Open Content and Distance Teaching and Learning
In a post on the history and philosophy of OpenLearn, Tony Hirst notes:
First off, Martin made a valid point in his post about the origins of the OpenLearn content as distance education teaching material that is actually something worth remembering when considering who the intended audience is for open courseware, and the ways in which OERs might potentially be used, and by whom.
[...]
The distance learning origins of the OU materials place them in stark contrast with the open courseware offerings of the likes of Yale or MIT. Those materials are typically collections of resources, ordered by course, and aggregated on a per lecture basis.
This confuses me because much of the criticism of OpenLearn that Tony links to explicitly takes it to task for not being created for that kind of use. Such as this comment by Laura from OpenLearn:
What I am trying to get across is that these materials are not designed for elearning. To me there is a difference between knowledge made available online and materials designed for elearning.
As an observer, Sarah remarks:
I think you make some good points in your defence of OpenLearn, Martin – but I still think that the key weakness comes from putting online materials which weren’t meant to be studied as a stand alone experience, and without the overall guiding structure / motivator of assessment which comes from studying the whole – but he does raise some valid issues.
So, which is it? Or is it both? Perhaps there is confusion about the meaning of distance education, distance teaching, distance learning, and elearning. I haven’t looked as deeply on the OpenLearn content as I have the MIT and some other OCW content, but I know that much of the MIT and OCW content is just as Tony describes it, making it eminently suitable for teachers to integrate into their curriculum… much less so for distance learners to pursue on their own. In fact, this is one my own gripes. Not because I have any problem at all with releasing as much material into the open as possible where it will be available to educators (who praise the project with good reason), but because I would like to see some significant part of the effort going to supporting distance learners who can’t or aren’t allowed to enroll in the course. They are, after all, explicitly recognized by groups like the OCW.
My position on our own impending entry into the OCW Consortium is that it is of interest for a few reasons:
- The basic philosophy and principles that inform making information available is attractive
- Most of the material isn’t built for the independent learner… we will focus mostly in this area
- There are a number of open questions about how– and whether it is possible to– implement some of the principles of learning community and interaction in the asynchronous, independent learning environment. This provides an opportunity to audition a few potential answers.
February 17th, 2008 at 11:51 am
No arguments here. But I must say it was amusing to see that we read the exact same stuff at the exact same time.
February 17th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
[...] Ruminate wrote an interesting post today on Open Content and Distance Teaching and LearningHere’s a quick excerpt In a post on the history and philosophy of OpenLearn, Tony Hirst notes: First off, Martin made a valid point in his post about the origins of the OpenLearn content as distance education teaching material that is actually something worth remembering when considering who the intended audience is for open courseware, and the ways in which OERs might potentially be used, and by whom. […] The distance learning origins of the OU materials place them in stark contrast with the open courseware offer [...]
February 17th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
As I see it, the OU produces distance education material that is designed for independent study. So I agree with Martin…
This material is typically delivered in print, though we are increasingly we are making this sort of material available via the web as HTML courses, with a via-the-browser, personal print option. For the last few years, our courses have also provided students with the opportunity to converse on a course by course basis in online conferences… So I agree with Sarah, up to a point (many students lurk, not all go online; however, all students can avail themselves of our SOL – supported open learning – mechanisms, which for traditional courses include contact with a named Associate Lecturer (‘tutor’; tutor:student ratio approx 1:25 I think?), face-to0face tutorials, and tutor marked assessments every 6-8 weeks that provide personal, on-script feedback from ALs to students; the online courses do not have a personal tutor, instead, stidents are enrolled into online conferences with a moderator:stuent ratio of approx 1:50, I think).
The design of these HTML delivered courses is heavily influenced by our experience of producing distance educational print material and I would argue in the majoority of cases does not represent authentic elearning material. So I agree with Laura, too…
(I have to admit I haven’t yet seen anything, anywhere, that is billed as elearning material that I find compelling in terms of the integration of personal and social learning design, web design, interaction design, and a pedagogy appropriate for independent, distance study…)
The key thing about OU distance ed material is that is a) written, and b) designed for independent study.
We have started delivering this material via the web, but I would personally argue that we do not yet fully exploit web technology in those materials, nor are we innovating as much as we might in identifying web design/interaction patterns that maximise the potential for effective, independent, personal online learning. I would not class it as ‘elearning material’.
So: “the origins of the OpenLearn content as distance education teaching material” holds, but that material was not designed as elearning material. The MIT opencourseware material was not designed for distance use, nor was it designed as elearning material.
In the OU onlne vernacular, HTH
February 17th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Thanks, Tony. I think I’m less confused now
You write:
I agree, and I’m not knocking anyone who is putting up good stuff for other target audiences. While your description describes an ideal, I’d settle for any of just a few of the characteristics you list as long as it includes appropriate pedagogy.
There’s a part of me that gets frustrated when groups like OCW and those who created the Open Ed Declaration make the aspect of providing an educational experience to disenfranchised groups an explicit part of their philosophy and appeal for support without a lot of evidence that they are actually creating something that can give those learners a significant educational experience… I know that’s not you, I’m just noting it here for future generations
February 17th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
“There’s a part of me that gets frustrated when groups like OCW and those who created the Open Ed Declaration make the aspect of providing an educational experience to disenfranchised groups an explicit part of their philosophy and appeal for support without a lot of evidence that they are actually creating something that can give those learners a significant educational experience…`’
From what I can tell, a lot of the oer material released to date as opencourseware is virtually unusable by anyone except sophisticated/experienced learners or maybe educators looking to reuse it (though how i’m not sure)… but I am yet to be convinced that educators would refer their students to eg video lectures from other institutions, unless those lectures were similar in style to Royal Institution public Christmas lectures, such as Walter Lewin’s physics lectures, insofar as they provide “textbook” – and engaging – demonstrations of particular principles… http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/8-01Physics-IFall1999/CourseHome/index.htm
Although many of them look dated now, OU tv broadcasts from 20 years managed to engage general audiences at all hours of the day in some quite advanced topics…
http://youtube.com/view_play_list?p=105C3A71B494F906
I think a lot of OER initiatives have a long way to go yet in terms of usability/pedagogy (depending on who the intended audience is)… one approach may be unbundling content (eg http://blogs.open.ac.uk/Maths/ajh59/013035.html) so it becomes discoverable and reusable as a fragment in other people’s courses (getting a clearer appreciation of rights issues is one of the stumbling blocks i think).
Some of the OpenLearn material is instructive insofar as the material was designed for independent, individual use by students who may have weak independent study skills…
Someone like Grainne Conole should maybe do a graph or spectrum showing how current oer materials are appropriate/designed for reuse to a greater or lesser extent by naive/sophisticated learners vs formal/informal education instructors…!