Translate

Monday 16 September 2013

OERs #OCL4Ed

In this section, I learned that the definition of an OER is more complex and ambiguous than it first appeared.  What adds to the complexity is that different organizations have different definitions of open content. Until there is full agreement on and adherence to a clear definition of OERs, it will be difficult for educators to use these resources without fear of legal action. It is clear that cost and access should not be barriers to open content. Confusion about legal issues should also not impede the use and distribution of OERs.

It was interesting to see it spelled out that OERs do not lead to the economic downfall of institutions. However, I would have liked to see clear economic models showing various ways in which OERs both improve and hurt the revenue of institutions, if such data exists. It would also have been nice to the impact of different models on students’ and professionals’ budgets, as well as data on the benefits of learning for their careers.


The topic of producing editable OERs came up. This is a topic that deserves more attention since OERs are available in a large variety of formats that are not editable in terms of content and language. For example, PDFs, videos and audio files cannot be easily edited for content; indeed, a whole new file would have to be created to make modifications or translations. For OERs to be transferable, and to avoid having people recreate the same content over and over again, there should be standards and guidelines in place for the creation of such reusable and editable content.

Friday 6 September 2013

Hi everyone in #OCL4Ed,

I think the theoretical idea of open content for education is great because there is a great need for teachers to have access to materials for teaching. Students also need to be able to gain access to content for projects, for developing skills, or simply for feeding their curiosity. However, it’s too simplistic to just open up content to the world and expect everyone to get smarter as a result.

There needs to be quality control through the use of standards and user ratings. Standards can be established by educational institutions or by communities of instructors. For user ratings to work well, users need to agree on the meaning of specific evaluation criteria, such as presentation quality, accessibility, reusability (from one course to another), ease of technological use, and instructional value.

Besides the issue of quality control, there appears to be a misunderstanding that just anybody can teach. While people may have unique knowledge to share and contribute to the overall knowledge of others, that is not sufficient for being an effective instructor. Teaching requires the ability to relate to your audience, to communicate with them in a language that they’ll understand, to break down a concept into digestible parts, to explain or demonstrate a concept or skill effectively, to enable effective and constructive student collaboration as opposed to enabling random discussion among students, to assess knowledge, to provide effective feedback without burning out by doing too much marking…

Instructors need to know how to present specific types of content in particular ways. You don’t teach about a definition or a concept in the same way that you teach a procedure. Instructors also need to know how to teach subject content using the terminology and methods relevant to that subject. For example, teaching history requires an acceptance of multiple perspectives that may be at odds with each other. In chemistry, students need to understand how to apply theoretical knowledge to equations, and in turn, to relate theory and equations to experiments.


Quality control and instructor skills are just two aspects that must be considered in the delivery of open educational content. There are a lot more aspects to consider and I hope to hear other people’s perspectives on this topic.