 |
 |
CC and others please see the open letter below.
Comments/criticisms welcomed.
Rory
-- Prof. Rory McGreal UNESCO/COL/ICDE Chair in OER Co-Editor IRRODL Athabasca University
OPEN LETTER TO CREATIVE COMMONS ON THE PROPOSED CC CERTIFICATION
Rory McGreal
UNESCO/COL/ICDE Chair in OER
Athabasca University
Creative Commons
ALL
In order to contribute to the ongoing discussions on the new CC course now under construction, I would like to follow up from the exchange we had at the Open Education Global Conference in Cape Town in March. As I noted at the session, I, along with all others there, was very positive about the need for the course and on the modular course design. Congratulations. This initiative should be very well received by the OER and OA communities as well as others.
However, I would like to further voice my concerns and so would respectfully request a re-think on the approach that you are taking to the delivery of this course and specifically the award of certificates. By limiting the certificates to include only those who participate in “live” sessions (either presential or online), and who complete assigned tasks, such as creating new modules, you may very well be restricting recognition to only those who agree with one definition of “open” , one that seems to be embraced by your staff and by some others in the open movement, Or, you are restricting the certificate only to CC zealots who are willing to put in an intense amount of time and effort. By doing this, I feel that you are seriously restricting the role and actions of Creative Commons and of this CC course..
I have always seen Creative Commons as a “Big Tent” organization that is open to, and supportive of ANY and all approaches to learning. Your staff's views of open education are possibly shared by many open access advocates but not by all. The construction of knowledge can be seen as a productive open approach to learning, but there are many other approaches including connectivism, behaviourism, problem-based learning, personalised learning, lecturing, programmed learning and self-study to name some. So, why are CC certificates being restricted to only those who share the limited seemingly constructivist approach that you are proposing? Is there no room for certifying CC supporters with different views? Can one not believe in lecturing and be CC certified? Will certificates not be available for disabled learners and others who choose not to or cannot learn your way?
As I mentioned at the meeting, the approach you are taking is very manpower intensive and therefore very expensive. With this approach, there will be an ongoing need for many CC qualified instructors, not only for delivery but also for the labour-intensive assessment processes that you have described. These are similar to those in the Recognition of Prior Learning or Portfolio assessment processes. In my experience, these assessment processes are usually heavily subsidised as they can be cost prohibitive. Please have someone conduct a cost-benefit analysis before going further down this road. How many of your projected learners will be able to afford the costs, once calculated? Which of your staff will have the time to take this on? How many learners will you expect to be able to reach using this approach? I would suggest dozens or possibly hundreds not thousands?
The expressed goal of Creative Commons is to “expand the range of creative works available for others to build upon legally and to share.” How does this goal square with your limited approach to certification? Yes, the course itself could be a major tool in the achievement of this goal, but with the path you are taking, your staff will be heavily involved (if not mostly occupied) in teaching and assessing this one course. What time will they have for other consulting/advising duties?
I see two different views taken by CC supporters. One stream supports CC-licensed content only because it is useful if not essential for affecting educational change through open practices. Of course there is no agreement on what open practices are. There are many different views on this and it seems that all too many of these supporters feel that their way is THE approach to open practice. However there are many different ways – these open practitioners don't agree on what it is, but all of them believe that their way is right open practice. David Wiley, noted that if everything is open, then nothing is open. In my sad and bitter experience, once instructors start discussing their teaching approaches, everything ends and nothing happens.
Another CC supporter viewpoint, just thinks that open and free content for students, teachers, and/or institutions is a good thing in its own right. They may or may not subscribe to a particular view of open. Most of these supporters believe that if CC open content brings about positive change in education, that is great, but if not, open content is still good. These supporters and others in the first camp who do not subscribe to your view of open may well be excluded from CC certification.
In this vein, might I suggest a more open and inclusive approach? I would suggest building the modules in a self-study format with online practice tests and more formal computerised tests leading to certification. This can be the least labour-intensive approach to certification. Note, that this approach does not preclude or limit CC or other groups from using the modules for teaching using ANY other approach. The self-study format is open to any learner on their own and to any instructors who wished to use/reuse, add, adapt or alter the content to fit their preferences. This approach demands little if any financial or time input from CC after the initial creation/assembly of the content and the tests. So, there would be no cost to the learners other than their time. This more open approach, in my opinion, could lead to thousands of CC certified instructors using a wide variety of teaching approaches, rather than the dozens that might have the time and interest in following your more suggested formal approach.
For those who would argue against this self-study automated approach, I would point them to Tom Russel's research on the “no significant difference” phenomenon <http://nosignificantdifference.org/>
In addition, the experience of millions of students studying at open universities in more than a dozen countries is evidence of the effectiveness of self-study modules. Automated examinations can also be effective in evaluating both knowledge and skills.
So, I am suggesting that there is room for a “both and” approach, where the CC organization can continue promoting its view of open while at the same time allowing others to also receive certification. Could we not provide a CC “Certificate” for those who choose the Self-study format and assessment AND designate those that follow the more formal process as CC “Fellows” or some other advanced designation?
Yours
Rory McGreal
--
This communication is intended for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed, and may contain confidential, personal, and or privileged information. Please contact us immediately if you are not the intended recipient of this communication, and do not copy, distribute, or take action relying on it. Any communications received in error, or subsequent reply, should be deleted or destroyed.---