Gerd
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.
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.
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'.
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? As a 'gift to the world' they are potential agents of open innovation whereby all sorts of people and organisations 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.
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)?
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.
Andy
Sent from my iPad
On 28 Feb 2013, at 21:56, "Gerd Kortemeyer" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think people are overlooking a word in the title: "traditional" - nowhere does the paper say that OERs have "failed - period." That statement would make no sense, since you have to say "failed at what?"
>
> What the article tries to discuss is "why have OERs failed to have significant impact in TRADITIONAL higher education," i.e., campus-based for-credit universities like the one I work at, Michigan State University? Why are the students still forced to buy textbooks for $180 if all of the content is indeed freely available? Why are faculty now buying into restrictive, overpriced e-texts? Why are even the all-new MOOCs full of non-open content? …?
>
> The article tries to explore why traditional faculty at traditional universities might not take advantage of OERs. If it comes across like a sales pitch, I am sorry. At least so far, we have nothing for sale. LON-CAPA is open-source and free.
>
> I have been in charge of this free open-source learning content management system for 13 years. We have lived from grant funding, funding from Michigan State University, funding from other universities, good will, some service contract … in total, we are exhausted from 20 years of trying to live like hippies, and we have learned a lot of lessons the hard way along the way.
>
> I wish I could earn that free drink from David Kernohan, since I sincerely wish I could prove myself false with an argument that does not "make me sound like a smelly hippie" (his words). I would also like a non-hippie argument to address those hurdles I am outlining.
>
> I am a little offended by suddenly being associated with the "ugly establishment," while really I am trying to find a *realistic* and sustainable way to bring OERs into traditional higher education. I have no intentions of quitting my day job as an educator, which is the job I love. Building CourseWeaver and the required organizational infrastructure around it takes an estimated six million dollars. We are still planning on an option to use this system for free (Option A in http://www.courseweaver.org/concept/pricing/ - that one is free for free content).
>
> Do OERs have to live inside of a system like CourseWeaver? Of course not! This is not meant to be exclusive! Let there be OERs (including the same OERs) inside and outside of such a system. Let a thousand flowers bloom! All I am arguing is that if you want OERs to *also* penetrate traditional higher education, you have to overcome the hurdles I am outlining.
>
> BTW, there is no censorship in the comments for EDUCAUSE, this is not one big conspiracy. I sincerely hope a productive and reasoned discussion would ensue around the article.
>
> Cheers,
>
> - Gerd.
>
>
>
> On Feb 28, 2013, at 2:25 PM, Lorna Campbell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Against my better judgement, I've taken up David's challenge and written a response to *that* Educause post. It was the offer of drink wot did it...
>>
>> http://blogs.cetis.ac.uk/lmc/2013/02/28/taking-up-the-challenge/
>>
>> Cheers
>> Lorna
>>
>> David Kernohan wrote:
>>
>> "Ten years later: why open educational resources have not noticeably
>> affected higher education and why we should care"
>>
>> http://t.co/6Vb3M4lQbI
>>
>> I don't want to have a go at this paper specifically(*), but this is an
>> egregious example of a tendency that suggests that OER would be a far
>> better idea if it was just under more control, better organised and more
>> structured. I hear this kind of argument a reasonable amount and I'd love
>> to have a response to it that doesn't make me sound like a smelly hippy.
>>
>> With the understanding that the wider ukoer community most likely gets why
>> solutions like this are unviable, I offered a prize for the most
>> interesting response (as a blog post) via twitter - and I want to offer if
>> here too.
>>
>> One large drink (of the author's choice) for the best (by my personal
>> judgement... cause, hey, I'm buying the drink) blogged response to the
>> paper from a UKOER community member.
>>
>> Deadline would be the start of CETIS13 (12th March)
>>
>> David
>>
>> * I'll let you do that....
--
The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302).
|