How open is it? Developing a revised framework for “open pragmatism” through the examination of an open courseware sample Erik Christiansen: Assistant Professor / Librarian, Mount Royal University, Calgary Michael McNally: Associate Professor, School of Library and Information Studies, University of Alberta, Edmonton Background & previous work Copyright/Open Licensing Frameworks Accessibility/Usability Formatting 1. Choose Elements to Address 2. Effort and Willingness 3. Skill/Knowledge Required Mixed Most Open Language Support Costs Assessment Digital Distribution Closed File Format Cultural Considerations McNally, M.B., & Christiansen, E.G. (2019). Open enough? Eight factors to consider when transitioning from closed to open resources and courses: A conceptual framework. First Monday 24(6). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v24i6.9180 2 Why develop a framework? Conceptual framework is necessary for the following reasons 1. Better understand the state of OCW/OER a. b. 2. Address the lingering concerns from educators a. b. 3. What can we improve? What are we doing well? Quality control Context and broader utility of these resources Give educators a more robust ‘guide’ for developing OCW/OER or developing their own Photo by Startup Stock Photos from Pexels 3 Literature review Conceptions of Openness ● ● 50 shades of open (Pomerantz and Peek, 2016) 4 facet spectrum (social, technical, legal and financial) (Hodgkinson-Williams and Gary Frameworks for Openness ● ○ ○ ○ ○ (2009) ● Expanding and contracting over time (Peter and Deimann, 2013) ● ● 11 approaches topology (Economides and Perifanou, 2018) ● Admission, free, OER, OEP (Cronin, 2018) ALMS framework (Hilton et al., 2010) ● Access to editing tools Level of expertise Meaningfully editable Source-file access Gurell (2012) creates ALMS scoring framework D-Index (Abeywardena et al., 2012) ○ Desirability index that quantifies level of access 4 Research questions 1. Are these factors robust enough to analyze (or assess) the level of openness in OCW? 2. Are certain factors impractical for measurement and do some factors require modification and/or expansion? Photo by Suzy Hazelwood from Pexels 5 Study design 1) Choose Repositories 2) Random selection 3) Evaluation CC0 image Photo by Lukas from Pexels 6 Results ● Each of us independently evaluated the OCW sample ● We brought our results together, and did a final analysis to settle on the conclusions outlined by this study 7 Does the framework actually work? Yes, but there are caveats Some factors are too impractical or subjective ● ● Cultural considerations Usability Some factors needed rewording ● ● ● Digital Distribution > Discoverability Accessibility/Usability > Accessibility Support Costs > Materials Photo by Startup Stock Photos from Pexels 8 Results: Open factors © Copyright Accessibility Assessment Discoverability (Digital Distribution) Photo by Surface on Unsplash Photo by Tim Mossholder from Pexels 9 Results: Closed factors Materials (Support Costs) File Format Language & Cultural Considerations Photo by Polina Zimmerman from Pexels Photo by Ilya Pavlov on Unsplash 10 Lingering questions ● Openness of video or audio formats still an open question ○ Should File Format address just the type of format provided (MP4, MP3, MVK, MOV, AAC, etc. ○ Or, should it also take into account editability - i.e. availability of unedited footage or audio ● ‘Harvestability’ an additional factor or consideration? ○ MIT allowed ‘full’ download of the course content - except video files. Those must be downloaded individually, as only transcripts & closed captions are provided in archive. 11 Revised framework We think there might be a broader trend within the factors ● ● Technical Factors Pedagogical Factors 12 Looking below the iceberg Photo by Annie Spratt on Unsplash 13 Two domains of openness Educator challenges Willingness to share materials publicly Technical Domain Minority of the workload Copyright The skill/knowledge required to share File Format Discoverability Language Pedagogical Domain Majority of the workload Critical in order to address educator concerns about quality and context Assessment Accessibility Material Costs Educator challenges Increased workload associated with developing ancillary materials and guidance to other educators, to contextualize the course pedagogically Other considerations: Usability & Cultural considerations 14 Hypothesis: Factors that require the most attention Copyright ● File Format: Multiple editable file formats, as long as they’re commonplace (eg. .docx, .xlsx, .pptx, .txt, etc.) ● Language: Can be addressed by little things ○ Eg. Glossary ● Materials: Use of open academic articles instead of paid textbooks/closed articles where possible File Format Discoverability Language Assessment Accessibility Material Costs 15 Future research Comprehensive assessment of large OCW sample using revised framework Further exploration of OCW harvestability ● Ability to download course once critical to geographic locations with limited bandwidth Better understand how instructors locate and adapt OCW to their own context Photo by Javier Allegue Barros on Unsplash 16 THANKS! Any questions? Erik Christiansen ● ● Email: echristiansen@mtroyal.ca Website: erikchristiansen.net Michael McNally ● ● Email: mmcnally@ualberta.ca Website: https://apps.ualberta.ca/directory/person/mmcnally#Overview 17 Sources ● Abeywardena, I. S., Tham, C. Yoong, and Raviraja, S. (2012). Conceptual framework for parametrically measuring the desirability of open educational resources using D-index. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(2): 59-76. ● Cronin, Catherine. (2018). Openness and Praxis: A Situated Study of Academic Staff Meaning-Making and Decision-Making with Respect to Openness and Use of Open Educational Practices in Higher Education. Ph.D. Dissertation. https://aran.library.nuigalway.ie/handle/10379/7276 ● Economides, A. Anastasios, and Perifanou, Maria A. (2008). The many faces of openness in education. Proceedings of EDULEARN18 Conference. 2-4 Jul. 2018, Palma, Mallorca Spain, 3694-3703. http://smile.uom.gr/publications/conf/2018-EDULEARN%20-%20The%20many%20faces%20of%20Openness%20in%20Education.pdf ● Gurell, Seth Michael (2012). Measuring the technical difficulty in resusing open educational resources with the ALMS analysis framework. Ph.D. Dissertation, Brigham Young University. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/3472/ ● Hilton III, John, Wiley, David, Stein, Jared, and Johnson, Aaron. (2010). The four ‘R’s of openness and the ALMS analysis: Frameworks for open educational resources. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 25(1): 37-44. ● Hodgkinson-Williams, Cheryl & Gray, Eve. (2009). Degrees of openness: The emergence of open educational resources at the University of Cape Town. International Journal of Education and Development using Information and Communication Technology, 5(5): 101-116. ● McNally, M.B., & Christiansen, E.G. (2019). Open enough? Eight factors to consider when transitioning from closed to open resources and courses: A conceptual framework. First Monday 24(6). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v24i6.9180 ● Peter, Sandra and Deimann, Markus. (2013). On the role of openness in education: A historical reconstruction. Open Praxis, 5(1): 7-14. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.5.1.23 ● Pomerantz, Jeffery, and Peek, Robin. (2016). Fifty shades of open. First Monday, 21(5). DOI: https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v21i5.6360 18