[Open-education] OER Quality?

[Sören Auer]

Thanks Alex for starting this discussion!

I think quality is really an issue. We did some empirical evaluation of
OpenCourseWare quality and found that it often suffers:

OpenCourseWare Observatory -- Does the Quality of OpenCourseWare Live up
to its Promise?
http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.5694

>From my perspective the best way to improve quality while at the same
time progressing iteratively is following an open collaboration approach
(similar to Wikis, Wikipedia, OpenStreetMaps or GitHub). We also started
to work a bit in this direction with http://SlideWiki.org and are
currently preparing a larger project on the topic.

Best,

Sören

-- 

Project: BigDataEurope-Empowering Communities with Big Data technologies
http://big-data-europe.eu

Enterprise Information Systems, Computer Science, University of Bonn
http://eis.iai.uni-bonn.de/SoerenAuer

Fraunhofer-Institute Intelligent Analysis & Information Systems (IAIS)
Organized Knowledge -- http://www.iais.fraunhofer.de/Auer.html

Skype: soerenauer, Mobile +4915784988949

http://linkedin.com/in/soerenauer
https://twitter.com/SoerenAuer

On 9/25/2015 4:57 PM, Alexandre Enkerli wrote:
> How much should we emphasise quality, when we frame OERs to others?
> 
> Asked Rory McGreal about this, during (and after) a CIDER session.
> https://landing.athabascau.ca/groups/profile/289790/canadian-initiative-for-distance-education-research-cider/tab/359765/sessions
> 
> Missed most of the webinar but it sounded like much emphasis was on the "competition" between commercial textbooks and OERs. Got an issue with this.
> 
> Granted, if we all want to shift away from the offerings of commercial publishers, we need to do better than them by producing (selecting, reusing…) textbooks of equal production value. Which is extremely expensive, cumbersome, and time-consuming. To caricature: if the goal is to replace the current structure, we need to have the exact same structure as theirs, only more "open". The OER magic.
> 
> Clearly, many people do want textbooks of very high "production value". In some cases, people think specifically about the same type of page layout and use of amazing images as what McGraw-Hill and others have pushed down our learners’ throats. It could because people were burnt by the movement for desktop Linux never achieving the same type of user experience as other operating systems. So we need to do better than the competition to convince people to switch.
> 
> But maybe this perceived need comes from a skewed idea about learning? After all, are we so sure that learning happens through textbooks themselves? We could open a whole discussion about the value of textbooks, here, which could be quite useful. The reason for this discussion's usefulness is the dominance of the textbook model, especially here in North America (and especially among English-speakers). As a personal perspective: textbooks can fit a specific purpose but they may be equivalent to "using a sledgehammer to crack a nut" (or "killing a fly with a bazooka").
> 
> We need not get caught up in that textbook-based model, though. What about "small" OERs? Or "quick and dirty" ones? UNESCO mentions that:
> "OERs range from textbooks to curricula, syllabi, lecture notes, assignments, tests, projects, audio, video and animation."
> http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/access-to-knowledge/open-educational-resources/what-are-open-educational-resources-oers/
> 
> Quite a difference between syllabi and textbooks!
> 
> The aforementioned Tony Bates textbook example notwithstanding, much OER can be about the "stuff" we already create in the course of our usual work. Including the material created by learners.
> 
> Been particularly fond of a saying from software development, especially fitting in agile programming: "Release Early, Release Often". If you want to create the perfect product, chances are that you will get bogged down in details. A lot of developers end up not releasing their wares because they feel they're "not ready for primetime". Financially responsible, perhaps, but sad nonetheless.
> 
> A former student taught me a valuable lesson, there. After completing a very high quality version of the main project for the course (with friends seeing it), this student postponed submitting the final version in order to tweak it further. Weeks after the class ended, had to fail this student because the work had yet to reach me. (We eventually worked it out but it was quite stressful.)
> 
> In terms of learning material, there might even be a deeper lesson. As we polish up our work as much as possible, we chip away at some of the learning opportunities. For instance, as we fine-tune course notes too far in advance, we miss the chance to respond to learners' actions. And when we produce an impressive video, implicitly asking learners to do the same, we intimidate many of them.
> 
> Not to mention that the "remix" part of Open Content is more likely to be perceived as defacement if it starts with finished material than when it comes from a simple sketch. Or that learners and teachers may collaborate in creating material which only becomes well-edited after many iterations and interactions.
> 
> Not to be too one-sided about this. There is a clear case for extremely high quality offerings, accessible at no cost. Like there is a need for museum displays. 
> 
> But how about Opening Educational Resources as a "work in progress"?
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> — Alex
> 
> --
> Alex Enkerli, Learning Technology Advisor
> Vitrine technologie-éducation http://www.vteducation.org/en
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> open-education mailing list
> open-education at lists.okfn.org
> https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/open-education
>