Joyce wrote:
I am quite concerned about the direction the OERu has taken with its emphasis on Anchor Partners creating courses...I have been hoping that the emphasis would be more learner centered...enabling learners to use OERs to create learning portfolios that the Anchor Partners could accept in transfer.
I think you are misinterpreting the OERu model.
We are designing “pedagogical neutral” approaches for OERu partners to assemble learning pathways from existing OERs, open access resources and open textbooks.
One example is to use what Jim Taylor has called the “pedagogy of discovery” where learners are directed to source their own resources in pursuit of their learning interests in relation to the specified learning outcomes. This approach was used for the Regional Relations in Asia and Pacific Course developed by the University of Southern Queensland. It is a learner centred approach. The summative assignments are designed as “mini-portfolios” with clear assessment rubrics so that the learners know what is expected and how they will be assessed. Learners choose their own countries of interest and source their own open access materials to achieve the course objectives.
Another example is to remix and build learning pathways from a variety of OERs, not unlike the open source software development model where we reuse existing code to build new applications. I used this model for developing the Open Content Licensing for Educators mOOC which Otago Polytechnic has contributed to the OERu network.
Thompson Rivers University, for example, took an existing OER course originally developed by the Open Course Library initiative in Washington state and remixed the course by improving the pedagogical design for independent study.
Other OERu partners are donating existing courses by changing the license to an open content license. This is the approach being used by the University of South Africa (Unisa).
The other model is to use PLAR where member institutions assess the experiental learning gained from learning on the web, the workplace etc. Our research shows that the cost to student for assessment fees using this approach is double what the costs would be using courses assembelled from OERs. PLAR needs to be in the mix to provide more flexible alternatives for OERu learners, but to date we have not found cost effective ways to scale this approach.
Each of these approaches provide a cost effective solution for assembling courses from the inventory of OER. OERu partners who prefer using learner centred pedagogies are free to use this model.
Joyce wrote
I have also been hoping that you would encourage the Anchor Partners to have all of their existing courses created in an easily sharable framework (as I understood Moodle was supposed to be) so that rather than creating new courses for the OERu which is very difficult we could just open our curricula (much like a poor man's Coursera), enable students to access the learning from it, document their learning, and convert it to credits based on individual institutions' policies. Such a model would be a win-win for most everyone
The approach of using a single learning management system is problematic for the OERu because:
-
Within our network there are at least 5 different learning management systems used by our partners. Choosing one learning management system will exclude those partners who use different systems from integrating OERu courses in parallel mode for local delivery to registered students. This is where the greatest cost savings lie for our partners. They can integrate OERu courses developed by other partners without spending a cent on development costs. Moreover, openly licensed they will have the freedom to adapt and change to fit their own courses like you have done with the Scenario Planning mOOC for your own course. The other technical challenge related to OERu courses running in parallel mode is to find a solution for the full-fee registered students on campus to interact with the free OERu learners. Most OERu partners will not provide access to the local learning management system for non-registered students.
-
We need to separate the course development technologies from the delivery technologies to enable collaborative open design. This requires a sophisticated and detailed system for version control. For example, if Otago Polytehnic wanted to collaborate with ESC on designing a course, we can't collaborate within a learning management system because if Otago Polytechnic makes a change to the course, you will not have a reliable way to know what changes were made. We also need a development environment which can transform and brand the content for different delivery platforms eg LMSs, Blog sites, static websites etc plus the ability for partners to mix and match OERu mOOCs for local courses. We can't do this with a learning management system.
-
Running a central learning management system for all OERu learners is a challenge because these systems do not scale well for large student cohorts and we do not have the capacity or funding to administer central systems on the scale of the OERu collaboration. Would ESC be prepared to donate the hosting and administration costs for the central infrastructure for all future OERu learners?
Our major challenge (which is also an opportunity) is that the majority of our partners do not have adequate experience and capability in collaborative open design models. This requires a different skill set and culture when compared to the traditional production model used by most distance teaching institutions. The opportunity is for the OERu to leverage our networked model to build local capability in open design models using a learn by doing approach.