Wayne Mackintosh

Hi Steve,

As an open educator, it's a tough question to answer because restricting membership of the OERu network to a “closed” group of institutions appears to go against the philosophy of openness. This approach seems unfair to:

• Institutions like yourselves who have a clear commitment to quality but are awaiting formal accreditation status

• Institutions who may not meet the “quality standards” of the OERu network for reasons outside of their control (eg lack of funding, capability or experience in designing high quality courses.)

As you know, in our model credentials are conferred by the recognised partner institutions, not the OERu network itself. The accreditation status of higher education institutions is typically governed by the respective country's Higher Education Act and our partner institutions are required to operate within these legislative frameworks which lay down the rules associated with the authority to confer degrees.

As part of our philanthropic mission, we release all OERu courses under free cultural works approved licenses as a core principle of engagement and do not require password access to our materials. We will not restrict any institution from access to or use of the courses we develop. In this way we can share back to the wider education community recognising that the courses we build are originally based on OERs developed by the wider open education community. Hopefully in this way we can help build the OER ecosystem for the benefit of all. I would imagine that institutions like yourselves will also pay forward in sharing back OERs you improve. 

Hi everyone,

Quality assurance and credible credentials are the foundations on which the OERu is being built.

It is not in the interests of OERu partners to engage in practices which could jeopardize their stature or accreditation status. The OERu will not compromise on quality.

At the1st meeting of OERu Founding Anchor partners we confirmed that contributing partners joining the network must be recognised and accredited institutions within their own jurisdictions, but that this was not sufficient. To facilitate cross-credit within the network, anchor partners will aim to quality assure the courses and open education practices that occur between the course and credential and to agree processes for this purpose. True to the remix philosophy of open, we agreed to reuse and adapt existing tools and procedures, most notably the quality frameworks developed by the European Foundation for Quality in e-Learning (EFQUEL) under the OPAL and OERTest initiatives.  We also agreed to approach the Commonwealth of Learning (COL) for guidance and support in adopting and modifying the Transnational Qualifications Framework (TQF) for the OERu which was originally developed for the Virtual University of Small States of the Commonwealth. The OERu will be meeting at COL headquarters on 4 November 2013 to progress work on the TQF.

Questions for our discussion in preparing for the 2nd meeting of anchor partners:

• How should the OERu partners promote and ensure quality?

• What are the issues associated with an institution with questionable quality standards joining the OERu?

• How do quality perceptions of the OERu model impact on standing with regional qualification authorities around the world?

• What advice can you offer the OERu move the quality agenda forward?

With due recognition to the complexities of quality, looking forward to a productive discussion for the OERu to progress the implementation of agreed quality assurance mechanisms for OERu courses. 

Hi Paul,

I'm not a PLAR /RPL expert -- but speaking to colleagues who work in this space, one of the major differences between "advanced" PLAR/RPL systems and “pseudo” PLAR/RPL  is the ability to recognise experience "outside the traditional classroom" at the graduate profile level rather than individual course credit outcomes. When PLAR/RPL systems attempt to map learning outcomes at the individual course level we risk ending up with the scenario you describe, namely that it would have been cheaper and perhaps easier for these learners to complete the courses themselves. Sadly many institutions use idiosyncratic systems which attempt to map learning experience to individual course outcomes under the banner of RPL. Such systems are not scalable and not good examples of how PLAR/RPL should work.

However, institutions which do have robust PLAR/RPL operations are able to offer a viable and affordable alternative for credentialing life experience. For example, at Capable NZ, Otago Polytechnic's RPL initiative, portfolio based assessment for a full-credential is about 33% of the comparable cost of tuition for a full-time degree. Most RPL policies do incorporate credit transfer protocols for recognising classroom learning as part of the larger PLAR/RPL systems.

We're very fortunate to have a few of the world's leading PLAR scholars and practitioners joining us for the OERu TQF meeting at COL on 4 November 2013 and we will focusing on how the OERu system of course-based learning will interface with our PLAR/RPL systems.

Hi Maria,

Thanks for the clarrification -- I now see what you mean. That's well founded advice which we must implement in our communications. 

Thanks for that!

Definitely a biggie to be included on the student FAQ page of the OERu launch website.

Have made a note.