I read the papers (after printing): Learning Objects Literature by David Wiley (http://opencontent.org/docs/wiley-lo-review-final.pdf), the Reflections on Open Educational Resources:and institutional case study by Norm Friesen (http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/664) and Creating, Doing, and Sustaining OER: Lessons from Six Open Educational Resource Projects (http://tinyurl.com/bgssvw)
Wiley defines Learning Objects at the outset of his paper on the current literature in the field as reusable (but not necessarily free) and states very early on, that LOs rarely build upon each other in a meaningful way which is the lynch-pin of Open Education Resources. Whether the prevailing metaphor is LEGO, molecular,Brick and Mortar or a programmers Object to manipulate, LOs are require a 'contextual glue' in order to be assembled or aggregated into something meaningful to a (re)user. They exist in multiple forms and incarnations evolving from, but not adapting of, the original resource. Learning Objects can function in a highly structured, formatted and precise, non-organic and somewhat sterile automated environment.This Wiley says is not a natural way of learning and thus provides a paradox since the highly structured Learning Resource is not how we naturally learn. His heterogeneous more flexible use of Learning objects provides a facilitated or guided direction to aggregating knowledge but is less amenable to reuse and automation. This he calls the reuseability paradox: the more bereft of context a resource is the more reusable it is but the less instructionally effective!
I like that he points out how the fight is about nomenclature, metaphors and staking out ones turf in the new Online educational milieu. In the section on Competing Definitions and Related Terms he runs the gamut of how confusing this can be for even the most well versed in the literature on this topic. I think that these debates (verbal jousting if you will) would certainly scare off the initiate to these complex topics in education and will ( and does ) intimidate a lot of others who feel woefully inadequate to wade into the mire that has been created; the cacophony being less without one added voice
Cataloguing learning resources ranges from highly structured models(SCORM,LOM, etc.) which requires highly technical skills and time consuming resources but are codified and efficient to search; to the cataloguing of the masses (Tagging,Metadata and RSS feeds) which carry with it polysemy (single tag many meanings) and synonymy (resource tagged with different words) and while democratic can lead to difficulty finding resources.
I like that he provided equal time for critics like Parrish and Friesen ( pedagogical and technical issues of LOs) and that he mentions how intertwined the Corporate/Military Industrial Complex is with the infrastructures over which much of this learning is to take place. As Howard Zinn said "You can't be neutral on a moving train" and to skirt the issues of net-neutrality is to in essences bury ones head in the sand to all but the relevant issues of the moment. Context, criticism and a more world-centric view with regard to many issues in these current debates may provide some clarity and practicality in the future.
Open Resources by their very nature are designed specifically to be adapted and modified by others and at their central core is the Creative Commons or GNU FDL open licensing /transaction schemes to clear all obstacles to creativity and reuse. ( not sure if everyone is following the licensing to the letter but I have yet to hear of high profile cases being made against copyrighted materials licenses in this manner ) Wiley suggests that these resources can both be aggregated and adapted but mentioned nothing critical about OERs, so I turn to the article by Friesen Reflections on sustaining Open Educational Resources: an institutional case study.
Are not the vast majority of these OERs linguistically can culturally biased and does this not carry with it a cultural imperialism of a sort (see Downes 2005). If we have no buy-in because of cultural or contextual limitations then reuseability becomes a moot issue. The content providers might not be able to "..... context and culture into account when developing and implementing technological solutions in complex social systems" due to
Content re-creators may not have the technical skills or language skills to adapt highly technical information to specific needs so much more time and money will have to be invested to support OERs in countries other than the US( 1700 courses in the US vs. 950 in all China, Japan and France since 2006 (Wiley) attests to this). Given the global economic downturn this seems unlikely to happen. When big business hurts, post secondary institutions ( and funding) get crippled.
Most OERS also rely quite heavily on traditional revenue sources to be successful. Not just any institution can follow MIT's lead, which Friesen suggests that all educational establishments should emulate for lack of money or talent or technical expertise surrounding getting such an endeavour off the ground. I suspect that what appeared to be quite successful OERs in 2002 or 2003 (such as CLOE and ARIADNE) fell victims to one or more of the limitations of the project management triangle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Management_Triangle
To sustain OERs, As Karen mentioned is a very hotly debated topic and has caused it share of divisiveness in the academic world I'm sure . But as I read the paper by the Institute for the Study of Knowledge Management in Education (LINK) (ISKME) I realized that there are best practises that can occur world-wide as long as people are willing to contribute freely of their own volition and support mechanisms for collaborative authorship are maintained or enhanced for (re-)creators of content. Additionally a recurring theme in all these representative best-practise case studies funding. All success is predicated on stable and secure ongoing funding models (see rant to follow) of More interest to me was the explorattion of the aspects of engagement by users of Curriki, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Teachers Domain projects. I think if they can identify key uses and interest patterns they may be able to target and increase traffic more successfully and thereby secure the necessary funding. The advertising component is after all a necessity (either for prestige or monetary gain) in order to maintain the altruistic goals espoused by most OER projects leaders.
It is very sad to see every human endeavour enslaved to capital, but that is our current system; a system based on class and debt regardless of the country you live in. I think that the free democratic open courseware /resources movement is unsustainable and fails within the 3 year time period because it is at odds the the power structures and corporations that commodify every aspect of life including (free, online , or otherwise) education. Even if there isn't a profit motive, the contributors must still work and live and work within the hierarchy and control of the few. Thus for world-wide acceptance on a paradigm-shifting scale of this very democratic educational ideal , we need to fundamentally undo the existing systems of control as proposed by the edupunks, Paulo Freire, Marx & Engels,Chris Hedges,John Ralston-Saul, Howard Zinn, Martin Luther King Jr., Noam Chomsky,Naomi Klein and a host of others who speak truth to power.
No comments:
Post a Comment