Dave White’s presentation to FSLT12 yesterday included a number of thought-provoking ideas.
In the past I have heard Dave speak a number of times about ‘Visitors and Residents’ in the online environment. You can find out more about this on his TALL blog – Technology Assisted life-long learning – TALL for short (his joke – not mine :-))
But this week’s talk took a different focus. It centred on the relationship between open educational resources (OERs), open academic practice and changing pedagogy. The title of his talk was even longer than this:
OER: The quality vs credibility vs access vs pedagogy vs legitimacy vs money debate
Click here for the recording of the session.
As Dave pointed out, OERs come in all shapes and sizes and Creative Commons licensing of these is very important in determining our use of them. But despite being in all shapes and sizes, we can take the iceberg metaphor and categorise them as
- those above the water-line, visible, above board, properly licensed – the kind of resources produced by an institution to market itself
- or those below the water line – where licensing is not so important.
These below the water line resources are easy access , free and easy to remix and repurpose, without much attribution. This happens a lot below the water line.
(Slide 6 from Dave White’s presentation)
But perhaps the most important point/question raised by Dave is
What effect has access to OERs, above or below the water line, had on the way we teach and learn?
I remember when MIT first opened access to their educational resources, this was accompanied by a statement to the effect that it was not an issue for them to open their content to the world – because the educational value and quality they provide is not so much in their content, but in their teaching and learning. To get this we have to pay to go to MIT.
So as Dave said, when thinking about OERs we cannot neglect ‘contact’. It is not all about ‘content’. So how do OERs ‘drive pedagogy back into what it’s meant to be’? (quoting Dave from the presentation). For me they do this in a number of ways:
- They release the teacher/tutor/lecturer/ facilitator from the ‘tyranny of content’. I have written about this in the past
- Now that we have more clarity around what we are allowed to do with OERs (through Creative Commons Licences), we can remix, repurpose and feed-forward OERs (to quote Stephen Downes). We can be more creative.
- Perhaps OERs also enable us to challenge the ‘status quo’ – in the sense that ‘credible, quality’ content might no longer always be in peer reviewed journals, articles and academic sites, but might instead be on ‘John or Jane Doe’s blog’ or deep below the water line (iceberg metaphor).
- They do tend to force more critical thinking and the framing of critically relevant questions, e.g. what is a credible, quality resource? How do we recognize it? And this in turn raises the whole question of whether learners have the skills to navigate the web to find the quality resources.
- And from the teacher’s perspective, as Dave pointed out, we will have to come up with assessment tasks that don’t allow the student to simply find the answer through an easy access easy to find OER. This has always been a challenge for teachers, but even more so now.
Dave’s final slide quotes Harouni (2009).
“I must value not answers but instead questions that represent the continued renewal of the search. I must value uncertainty and admit complexity in the study of all things”
For me living with uncertainty is the big paradigm shift we might need in today’s digital world. Roy Williams, Regina Karousou, Simone Gumtau and I have been exploring this in our papers about emergent learning – and Dave Cormier raised this as a key point in his presentation to the in the ‘New Places to Learn’ – NewPlacesEvent HEA event held at the Said Business School in Oxford in April of this year.
Hopefully discussion about how OERs affect pedagogy will continue in the FSLT12 Week 4 Moodle discussion forum There is still lots to talk about.