Wayne Mackintosh

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. 

Overnight I received this email and request from Paul West to post to the forum.

Paul was the visionary behind the development of COL's Transnational Qualifications Framework which the OERu partners will be discussing at the meeting on 4 November 2013.

Message from Paul

Hi Wayne

Hadyn,

Yes -- I hear what you are saying about the Bachelor of General Study award not being well received by employers. That's a valid concern for our network. On the one hand the OERu needs to have a launch credential yet on the other, nothing precludes an OERu learner, for example, completing a number of OERu courses which lead into a more focused and "employer friendly"  credential offered at one or more of our anchor partners.

I think the message here is that we should prioritise first and second year level course nominations that would maximise opportunities for a range of credentials for our OERu learners.

Valuable disscussion -- emphasing the need for our OERu partnership to think more carefully about programme of study and credential options.