TechTicker
educational technology, eLearning & emerging technology

The discussion I put forth yesterday regarding the wider implications of OpenLearn’s content has led to me to reflect upon the one and only academic publication I’ve ever been a part of, “Learning objects, repositories, sharing and re-usability: a case study” (Koppi, Bogle, Bogle; 2005), which I wrote with Tony Koppi and my wife Lisa. Having just re-read it for the first time in years, it’s surprising how relevant our experiences are in the contemporary debate between Schmoller and Lane.

As was the case at the time of our paper’s publication, Schmoller and Lane’s debate highlights a fundamental difference in opinion as to the purpose of online showcases and repositories, and arguably the extent of consideration given to their use in improving the learning experience for students.

The implication of Schmoller’s criticism is that the content featured in OpenLearn should showcase primarily high quality content - if not exclusively. This is effectively adopting an “if you build it, they will come” mentality in which the ends are key, and the means are not even considered.

Not only is this contrary to our experience, it is arguably a narrow-minded view that overlooks the necessity for cultural chance in exclusive favour of the static end-product of the showcase.

Our initial approach mirrored the vision that Schmoller proposes, however in reality this proved a deterrent to sharing rather than an inspiration:

“Initially, senior managers of U21 insisted that only high quality learning resources should be catalogued in the LRC. This had a negative effect on some potential users who felt that their unpublished, every-day teaching materials weren’t good enough to submit to a global pool.”

Lane’s argument points to the more fundamental consideration of facilitation of cultural change, in which consideration to reality is as critical, if not more so, as depiction of the ideal. The significance, as our experiences illustrate, lay in a fairly widespread knowledge vacuum on the reasons for sharing:

“General awareness of learning objects and how they could be shared and re-utilised is not revalent in the academic culture. Most academics do not think of their teaching resources, learning activities and assessment tasks as ‘objects’ let alone that they could be shared with others to make efficiency gains by utilising their colleagues’ learning objects.”

Compounding this issue is a fundamental obsession with resource hoarding in which “teaching materials are considered personal and private and even something to be protected.”

Both of these issues cannot be overcome via a glittering showcase alone, but instead through a complete paradigm shift in perception on the value of open collaboration and sharing. The relevance of showcases in this sense lay in their ability to depict real examples of how this can be accomplished, as well as the possibilities that can emerge once the old perceptions are discarded; but they cannot influence these change in and of themselves.

References:

• Koppi, A. J., Bogle, L. and Bogle, M. (2005) Learning objects, repositories, sharing and reusability. Open Learning 20, 83–91.
• “Sharing and Reuse: Idealism versus Reality in Academia“, Tech Ticker, 22 February 2008
• “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 Saturday, February 23rd, 2008 at 8:48 am and is filed under eLearning, 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.