Hi,

On Feb 28, 2013, at 5:55 PM, "Andy.Lane" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Dare I say that your article and email take a very narrow and US centric view of OER and its effects on closed education rather than open education.

And you are correct: the article is mostly based on experiences in the United States. In addition, there are some experiences from Germany and Brazil mixed in. In all three countries, in very different ways, there is a lot of inertia in the higher education system.


> 
> First, even in closed education most developed countries are awash with educational resources. They have an abundance of them even if some are seemingly costly. This is not the case in developing countries where many universities are using OER to create whole qualifications such as at the Wasawan Open University in Indonesia or in several African countries aided by OER Africa. The impacts there are so much more than the relatively marginal ones in developed countries.

I agree: OERs have a huge potential in those countries! Several years ago, we did some work in developing countries, and back then had lots of problems with the technological infrastructure, but that will change. Sooner or later, several of these countries are going to leapfrog some of the "developed" nations (just like several already did in terms of mobile communication), and OERs will be key to the success of broad-based educational efforts. There, we do not need to deal with the inertia.

But I am not sure why we need to argue about this: don't you believe that particularly those developing countries could profit from an open-source global enterprise-level content management system? And if you don't believe that they would profit from it, what's the harm?

BTW, as you mention Indonesia, I wish I could have participated in OCWC 2013 (also since I really enjoyed OCWC 2012 in your beautiful country), but alas, my travel budget was not up to the challenge.


> 
> Second, 10 years is not enough time to effect change. Open and distance learning has been around for 150 years but only now is it being taken seriously. Online learning (and even CMS') was possible and being used in 1988 at the UK Open University but is only now 'mainstream'.

Almost exactly my point: 10 years will not change higher education in the USA (or Germany, or Brazil, or …).

But the medium could have changed! Even within these traditional higher education landscapes, we could have achieved a change of medium if it had not been for those hurdles.

Media can change in a much shorter amount of time. Ten years ago, we bought CDs if we legally wanted music. Today, iTunes is the biggest music store in the World. Before anybody gets me wrong again: I am not using this analogy for the sake of its commercial success or with an eye on world domination, but simply because it shows how the right infrastructure can completely disrupt the distribution of information.

So, rather than waiting for higher education to change, my argument was that with the right infrastructure, we could have penetrated (and still could penetrate) even the traditional structure.

> 
> Third, why think that HE per se (or HE institutions) should be the main beneficiary of OER even if they are a major publisher of OER?

I hope I did not say that! Just because I am suggesting a certain distribution mechanism suitable for higher education does not mean that the other distribution mechanisms should be shut down. Besides, that would be impossible anyway.

> As a 'gift to the world' they are potential agents of open innovation whereby all sorts of people and organizations that do not necessarily benefit from the knowledge embodied in educational resources locked up in HEIs can now do so in ways that suit them rather than in ways that suit the HEIs.

I am fortunate that my university, like many other universities, allows me to do with the online educational content that I generate (almost) whatever I want to: if I want to share it with colleagues, fine; if I want to put it out into the open, fine. My university, like many other universities, is not opposed to faculty making a "gift to the world." That is *not* where the problem is.

Now the article talks about restrictions on the content beyond the standard Creative Commons, but those would be imposed by the faculty authors. For example, I am not willing to share the source code of my online homework and exam problems with just anybody; since the platform is open-source, if the problems were also open-source to anybody, it would take about one week till somebody would build a LON-CAPA-problem-solving-engine.

If one insists on pure OERs, you get OERs or nothing. For example, in the case of my online homework and exam problems, you would get nothing. If there are more options, you get those same OERs and a lot more. For example, any faculty in the network can use my problems. The keyword is coexistence.

> 
> What I mean by this is who can gain most value educationally from OER and is that really HEIs or their students in richer and more privileged people and/ or countries (although I support the lowering of costs on textbooks wherever possible even in the US)?

Hmm … maybe there is major misunderstanding. I am not talking about locking away OERs. The moment I would do that, they would not be OERs anymore. For OERs, I am talking about opening an additional distribution channel that is suitable to traditional higher education. Now, the same platform would also host other content, like my homework and exam problems: free for use by faculty for their students, but closed-source. Or micro-payment content: I happen to get a salary from a university, but I am sure there are creative educators out there who do not have that luxury; for them, such a system could be a way to turn their creativity into a living. Coexistence! Again, what is the harm?

> 
> But then again it is educational practices that need changing most and OER offer just one mechanism to influence change over time because they are open and visible and students and family will begin to see that there are alternatives to current forms of closed and poor teaching practices.

Since my main area of research is physics education, you are preaching to the choir. But let's face it: a) good luck bringing about this change over time on anything but geological time scales, and b) in the end, people need degrees and certification of learning that is actually seen as valid by potential employers.

Anyway, thank you, this is the kind of discussion I was hoping for.

- Gerd.