completed a number of credits offshore.  We just need to agree a common language for levels, hours of study and/or competencies for the OERu courses we develop and agree to cross credit. Thats what the TQF will do for us. 

Wayne asked...

Based on your experience working on the OERu Art Appreciation course -- do you have any thoughts on parameter guidelines for OERu mOOCs drawing on the value of hindsight?

I would say the mOOC should run for about 4 weeks to give time for activities/assessments, connections and reflection. The no. of learning outcomes and assessments will depend on the type of course and content, the amount of work involved for students, and what can reasonably be accomplished in the time frame. They should all include OER and give options for various types of learners…if possible, speak to cohort folks, as well as independent learners…or have various versions/modalities of the same mOOC. Prereq. knowledge and skills have to be clearly outlined in each mOOC. Although mOOCs are meant to stand alone, connections to other related mOOCs should be mentioned.

Maybe I am just feeling grumpy Wayne--but you keep referring to North America and 90 hours...is the US not a part of North America?   Perhaps more to the point, how can we fit in to the model?   I have to "sell" this a bit here...and it gets complicated.

I think we (OERu) need to fit the US model as well as the Commonwealth models if we can...or at least I would very much like to fit in.

You said: That being said, I'm sure I'm not the only one here who cringes slightly when we find ourselves compelled to focus our discussions on learning in terms of courses, credits, contact hours and other such terms. It feels like trying to parcel out learning by the kilogram with the idea that somehow when we have filled up the bag we now have an educated student.... Nevertheless this work needs to be done so that we can offer coherent learning opportunities that also can gain the recognition of post-secondary institutions open to recognition of learning through the OERu.    I certainly concur with this.  My doctorate is in Adult Education and my masters is in Counseling so every fiber of my professional being shouts independent, self-direction, self-structured learning etc.   On the other hand, about thirty years in and around higher education administration says that the reality is credits, credentials, and some way of measuring them in terms of both depth and breadth (thus credits, approximate hours etc.)  

I also think that OERu is a bit of a hybrid...for instance, I am both a volunteer in the OERu and a full time professor for one of the partners...and the more I can do to make the two coincide the better...thus, if I can design materials that benefit our matriculated (translate "paying") students and share them with the other Anchor Partners (and possibly directly with learners) I can afford to do it.  If I am "only" doing something on a volunteer basis then it is likely to go to the bottom of the "to do" list.   I am not sure if such time constraints affect open software developers as well but I am fairly sure I speak for others here...many of us would be glad to share as long as we get "credit" here...this is especially true of some our most creative professors who are still working their way through the tenure process and first and foremost have to show this institution that they are valuable contributors.

I get a bit concerned when we (OERu) counts too much on volunteers...as a person who is approaching retirement age and battles health issues I am afraid that there is not going to be much of me left to use in retirement...it is probably best to figure out how to get double mileage out of me in the here and now...and that means somehow taking institutional realities into consideration.

Irwin 

There are are also some in the OERu camp who openly and with pride support courses, credits, contact hour equivalents, self study packets etc. Some believe that parceling out learning can be (has been and continues to be) a very effective way of teaching and there are many years of experience to back this up. We have many educated students who have learnt many thiings from the parcelling of learning. Most of us included. These parcels provide effective coherent learning opportunities.

Not to say that there aren't other alternatives (most unproven) that should be explored like personal learning environments, connectivism, micro credentialing etc. etc. As you quite aptly noted, there is room for both in the OERu camp.

I think there's room for both - i.e. one based more on an institutional sharing or repository approach - which has been around for a while now - and the other, more recently, on co-development in a collaborative environment with a larger shared objective toward credentials as in the OERu. Also, from an organizational perspective I'm thinking about what may work in a more formal educational enterprise such as a university, and what may be more successful in a.volunteer community such as the OERu.

That being said, I'm sure I'm not the only one here who cringes slightly when we find ourselves compelled to focus our discussions on learning in terms of courses, credits, contact hours and other such terms. It feels like trying to parcel out learning by the kilogram with the idea that somehow when we have filled up the bag we now have an educated student.... Nevertheless this work needs to be done so that we can offer coherent learning opportunities that also can gain the recognition of post-secondary institutions open to recognition of learning through the OERu.

Another comment on this:

You said I believe then that the shorter development cycle of micro-courses can have multiple organizational benefits, including shorter learning curves and thus better courses sooner, more likelihood of a micro-community of developers to stay with a project to completion, a developer mix that includes the diverse skillsets needed to round out the team, and less burden for mentors to come alongside a group of novices and assist them through the development of their first course.

I may be a bit confused on the terminology but in my environment, I could see developing a module or two for one of my courses that could then be made available for other partners or perhaps even learners to use OER...for instance, I just did two or three sections of a 2 credit course we offer on PLA essay development that might be very helpful to share with others who could then put them into their own institution specific context...but I would not have the time to put even a mini-course structure around them...so perhaps we are talking about something not as structured as micro courses...or maybe I am just stumbling over the word "course"...

Great comments.  I would like to speak to this from the "trenches" as most of my summer was spent on course development and re-development as we moved our LMS to Moodle.. You said "While folklore has it that developing with OERs is easier and faster than traditional practice, in fact the workflow of creating and/or finding, adapting and recontextualizing OERs can be a real challenge as it is quite different from traditional work patterns for educational developers."    For sure, this is folklore...our whole course development staff, not to mention the content expert folks like me, to a person feel that it is easier to develop our own material and design our own things than to spend the time culling through OERs...there is no way I could have redesigned nine courses this summer using OERs...our instructional designers say that as of now the OER repositiories are too hard to search...I would have to agree.

I feel sad to say this but I find doing things in wikieducator is hard too.  It is easiest for me to use one system (which is why I am glad we moved to Moodle/Mahara) rather than back and forth among several.   Honestly, I have a lot of things I have created and put under Creative Commons license that I would love to share but probably won't have the time or energy to do because the need to know and use two platforms.

I hope you don't mind my using personal examples but I think we need to bring some of the practical realities into our discussion.   I can justify doing things in Moodle for ESC and then "giving them away" to others through Moodle compatible means.  I cannot justify extra time to transfer the same material to a wiki...and I am very OERu and wikieducator friendly...my colleagues are even less likely to do it...and frankly the college is less likely to feel that it is a good use of their time.