Open Enough? Eight Factors to Consider when Transitioning from Closed to Open Resources and Courses: A Conceptual Framework About Us Erik G. Christiansen Assistant Professor/Librarian at Mount Royal University, Calgary, Canada Michael B. McNally Associate Professor, School of Library and Information Studies, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada 2 1 HOW THIS PROJECT STARTED 3 It started with a NAPKIN 4 OUR RESEARCH QUESTIONS What factors do educators need to consider when transitioning to OER? If each of these factors could be placed on a conceptual scale from “closed” to “most open”, what would be the implications? 5 GOALS WITH THIS PROJECT 1. We want to create a framework that helps educators conceptualize OCW/OER projects 2. Determine what is ‘open enough’ 3. Determine if maximizing openness, in certain instances, could be problematic 6 LITERATURE – Conceptualizing Openness ▰ Have been several cycles of openness going back centuries (Peter and Deimann , 2013, p. 12). OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES ▰ Hegarty (2015) proposes eight attributes of open pedagogy, only one of which involves OER (p. 5). ▰ Pomerantz and Peek (2016) reviewed 50 kinds of ‘open’ and identified several approaches to open. Authors warn of ‘open washing.’ ▰ Nasccimbeni et al. (2016) argue that becoming an ‘open educator’ is a transitional process involving multiple steps. OPEN EDUCATIONAL PRACTICES OPEN PEDAGOGY Christiansen & McNally, 2017 7 LITERATURE – Gaps and Criticisms ▰ Lack of theorization around the concepts of openness (Knox, 2013, p. 822). ▻ Weller (2014) highlights vagueness of the term makes it open to being meaningless (p. 28). ▰ Ehlers (2011, p. 2) argues that access issues have been over emphasized at the expense of discussions around quality and innovation in teaching and learning. ▰ All the concepts around openness tend toward learner centrism. Openness in education should focus on improving student learning (Pierce, 2016, p. 11). CC photo by Ben White On Unsplash 8 2 FRAMEWORK OVERVIEW 9 STEP 1 Copyright / Open Licensing Accessibility / Usability Formatting Language Support Costs • Which of the OER elements do you need to consider to create your OER? Assessment Digital Distribution 1. Choose Elements to Address 2. Effort and Willingness • How much work is required to create your OER? • What aspects are you willing to rework? • What skills do you need to create your OER? • Will you require outside expertise? 3. Skill/Knowledge Required File Format Cultural Considerations Christiansen & McNally, 2017 10 THREE HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIOS Eight OER Factors 1. Choose Elements to Address 2. Effort and Willingness Closed Mixed 3. Skill/Knowledge Required Most Open 11 3 CONCEPTUAL SCALES Visualizing Openness 12 STEP 1 Decision Factors Scale OER Factors Closed Mixed Most Open Copyright/Open Licensing Frameworks Copyright/all rights reserved Less Open CC License Terms (NC/ND and arguably SA) CC-BY License/ Public Domain Accessibility/Usability Formatting Not formatted for accessibility Some accessibility formatting (e.g. closed captioning) Fully accessibility (e.g. compliance w/ US HHS 508 Compliant) Language Single Language (usually English) Bi-lingual or includes guides/steps for translation Multi-Lingual or includes guides/steps for translation and is bilingual Support Costs Paid resources Licensed library resources Openly Licensed Resources Assessment No assessment available Assessments made available Assessments tailored for selfassessment Digital Distribution Closed/available only to insiders (e.g. via LMS) Open but low discoverability (e.g. institutional repository) Open and high discoverability (e.g. YouTube or broadly available repository (e.g. Merlot, BCcampus) File Format PDF or other non-editable format Editable format but proprietary software (e.g. Word) Fully open format (e.g. html) Cultural Considerations No consideration for outside cultural users/includes culturally specific materials/content Some considerations for outside cultural users Generally devoid of culturally specific material 13 STEP 2 Effort and Willingness OER Factors Closed Mixed Copyright/Open Licensing Frameworks Closed by default Minimal willingness / effort Accessibility/Usability Formatting Closed by default Some willingness / effort More willingness / effort Language Closed by default More willingness / effort More willingness / effort Some willingness / effort More willingness / effort Some willingness / effort More willingness / effort Some willingness / effort Some willingness / effort Minimal willingness / effort Minimal willingness / effort Some willingness / effort More willingness / effort 14 Support Costs Assessment Digital Distribution File Format Cultural Considerations No willingness Minimal effort Closed by default No willingness Minimal effort No willingness Minimal effort Closed by default Most Open Some willingness most open most open Minimal effort STEP 3 Skill / Knowledge Scale OER Factors Closed Mixed Most Open Copyright/Open Licensing Frameworks None Some skill / knowledge open Some skill most / knowledge Accessibility/Usability Formatting None More skill / knowledge More skill / knowledge Language None More skill / knowledge More skill / knowledge Support Costs None (an awareness problem; still need to pick resources regardless of cost) Some skill / knowledge More skill / knowledge Assessment None Some skill / knowledge More skill / knowledge Digital Distribution None Some skill / knowledge Some skill / knowledge File Format None Some skill / knowledge Some skill / knowledge Cultural Considerations None More skill / knowledge More skill / knowledge most open 15 EXAMPLE COURSE: LIS 598 INFORMATION POLICY I ran Michael’s graduate course through our framework to determine its level of ‘openness’ Screenshot taken from the ERA Repository, University of Alberta 16 EXAMPLE COURSE Lis 598 Information Policy: How open is it? OER Factors Closed Mixed Most Open Copyright/Open Licensing Frameworks Copyright/all rights reserved Less Open CC License Terms (NC/ND and arguably SA) CC-BY License/ Public Domain Accessibility/Usability Formatting Not formatted for accessibility Some accessibility formatting (e.g. Fully accessibility (e.g. compliance closed captioning) w/ US HHS 508 Compliant) Language Single Language (usually English) Bi-lingual or includes guides/steps for translation Multi-Lingual or includes guides/steps for translation and is bilingual Support Costs Paid resources Licensed library resources Openly Licensed Resources Assessment No assessment available Assessments made available Assessments tailored for selfassessment Digital Distribution Closed/available only to insiders (e.g. via LMS) Open but low discoverability (e.g. institutional repository) Open and high discoverability (e.g. YouTube or broadly available repository (e.g. Merlot, BCcampus) File Format PDF or other non-editable format Editable format but proprietary software (e.g. Word) Fully open format (e.g. html) Cultural Considerations No consideration for outside cultural Some considerations for outside users/includes culturally specific cultural users materials/content Generally devoid of culturally specific material 17 4 INSIGHTS What we can do to guide educators 18 INSIGHTS Huge range in difficulty among the eight factors when maximizing openness Copyright is the most critical factor and the easiest option Support costs can be approached in different ways 19 “ The ‘most open’ scenario can be pedagogically problematic and can place unreasonable expectations on the educator 20 INSIGHTS Openness has pedagogical tradeoffs for assessment Maximizing openness for multiple languages and cultures is very difficult and unrealistic Maximizing openness for file format isn’t clear cut 21 5 FUTURE RESEARCH Where do we go from here? 22 FUTURE RESEARCH AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1) Empirical testing of this framework 2) Interactive online resource to Generate OER project plans 3) Financial funding for translation of resources 23 Thanks for attending Any questions? Erik G. Christiansen Website: erikchristiansen.net Twitter: @eriksation Email: info@erikchristiansen.net Michael B. McNally Website: bit.ly/MMcNally Email: mmcnally@ualberta.ca 24 FURTHER READING Christiansen, Erik. G., & McNally, Michael. B. 2017, October 12. Open enough? Choices and consequences when transitioning from closed to open resources and courses. Poster session presented at the International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2017 Conference, Calgary, Alberta. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11205/352 Colaizzi, Paul Francis. 1973. Reflection and Research in Psychology: A Phenomenological Study of Learning. Dubque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Cronin, Catherine. 2017. “Openness and Praxis: Exploring the Use of Open Educational Practices in Higher Education.” International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(5): http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/3096/4263 Ehlers, Ulf-Daniel. 2011. “Extending the Territory: From Open Educational Resources to Open Educational Practice.” Journal of Open, Flexible, and Distance Learning, 15(2): http://www.jofdl.nz/index.php/JOFDL/article/view/64/46 Hegarty, Bronwyn. 2015. “Attributes of Open Pedagogy: A Model for Using Open Educational Resources.” Educational Technology, July-August 2015: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Ed_Tech_Hegarty_2015_article_attributes_of_open_pedagogy.pdf Hendricks, Christina. 2015. “Teaching and Learning Philosophy in the Open.” AAPT Studies in Pedagogy, 1: 17-32. 25 FURTHER READING Knox, Jeremy. 2013. “Five Critiques of the Open Educational Resources Movement.” Teaching in Higher Education: 18(8): 821-832. Lane, Andy. 2009. “The Impact of Openness on Bridging the Educational Digital Divides.” International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(5): http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/637/1408 Lane, Andy and McAndrew, Patrick. 2010. “Are Open Educational Resources Systematic or Systemic Change Agents for Teaching Practice.” British Journal of Educational Technology: 41(6): 952-692. McNally, Michael B. 2017. LIS 598: Information policy. Education & Research Archive. Retrieved from https://era.library.ualberta.ca/communities/b9bce94a-c976-43b0-853d-58b48797b3d1/collections/6478a049-7b92-4736-b02b2153ad5db9d8 McNally, M. B. 2017, May 11. Open educational resources (OER) benefit analysis. Presented at the ABOER Summit, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta. Retrieved from https://era.library.ualberta.ca/files/gx41mm630 Nasccimbeni, Fabio and Burgos, Daniel. (2016). “In search for the open educator: Proposal of a definition and framework to increase openness adoption among university educators.” International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 17(6): 1-17. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2007. Giving Knowledge for Free. Paris: OECD: http://www.oecd.org/education/ceri/38654317.pdf. 26 FURTHER READING Paskevicius, Michael. 2017. “Conceptualizing Open Educational Practices through the Lens of Constructive Alignment.” Open Praxis, 9(2): 125-140. Pierce, Matthew. 2016. “Looking at OER with a Critical Eye: Strengthening OER Initiatives by Focusing on Student Learning.” Community & Junior College Libraries, 22(1-2): 11-17. Polkinghorne, Donald E. 1989. “Phenomenological Research Methods.” p. 41-60. In Existential-Phenomenological Perspectives in Psychology. Ronald S. Valle and Steen Halling (Eds.). New York: Plenum Press. Pomerantz, Jeffrey, and Peek, Robin. 2016. “Fifty Shades of Open.” First Monday, 21(5): http://firstmonday.org/article/view/6360/5460 Richter, Thomas, and McPherson, Maggie. 2012. “Open Educational Resources: Education for the World?” Distance Education, 33(2): 201-209. Stacey, Paul. 2007. “Open Educational Resources in a Global Content.” First Monday, 12(4): http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1769/1649 Stagg, Adrian. 2014. “OER Adoption: A Continuum for Practice.” RUSC: Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, 11(3); 152-165. Weller, Martin. 2014. The Battle for Open: How Openness Won and Why It Doesn’t Feel Like Victory. London: Ubiquity Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/bam 27 CC ICON CREDITS • Accessibility by Alfonso Melolonta Urbán from the Noun Project • Compare by Bernar Novalyi from the Noun Project • Computer by Daily icons from the Noun Project • Cost Saving by Vector Bakery from the Noun Project • Difficulty Gauge by Thanh Nguyen from the Noun Project • File by icon 54 from the Noun Project • Funding by Gregor Cresnar from the Noun Project • Goal by Nikita Kozin from the Noun Project • Important Document by Designify.me from the Noun Project • Internet by Vectors Market from the Noun Project • Multimedia by Maxim Basinski from the Noun Project • Survey by Ann Fandrey from the Noun Project • Translation by costantino montanri from the Noun Project 28 CREDITS Special thanks to all the people who made and released these awesome resources for free: ▰ Presentation template by SlidesCarnival ▰ Photographs by Startup Stock Photos 29 For an editable version of this document, please contact Erik Christiansen using the link below. Website: https://erikchristiansen.net/contact/