1.4: Is this the future?

I received an odd RSS feed relaring to existing Beyond Current Horizons essays, once of whcih I hadn't blogged on before (see previous posts concerning these). "The digital landscape and new education providers" considers how digital technologies have lowered the barriers of entry to higher education and how many large corporates are making the most of the opportunity. The growth of home-schooling, blended learning and online question-and-answer sites is discussed, as are trends in ebooks, learning in virtual worlds and assessment. Inspiring stuff... if these trends continue, the future of education will be very different!

The article addresses the arguments of openness, quality, IP and the importance of revenue streams. Most interesting to me, though, was the very interesting section on "Lifelong learning and the learning society", which seems to emphasise training and workplace skills over classic liberal education. There are serious costs here; an industrially-based and pragmatic education is not the same thing as an emancipating, self-actualising one. "The Future" section (Part Three) ends with an excellent quote:

...we all value open-ness, participation, communication and collaboration, and that we value professional expertise and quality assurance. We value individuals and their free pursuit of ideas and interests; we value communities and the compromise that they necessarily entail. We value knowledge and innovation; we value health, the body and genuine sustainability. We value our economy and the role for education policy in ensuring a good fit between what is learnt at all stages of life, and what is needed to sustain a healthy economy run by competent, confident, adaptive people. We value the classics, the arts, and learning for the sake of personal development and wellbeing. We value diversity and flexibility; we value cohesion and manageability. We work together, with hope, towards a future of physical and social technologies that reflect these values.

Yep, I'm into that.

General: A view of the future?

I have been asked to prepare a paragraph on how technology might look in the next ten years in New Zealand, and to comment on how an academic institution might need to be aware of to be prepared for the future.

Here's my thoughts:

By 2019, internet access will be ubiquitous in New Zealand. Broadband infrastructure and mobile devices will make connectivity universal. Information will be at one’s fingertips, literally. All books, theses, journals will be available instantly on request; payment will be through either micropayment or institutional license (for enrolled students). Society will learn fairly quickly that connectivity does not equate with learnativity.

Part-time enrolments will increase as more students balance the opportunity costs of tertiary education with their own desire for lifelong learning. Full-time students will also exist however they will be a minority of, typically, school-leavers. To overcome the barriers of ‘local’ distance, classes will be streamed live to all course enrollees who will in turn participate via their mobile devices. Students will interact through online spaces that are extremely fluid and convenient to use from mobile devices however such interaction will serve only a small part in academic learning. Assessment will increasingly become important; rather than being collaborative, assessment will become increasingly reflective and integrative in scope. The classic essay will remain.

To be prepared we need only anticipate with open minds. The switch to this sort of environment is neither complex nor expensive, and good quality education and course design will remain so in this emerging environment.

Some reports and further banter are available from http://e-ako.blogspot.com/search?q=future.

A more cynical view of the future would be as things are now, only more of our students drive to class in hybrid cars ;o)

1.3.*; 5.*: Solid stuff on the future

The "Beyond Current Horizons" research programme was established to "examine how social and technological change overthe coming 20 or so years may present new challenges or opportunities for education". The Futurelab project has just released some interesting new insights into what the future may hold.

Usually I am skeptical of such reports, but there is a depth to the analysis in the "Beyond Current Horizons" work that stands it apart. The quality of the Expert Advisory Group demonstrates the level of expertise the project has drawn on, adding significant depth to the analysis and findings. The six proposed scenarios have not been merely brainstormed; rather, they have been carefully fashioned from the results of clearly documented evidence (over 60 papers written by experts, also available from the site).

The six potential futures (and their implications for education) are:

World 1: Trust yourself

• Scenario 1: Informed choice - Learning is a bespoke, life-long journey that develops and builds upon your unique strengths. Educational providers work with you to tailor education to your needs.
• Scenario 2: Independent consumers - Learning is an individual responsibility, educational providers are suppliers responsible for ensuring quality of delivery.

World 2: Loyalty points

• Scenario 3: Discovery - Education helps you to understand and develop your capacity to make distinctive and useful contributions to a range of different communities, organisations and networks.
• Scenario 4: Diagnosis - Education is about organisations diagnosing learners' pre-existing strengths and determining where they will fit in future.

World 3: Only connect

• Scenario 5: Integrated experience - Learning is a process of participating in meaningful activities and developing competencies and knowledge to better contribute to the wider community.
• Scenario 6: Service and citizenship - Education is a process of learning about the skills, competencies and roles that individuals play in the 'real world'.

The beauty of these scenarios is that they are realistic, discrete, and are not driven by any sense of technological determinism. There is plenty to muse on here, and plenty to study; the various papers I have scanned (such as "Learning to learn", "Digital natives and ostrich tactics?", "Reworking the web, reworking the world: How web 2.0 is changing our society", "Argumentation and dialogic teaching: Alternative pedagogies for a changing world") that inform the scenarios are all worthy of deep study in themselves. This study provides a good, substantial reference point that acknowledges the complexity of the issues involved as well as the fact that the future can often be anticipated but not pre-determined.

A must for anyone considering the potential futures of education wanting to engage with a serious consideration of the issues!

5.*: MUVE alternatives

Are Second Life's days numbered as the experimental base for formal education? The most recent SLENZ update suggests that they may - and provides a great list of alternative MUVEs that might provide a less proprietary future. Cobalt, an open source application, could be the way of the future...?

5.3.3: The AeP - significant work in the Australisian area

Article: Hallam, G., and Creagh, T. (2010). ePortfolio use by university students in Australia: a review of the Australian ePortfolio project. Higher Education Research & Development 29(2), 179-193.

---

Hallam & Creagh (2010) introduce the Australian ePortfolio Project (AeP), with a specific emphasis on the first part of the project (started in 2007). The project has already released its first report (2008, PDF or contents page), and Stage II is also now complete (report forthcoming).

The purpose of Stage I (in brief) was to "examine the diverse approaches to ePortfolio use by students in Australian universities in order to consider the scope, penetration and reasons for use of of ePortfolios as well as to examine the issues associatedwith their implementation in higher education" (p.181). Stage II worked toward building a community of practice and established a conference (the next conference is planned for early November, 2010).

The article provides a valuable introduction to the work done for the AeP, which is of foundational importance to ePortfolios in Australasia. The Toolkit is particularly impressive, leaving practitioners with no excuse for not embarking on informed practice. Links to further reports (such as the VET E-portfolio roadmap) within the AeP Web site reveal the considerable work being done in the Australian context.

The Stage I work summarised in the article consists of a selection of primary research informed by a thorough literature review. Findings indicate that ePortfolio activity in the Australian university sector is (or was?) patchy and somewhat fragmented - even within individual institutions. Teachers, managers and HR/professional development personnel have different expectations from ePortfolios. Student surveys compared expectations with experiences (for new students working with ePortfolios), and a separate survey and post-interview with students already working with ePortfolios.

Among the issues identified by Stage I include the need for cooperation across stakeholders to coordinate ePortoflio excpectations; the need for interoperability standards; and the requirement for faculty to link "learning activities, assessment and learning outcomes" (p.187).

The report/paper identify four future scenarios:

1. A national ePortfolio model (government-owned and driven).
   
2. A locally driven model (centred in the HE sector, but "aligned with cross-sectoral interests", p.189).
   
3. A Web 2.0 model (student-centred selections of social-networking tools).
   
4. A zero action model (the status quo).

My impression from the Ministry-sponsored document "Celebrating learning" is that the New Zealand scene is likely to follow future 2, with the Ministry providing a set of requirements (or, perhaps, 'guidelines') to coordinate interoperability.

The paper concludes with these words (2010, p.191):

There is immense scope for further research into and analysis of the impact and potential of ePortfolios in higher education, so that a better understanding can be developed about many aspects of ePortfolios, such as the diverse dimensions of knowledge construction, student attitudes, new teacher roles, employer expectations, eLearning-supported pedagogies, emerging technologies, interoperability and so on.

Absolutely.

5.3.4: Affordances of 3D learning environments

Article: Dalgarno, B., & Lee, M.J.W. (2010). What are the learning affordances of 3-D virtual environments? [Full text PDF] British Journal of Educational Technology 41(1), 10-32.

---

As I read this article (which is the subject of a Webinar this afternoon NZT through ascilite), something occured to me: of course 3-D environments have a critical contribution to make to formal education. However, as with most techological interventions, it is not a comprehensive contribution. The five affordances proposed by Dalgarno & Lee make this point implicitly.

After a very useful discussion about immersion and presence, the authors present their affordances:

1. 3-D VLEs can be used to facilitate learning tasks that lead to the development of enhanced spatial knowledge representation of the explored domain.
   
2. 3-D VLEs can be used to facilitate experiential learning tasks that would be impractical or impossible to undertake in the real world.
   
3. 3-D VLEs can be used to facilitate learning tasks that lead to increased intrinsic motivation and engagement.
   
4. 3-D VLEs can be used to facilitate learning tasks that lead to improved transfer of knowledge and skills to real situations through contextualisation of learning.
   
5. 3-D VLEs can be used to facilitate tasks that lead to richer and/or more effective collaborative learning than is possible with 2-D alternatives.
   

These are all well and good (I particularly like the honest use of the word 'can') - however there is much left unsaid that helps to further legitimise (and contextualise) these affordances. Firstly, not all of these advantages apply to everything that is taught in higher education. Take philosophy, for example - 'spatial knowledge representation of the explored domain', facilitating 'experiential learning tasks' and applying 'transfer of knowledge and skills to real situations through contextualisation' are, well, not directly relevant. Even 'increased intrinsic motivation and engagement' and 'more effective collaborative learning' are questionable affordances for this type of subject. Here, then, is my point - the affordances are not comprehensive or universally applicable. They are inherent in the technology only insofar as the subject area itself stands to benefit from them.

The examples cited by Dalgarno & Lee illustrate my point above. In support of affordance 5, they cite a study by Jarmon, Traphagan and Mayrath (2008), who:

tell of how students in a graduate-level communication course work together and in collaboration with architecture students at the same university. The communication and architecture students are tasked with creating a virtual presence in SL of two green, sustainable, urban housing designs, that are later physically implemented in a low-income neighbourhood in Austin, Texas. Successful completion of the course assignments and projects is contingent on the students in both disciplines interacting extensively with educational and non-academic participants, both in real life and in the 3-D virtual world. Positive interdependence is also evident in that the communication students are reliant upon the domain knowledge and expertise of the architects, and vice versa (2010, pp.22-23).

Now, that just makes sense. I wonder the extent to which this example also applies to more abstract or theoretical collaboration, where there may be only a concpetual outcome. After all, this is what much of formal education is concerned with.

Lest my perspective here be misconstrued, I see an exciting future for 3D learning environments - and, as an aside, for m-learning - but it is vital that we place these technologies in the context of teaching and learning outcomes, and not try to hawk them as complete solutions that ought to be applied in all educational circumstances. Yes, there are real affordances. But there are also real contexts in which they apply.

5.*: An 'e' school of the future?

[Note - this post will be of relevance to ePrimer 5, once it is finished]. From Edutopia.

A new high school in Chicago, VOISE Academy High School, is trying something (mostly) new - laptops for all students, and a completely online resource-base. I say (mostly) because there is still plenty that will be familiar to students in all schools - teachers, a curriculum, even classes. However there is also an emphasis on different pedagogies - individualised tuition, teachers appointed specifically for their ability to facilitate learning through teaching relationships, problem-based learning.

This is exciting and heady stuff. But, many questions arise for me from the article. How are the tensions between individualised instruction and curriculum handled? Do students still need to attend classes? Besides access to electronic information, purposeful use of online resources, and an emphasis on problem-based learning, what is really new? Is this approach scalable? Will it suit all learners?

Probably the most provocative matter for me is the terminology used, and some of the underlying assumptions made. The same approach is described as 'tech-centred' and 'student-centred'; which is it? Both, perhaps? What might the use of both terms used side-by-side reveal about the article? I think a far stronger case could be made for describing the approach as learning-centred, with technology enabling different pedagogies which may prove more effective.

I say may prove more effective because of another assumption made in the article: "...learning what it should be: student directed, project based, rigorous, and relevant".

Actually, learning should be appropriate to what it means to flourish in society (Brighouse), subject-centred (Palmer), understanding-oriented (Ramsden) and transformative (Mezirow). Further, the descriptions used in the article need further unpacking. To what extent can a curriculum-based approach be 'student centred'? Does 'student centred' mean learning just what I want to, or just what interests me? What are the dangers of this? And, 'project-based'... is this a sound approach for all forms of learning? What does use of the term conceal? For example, learning Spanish is mentioned in the article. To what extent would a 'project-based' approach work here? Is 'project-based' the most effective and efficient means of learning another language? 'Relevant' is a highly charged one - relevant to whom? Is studying Shakespeare 'relevant'? If not, is it beneficial nevertheless?

Also intriguing is the school's use of Apex Learning courses... I, for one, would love to take a look at how these are constructed, assessed, and facilitated through the school. This is the real point of interest to me as an e-learning specialist, far moreso than the fact that laptops are used and resources are available online. How are such courses facilitated? How might this differ from courses offered through the school itself? Finally, the school is probably more likely to attract students with parents who value the pedagogical approach... the very students who are most likely to succeed from the approach on offer. This is likely to influence the transferability of the approach, and casts some doubts on it as a valid case study.

I do not post here to cast any doubt on what looks to be a very interesting and progressive initiative! Rather, I think we must attempt to be more critical and accurate in our descriptions of how technology is aplied to education, and to be mindful of the overall context in which such initiatives are offered. The Chicago high school in question is attempting something very bold and innovative... the results will be worthy of following. I suspect that it will result in a mild overall improvement, with some excellent results for those students such an approach suits!

5.*: Second Life: "The potential to make an impact"

A YouTube video by Stacy Williams, research professor at Case Western Reserve University, outlines how Second Life is being used for educative purposes. Listen for this quote: "..trends indicate that this type of learning simulation has the potential to make an impact on transforming the future of education".

Nicely put. Just how realistic that potential is, and what its eventual scope might be, are yet to be determined. The video does show some ways in which Second Life has been used by the University (field trips, client assessment), which are reasonably predictable. Whether the potential to make an impact makes a truly meaningful contribution to teaching and learning is a very open question. A New Zealand project is exploring things in detail; I am interested to see whether the results reveal anything further about the potential for education.

I remain skeptical. I suspect that the impact Second Life will make will be to find its place amongst the various pedagogical options already available to educators. Anyone still believe in pure m-learning?

Ah well. At least there's money to be made!

GENERAL Ako Aotearoa regional seminars discussion paper

Back from a two week break, I found a copy of the discussion paper resulting from three Ako Aotearoa regional seminars held in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch. The seminars were well attended, a variety of institutions and professional bodies represented from across the spectrum (Universities, Wananga, polytechnics, PTEs, ITOs, etc). The document is available as a PDF.

The seminars were on "Whole of Organisation Approaches to Improving Teaching and Learning", a subject very dear to me and very timely for higher education in New Zealand to wrestle with. The seminar identifies improvement in teaching and learning as a strategic priority for HE institutions, which is frequently taken for granted in practice. The ideas generated in the seminars will form the basis for future Ako Aotearoa funding.

The initial findings certainly ring true, betraying a phenomenon that tends to undergird education - the knowledge/application gap. Consider these, from the covering letter by Dr Peter Coolbear, Director of Ako Aotearoa:

1. Teaching and learning is not driven strategically in most tertiary organisations.
2. This is of concern to all parties, and there is considerable willingness to address it.
3. These are complex matters and there is very definitely no one size fits all solution.

Straight away the mission, importance, and difficulty of Ako Aotearoa's role becomes clear!

Key observations for me from the report are as follows:

• The importance of identifying teaching as a profession in its own right, even at tertiary level. Boyer's (1990) scholarship of teaching, it seems, remains somewhat elusive in practice.
• The importance of - and associated difficulties of - measuring and rewarding effective teaching. How can you tell if a teacher is 'good' or not? Do you measure student outcomes, so easily manipulated? Do you measure student enjoyment, which may or may not equate to effective learning?
• "The locus of the debate [about organisaiotnal paradigm] needs to change to how can organisations become centred on teaching and learning; what this means; how it might be demonstrated to external stakeholders and how it might impact on the day-to-day operations of the organisation" (4.1.3, p.10)
• The importance of effective professional development, which is strategically aligned.

This last item is of major import to me as my role is somewhat strategically aligned with teaching and learning, and professional development is an area I am currently concerned with. It occurs to me that there are different forms of professional development that might focus on technical skill, general principles, reflective practice or strategic alignment; the term 'professional development' does tend to be a rather amorphous one, with a number of assumptions lying beneath its use.

What does the term professional development immediately imply for you? A two hour workshop on preparing PowerPoint slideshows? A contentious debate about what constitutes effective teaching and learning, with a follow-up reflection?A full-course menu of theory, active learning, and discussion?

For my part, I am considering professional development that is explicit on general principles and reflective practice, is aligned with the specific strategic focus of the institution's teaching and learning objectives, and which is implicit in its treatment of technical skill. This is, well, 'complex' to achieve - and there is definitely no 'one size fits all solution' (point 3 above).

Naturally, this fills me with confidence in Ako Aotearoa's objectives. Already, it seems, there is a good handle on real issues and a commitment to engage with them.

5.*: OERs - a 'global south' perspective

Kanwar, A., Kodhandaraman, B., and Umar, A. (2010). Toward sustainable Open Education Resources: A perspective from the global south. American Journal of Distance Education 24(2), 65-80.

---

There has been much interest in the promise of OERs in education. In this article, the authors (all associated with the Commonwealth of Learning) report on the inconclusive experience to date and the uncertain future for various OER initiatives (such as the MIT Open Courseware initiative and the Open University's OpenLearn courses). There are three core issues:

1. The benefits of OERs are not yet substantiated.
   
2. The flow of OERs goes from developed to developing countries (from North to South).
   
3. OER initiatives to date are reliant on donor support (yes, these things still cost money).
   

The authors report on a "we built it but they did not come" scenario whereby forty-six modules of OER material relating to school teacher education were made available in Zimbabwe. The problem: buy-in by education providers. Assocaited issues were to do with the generic nature of the materials themselves and the difficulties of finding suitable resources among the plethora available. Other implementations have been more successful, however the reasons for success have to do with clear provider partnerships... so, while the resources might have been used in these circumstances (where they might have been 'made to order'), it is uncertain as to whether the resources were re-used (the real benefit of OERs).

The authors report on another project linking international providers together to collaborate on developing an OER set of courseware... the project was not completed. The key lesson: governance and quality standards are required for such initiatives... the classic mix of project management and quality assurance, which costs money.

Design of OERs is expensive and takes time. We should certainly applaud those who participate in it, and who apply themselves to developing the OER economy. However we should also be realistic about the challenges and costs of OER development, and be realistic about the level of uptake. Sustainability is a real issue, and the significance of the change management required before OERs are seriously used in formal education should also be squarely faced. Ultimately it is educators themselves who need to be convinced of the vaue of OERs. Until OER use becomes truly convenient and flexible, and perhaps to some extent comprehensive in coverage, the barriers to use may well outstrip the benefits. It seems that there has been little real theoretical progress in OERs since Littlejohn's (2004) book Reusing online resources.

1.5: The Horizon Report 2009

According to the latest Australia/New Zealand Horizon Report (International report available here), here are the things to watch along with their estimated time of impact:

• Mobile Internet devices - one year or less. I think this is actually a wee bit optimistic; mobile Internet devices (with flexible features) are actually rather expensive to own and run, and I'm not sure that their uptake will become so ubiquitous as to make them a 'one year or less' call.
  
• Private clouds - one year or less.
• Open content - two to three years. Waaaaay too optimistic IMHO. Learning objects and open content have been available for many, many years... acceptance may well be growing, but whether the use of open content will be significant in two or three years remains to be seen. Hats off to those working on it and contributing to it, but I suspect that the level of systematic change and critical mass that might be required to make open content truly viable will take longer than two to three years.
  
• Virtual, augmented and alternate realities - two to three years. Could be a bit soon... experiments are voluminous, outcomes from these are not yet, to my knowledge, convincing enough to establish whether virtual realities provide any substantial advantage over more traditional means of online learning and distance education. I'm afraid the word 'fun' is used too often in the studies I have seen. Another problem is that self-reporting surveys are often used, usually providing very predictable and not-too-useful results; another is that effective learning was limited to a few small outcomes rather than across an entire course. Perhaps the next two or three years may change this picture somewhat...?
  
• Location-based learning - four to five years. Looks promising, but might become a supplement for more traditionally-oriented instruction.
  
• Smart objects and devices - four to five years

The findings are based on a systematic review of literature (based somewhat on popular press releases) and expert opinion based on an Australasian Advisory Board that includes our very own Derek Wenmoth (one New Zealander...!) My interpretation remains as it was last year - some caution required, though it's always very useful to be informed about possibilities. The methodology seems a bit skewed toward the 'latest and greatest', and the cutting edge RSS sources are bound to overstate trends in a speculative way. Results might also be made more optimistic by the nature of the early adopters that the Advisory Board itself seems to represent. Still, this criticism (which may well be overstated and wrong!) does not detract from the balue of these sorts of activities... the next few years will reveal all!

Again I reveal my somewhat cautious approach to the future!

5.3.3: ePortfolios making guides, or directors?

Article: Miller, R., and Morgaine, W. (2009). The benefits of e-portfolios for students and faculty in their own words. Peer Review 11(1), 8-12.

---

Miller and Morgaine (2009) describe how ePortfolios can be applied at all levels of higher education, "From matriculation [that is, enrolment] to graduation" (p.8). Their work collected statements from ePortfolio users, so that the "common benefits of well-run e-portfolio programs" could be explained in the words of users themselves.

The authors' perspective on the potential for ePortfolios is nicely captured in this quote (2009, p.12):

As students enter college, most do not imagine being responsible for their own learning. They believe that, somehow, teachers make them learn or, in some cases, prevent them from learning. Many even see assignments, required courses, and exams as obstacles to get around on the way to their ticket to the future—the degree. While there has been talk for many years about professors moving from “sage on the stage” to “guide on the side,” e-portfolios are developing as a teaching/learning context where this is likely to happen. The practices associated with e-portfolio—e.g., designing “authentic” assignments, using engaging and active pedagogy, periodic self-, peer- and teacher-formative assessments, and requiring students to reflect on their learning—help to move both professors and students into a teacher/learner relationship where “guiding” really works.

ePortfolios, then, have the potential to edge formal education toward a less didactic form of education. The benefits they cite from respondents seem to confirm the role of ePortfolios in:

• encouraging metacognition;
  
• helping students to link their learning experiences to course outcomes;
  
• assisting students to perceive the integrative nature of formal education outcomes;
• providing a flexible platform for learning activities across a student's learning journey;
  
• helping students come to "the very powerfuil realization that going to college is about more than the degree" (p.10).
  

I particularly like this quote: "Reflection is like panning for gold, finding the valuable nuggets from among the gravel of day-to-day campus experiences" (p.10).

The shift to 'guide on the side' is explicitly stated in the quotation taken above however the accounts from faculty themselves imply a more directive role (from 'guide on the side' to
'director setting the vector'...?) Student comments mentioned the value of structured expectations and one specifically credited her professor as making valuable and directive suggestions... on p.11 the article concedes that "Faculty, of course, are responsible for designing and assessing the assignments that may be included in students' e-portfolios". So, perhaps the term 'guide' in this sense needs to be understood in the context of students exploring a landscape whose landmarks are already established.

The article is recommended as a good introductory commentary on the potential for ePortfolios.

More from Beyond Current Horizons

Some additional reports are now available from the Beyond Current Horizons Web site:

• The schooled society and beyond: the modernizing role of formal education as an institution - considers the growth of formal education, and celebrates the success of formal education; theorizes that formal education largely determines society, rather than prepares students for society. Schooling doesn't prepare; it transforms. Rather than being oppressive, schooling is founded on principles of egalitarianism and actualisation; where schooling is genuinely oppressive, it is usually so because of suppressive political influence. Formal education focuses on "academic intelligence", defined as "those cognitive skills needed to do abstract reasoning, problem-solving, higher order thinking, multiple perspective taking, and effortful thinking"; this increasingly replaces the "more traditional academic skills such as recitation, disputation, memorization, formalistic debate, formulae application, accuracy, and authoritative text reading and exegesis". As a result, fluid IQ (thinking) scores are increasing significantly while crystalised IQ (recall) scores are increasing moderately.
  
• Knowledge, creativity and communication in education: multimodal design - with a focus in particular on the evolution of textbooks, in terms of style, content and participation.
  
• Summative report: Identity, communities and citizenship - a wide-reaching and well-grounded consideration of issues; the 'potential for schools' section has much in common with that of Gilbert (2005), who argues for a focus on training for thinking. 

I particularly enjoyed the first of these three contributions, not least because it portrays formal education as being on the right trajectory for the future. Formal education is working, and that, well. Continuous improvement is a part of that success.

5.1.2, 3.4.2: Open Education Resources

I deliberately left Open Education Resources out of the E-Primer series, as there still seems substantial work to be done for them to go beyond being a 'good theory' and something 'inevitable' into something with a track record. OER has a host of dedicated adherents, and it seems they are close to achieving a form of critical mass and proof of concept. OERs have been of interest to me since Stephen Downes' classic paper on learning objects in 2001(Learning objects: Resources for distance education worldwide). It seemed a little like wishful thinking, but it had a definite attraction to it; at the time I was reading about (and practising) instructional design, and the barriers to a learning object economy at the practical level seemed more significant than some were letting on. Next in my journey was David Wiley's excellent differentiation (DOC) between 'Lego' and 'atoms'. Other pre-2003 works are linked to from here.

What put me off including them in the E-Primer series was the book by Littlejohn (2004): Reusing online resources, which, to my knowledge, remains an important read in the area. The book highlights the potential and (considerable) challenges the development, storage and re-use of learning objects face (and, again to my knowledge, continue to face). Issues of granularity, searchability, suitability, licensing and the establishment of a 'learning object 'economy' for reimbursing authors seem to remain as challenges (the issues have not seemed to have changed in the intervening years based on Conole & Oliver's (2007) Contemporary perspectives in e-learning research. My main personal objection beyond those listed is the potential loss of meta-narrative; what story ties the little bits together (related to granularity)? Further, thus far OER repositories have fallen well short of their ideals.

What prompts this post is the work being done by Wikieducator (see their OER Handbook for educators) and the recent (Vol.10, No.5) issue of IRRODL, a special feature on open access. I am yet to read it (my current research lies elsewhere), but it is encouraging to read in the editorial (PDF) these words from David Wiley and John Hilton III:

Overall, this special issue presents an excellent discussion of open education issues ranging from useful descriptions of successful projects to empirical data about user attitudes to thoughtful criticisms of present work. These criticisms are particularly valuable because so much of the extant literature about open education is almost uniformly positive in tone. We hope this special issue will help to begin a more balanced discourse about the benefits and very real challenges of open education.

It is encouraging to see some primary research being performed; the account of open textbook creation, an honest appraisal of sustainability,  and the results of a survey looking at incentives and disincentives for use (showing that the classic benefits and caveats I mentioned above still exist). On the theoretical side is one by the editors (Openness, dynamic specialization, and the disaggregated future of higher education) suggesting that "every institution must begin addressing openness as a core organizational value if it desires to both remain relevant to its learners and to contribute to the positive advancement of the field of higher education"), and another proposing peer-recognition over formal accreditation.

One of the ironies in is the tension between OERs replacing current formal education and OERs promoting and serving formal education; for OERs to be sustainable, it seems they may need to be supported on the scale only made possible within formal settings (see the Friesen article). I still view OER as a work in progress, with significant barriers to overcome; there is much enthusiasm for it. However, I also know that enthusiasm will only get a great idea so far. For OER to truly come to fruition it requires a critical mass and an inevitability in terms of institutional shift. I'm not (yet) convinced that either of these are imminent. Using OERs doesn't take the 'work' out of education design!

5.3.4: SLENZ project evaluation

Over to the SLENZ blog for an overview of the evaluation report (full report available in PDF). It is a little disappointing that the recommendations apply to how to apply future virtual world projects, rather than an analysis of actual effectiveness - though many comments provided in the report give valuable insight.

Well worth a read - and the student and teacher accounts provide plenty of food for thought. In particular, I take this away (from p.47):

In both subprojects, participants commented both on learners’ identification with their avatars, and the fact that working through their avatars in role-play situations enabled them to practice skills with a lesser degree of emotional inhibition. Thus students at MIT reported overcoming pre-interview anxiety by carrying out practice interviews in the build, and Midwifery students felt freer to practice scenarios with a peer in world than they would do under the eyes of their colleagues and tutors in the classroom.

So, there is a promising niche for these tools... I remain convinced that Second Life has a good part to play in education, provided its strengths can be exploited. The SLENZ project has helped to identify - and exemplify - various of those strengths.

New versions available

New versions of the E-Primers are now available through the Ako Aotearoa Web site. The new versions include a numbering system (which will be keyed to future blog entries) and CC licensing.

The series of E-Primers to date includes:

#1 - E-learning in context - An introduction to e-learning and the international experience; definitions of terms; a theory for e-learning; technologies; benefits

#2 - E-education and faculty - Education theory and e-learning; the changing role of faculty; workload issues; quality

#3 - Designing for e-learning - Instructional design; learning objects; constructing a hybrid course

The following two e-Primers are being written under funding from Ako Aotearoa's Northern Hub Fund:

#4 - Online discourse Synchronous and asynchronous communications; designing online discourse; online facilitation.

#5 - E-xtending possibilities Web 2.0; ePortfolios; virtual worlds; lifelong learning.

#4 is progressing well, though I am very self-conscious about how discussion forums seem passe in an age when wikis, blogs and additional forms of Web 2.0 interaction are the rage. Given the widespread use of discussion forums (and their centrality for most forms of distance and online educaiton at the moment) I have foucssed on these in particular in the draft for E-Primer 4 to date. Wikis, blogs, ePortfolios and additional elements will appear in E-Primer 5, as initially planned.