TechTicker
educational technology, eLearning & emerging technology

An interesting discussion is unfolding on Seb Schmoller’s blog regarding the quality of OpenLearn’s content. Schmoller is Chief Executive of ALT - the Association for Learning Technology.

Earlier this month, Schmoller speculated that the Open Unveristity was being cautious in what content was made available (”Is the Open University making the right content open in OpenLearn?” 7 February, 2008), adding that:

“I think that if the OU does not use OpenLearn to showcase its best stuff, the OpenLearn initiative risks being judged as some rather pedestrian content sitting in a (possibly) innovative environment. That would be a major missed opportunity.”

In a response (”Selecting content for OpenLearn - an insider account“, 21 Feb. 2008), Andy Lane, Director of OpenLearn, argues that to do so would not be representative of OU material as they are now. More significantly than that though, Lane argues the following:

“Unless we grow a culture of sharing and reusing content, good, bad and indifferent then we will remain in our ivory towers doing our own thing, thinking ours is the best or better than someone else’s and we are not looking at what works for learners.”

NB: “The OpenLearn website gives free access to course materials from The Open University. The LearningSpace is open to learners anywhere in the world.”

While I do see the arguments of both sides of the story, in the present state of affairs regarding sharing and reuse - particularly in higher education - Lane’s rebuttal most accurately incorporates the present realities.

When I first started at UNSW I worked on a project called the Learning Resources Community (LRC). This project sought to establish a centralised portal through which lecturers, administrative and general staff could come together to collaborate on projects, hold discussions and importantly, share and develop learning materials.

The project’s vision emerged from the collaborative desires of 18 international institutions in the Universitas 21 Consortium. Significantly, buy-in for this project came from senior level managers rather than grass-roots lecturers on the front line. While the early discussions succeeded in giving the project a fair degree of political recognition, we neglected to seek the input and support of the end-users who’s participation and resource contributions were to be the sustaining lifeblood of the project.

We shared the same idealistic vision that Schmoller describes in his comment, however in practice the implementation quickly ran into the perceptual realities of higher education.

My role was to target and support the end-users - the lecturers and academics - to inspire their uptake of the system, and discuss the significance and value of sharing and reusing learning materials.

Barring the occasional passionate early-adopter willing to try anything once, the responses I received were almost always the same.

They would first support the project’s vision and agree with the idealistic objectives, saying it was undoubtedly a fantastic thing for learning. However this would be inevitably followed by one of two statements:

1. They would indicate they didn’t think they had anything that was worth sharing; or
2. They would argue they have no incentives to share their learning materials because teaching was not weighed heavily - if at all - in promotional criteria.

My experiences have shown that academics support the idealism, but trip up on the implementation because many university systems at the time - and indeed still today - did not have policy measures in place that encouraged the sharing of resources in this way. Publishing papers in accredited journals was seen as recognised and important; sharing the resources used and developed to facilitate student learning was not.

In some cases the implication were also that instructors and lecturers had reservations regarding how their materials would stack up to those of others.

In other words, the lack of incentives to share combined with concerns of negative peer feedback resulted in the majority of instructors I met with indicating they were unwilling to share their teaching materials.

The ultimate reality for the LRC mirrored Lane’s description. We realised we needed to achieve a base level of understanding and buy-in across the university regarding sharing and reuse - and the reasons for doing it - before we could even begin to address the showcasing of our “best stuff”, as Schmoller advocates.

This required the facilitation of a fundamental cultural shift and change process - with all the concerns, issues and objections this entailed; not simply a full repository of learning materials or open courseware. Sharing is as much about working together in pursuit of a shared vision to empower learning than it is the resources themselves.

In terms of the debate between Schmoller and Lane, an impressive showcase is but one piece of the overall puzzle. Without motives in place to inspire reuse and sharing - and as importantly recognition of why it’s significant - even the most glittering showcase will be but a hollow victory.

References:

• “Is the Open University making the right content open in OpenLearn?“, Seb Schmoller, 7 February, 2008
• “Selecting content for OpenLearn - an insider account“, Andy Lane, 21 February 2008

This entry was posted on Friday, February 22nd, 2008 at 11:24 am and is filed under education. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.