Overview of my explorations in mobile learning

Here’s a link to a presentation (~20 minutes) that provides an overview of my explorations in mobile learning over the past few months:
http://barabus.tru.ca/e_enstrom/mobile_learning/

The presentation is addressed primarily to my fellow instructional designers at TRU Open Learning to share with them what I learned as we think about future directions in online learning, but I hope that it’s also of interest to anyone who is curious about recent developments in mobile learning.

Please feel free to post your comments about this presentation and any related questions or issues that you’d like to discuss. If you’re interested in more information, you can consult the resources that I’ve bookmarked for sharing on delicious (tags: ML10; mobilelearning).

May 1, 2010: TRU has just launched its mobile website! Kudos to the IT department for this initiative!

Challenges in Implementing Mobile Learning

The more I learn about aspects of mobile learning, the more apparent are its benefits as well as the challenges of implementing a mobile learning initiative. In my particular work environment, a post-secondary institution with an open and distance learning division, I would anticipate the following significant challenges:

Establishing a business case for implementing mobile learning

With the current cost-cutting environment in post-secondary education, a significant challenge would be to establish a persuasive business case for implementing mobile learning at our institution. Some factors to consider would be:

• How might such an initiative increase enrolments?
• What would be the cost to the institution?

My very recent understanding (from doing some informal research with some of our technical support people on campus) is that our institution is currently working on a project for an initial mobile learning presence, along the lines of iStanford, to provide basic information about the institution, such as current events, campus phone book, campus map, and links to various related social media (e.g., the institution’s Facebook page). The fact that this project is underway indicates to me that the business-case side of this issue has/is being addressed, and a decision made that it makes economic sense to proceed with this first-stage mobile learning initiative. Undoubtedly, there is a marketing component to this initial phase of mobile development in providing a mobile option for current and prospective students to access information about the institution.

Addressing concerns of faculty and tutors

The institution I work for offers two distinct teaching and learning experiences in post-secondary education: a traditional campus face-to-face model plus a separate open and distance learning division. The two cultures are quite distinct, and I will address the challenges for each.

Face-to-face model

In the campus face-to-face model, learning technologies such as using a learning management system (Moodle) and social learning tools (such as blogs) have been adopted by some teaching faculty on an individual basis. While there might be some faculty members who would be interested in using mobile learning technologies in their teaching, my understanding from informal conversation with some of the people who work to support technology on campus is that there would likely be some resistance from faculty to using mobile learning tools in the classroom. Anticipated objections include a reluctance to take on the additional work needed to implement mobile learning tools and activities as well as the “distraction” factor of mobile technologies in the classroom. (For more on the “distraction” factor, see the PBS documentary “Digital Nation”). The challenge would be to make a case with faculty members for the pedagogical value of mobile learning as well as to (perhaps) point to technologies that could enhance learning beyond the classroom rather than within it (e.g., context-dependent activities).

Open and distance learning model

For historical institutional reasons, our open and distance learning division operates quite differently and independently from the campus faculty model. Students who register for an open learning course receive a course package and/or access to online materials in Blackboard; the course tutor provides support to learners. In the past, most of the courses have been developed for independent self-paced study. We’re currently moving toward an online, paced, cohort model of course delivery; in this model, the course tutor is intended to be a more active facilitator of learning in a collaborative online environment. For many existing course tutors, this change will involve a paradigm shift in adapting to both new technologies for learning (i.e., potentially more social media tools) as well as a different role as an active facilitator of learning. The main challenge in our open learning division right now is to make the transition to this paced online model of course delivery, while providing our tutors with training in the pedagogy and technical support in using some of the technologies that can be incorporated in a paced, cohort model (e.g., social/collaborative learning with blogs, wikis; synchronous conferencing tools such as Elluminate, Skype). I believe that once this transition is made and tutors have incorporated the online learning technologies and pedagogies into their repertoire and workload, then learning activities with mobile technologies could be introduced into the mix.

Ensuring technical support for mobile learning

Adequate technical support would be crucial in trying to implement mobile learning technologies at our institution.  On the campus side, faculty and students would need support for developing and maintaining the learning materials as well as the mobile devices that would be used. One of the mandates of the open learning division is to maintain flexibility for its learners; historically, this division has been tasked with providing learning opportunities for individuals who do not have ready access to a traditional post-secondary institution. We would need to find out more about our learners and their capacity for mobile technology before implementing mobile learning activities into these courses.

Currently, our institution is devoting much of its IT resources to implementing an enterprise system. Given the current fiscal restraints and the large enterprise initiative, it’s encouraging to learn that some work is being done on the mobile learning side, with the initial development of a mobile presence. I believe that once this initial phase has been launched, then further innovation with mobile learning proceed, and as the use and availability of smart phones and other handheld devices increasingly penetrates the learner population, this option for learning will evolve over the next few years.  Our open learning division will soon be developing a longer term strategic plan for educational technology, and I anticipate that mobile learning will be an important component of that plan.

Review: Still entranced with my iPod Touch for mobile learning

At this point in time—six weeks into my study of mobile learning— I’m not sure that there’s one particular resource or organization that has changed my understanding of mobile learning, particularly since I’m still in the process of formulating my understanding of and attitude toward this concept. However, I would like to speak to the resources that have most impressed me as influencing the emerging field of mobile learning.

The more I learn about the iPhone/iPod Touch, the more impressed I am with this device and the proliferation of related applications for mobile learning. These have also led to development of similar applications for other smartphones (e.g., Blackberry apps), and the growth in this area seems to be strong.

Some of the iPhone/iPod applications that I’ve been trying out include the following:

Doppler: This application ($.99) allows me to access my RSS feeds subscribed via Google Reader on my iPod Touch. We’ve already discussed whether hand-held devices are suitable for reading extensive amounts of text (and I probably wouldn’t spend hours reading this way), but I’m finding that this application designed specifically for the iPhone/Touch is surprisingly user-friendly for reading and includes options for interacting with the blog post (e.g., sharing, going directly to the web item to add a comment, etc.). This app allows me a mobile option for keeping up with the various elearning blogs I follow.

(Other apps that are user-friendly for reading include The Guardian, Wikipanion, Science Glossary, among others.)

Dragon (Dictation): This app (free for a limited time) allows users to dictate a message which is then converted to text for email or text messaging. Like the parent software, the application learns to recognize the user’s voice. I see this application as providing another option for learners out in the field when responding to a learning activity.

Italian 24/7 Tutor (and other languages: ): These free applications provide some basic language tutoring with text, audio, and interactive exercises. I certainly wouldn’t see this app as replacing a language-learning course, but it could provide further opportunity for learners to practice.

I could go on and on, but the main point I wanted to make is that there are many, many learning applications already developed that could be incorporated into formal learning situations to support mobile options for students.

iStanford: You might have already reviewed this application, since it was mentioned in the article that Richard posted for Week 6-7 of our course, “How the iPhone Could Reboot Education.”  While the iStanford application might not currently fit what I would consider mobile learning (i.e., in the sense of delivering learning content or providing a mobile forum for learning activities), it nonetheless supports the larger context for learning by providing mobile access to the administrative/student service side of learning  (e.g., campus map, course catalogue, add/drop courses, etc.). This development is now part of  Blackboard’s mobile solutions, so I would see this application being developed further and perhaps becoming integrated with the Blackboard learning management system to deliver further learning content.

I’m not sure whether the iPhone will “reboot” education, as the Wired article suggests (and I don’t think that the “TiVoing of education” is the direction I would want education to go), but I certainly see it (along with its many applications) as a powerful tool for informal learning as well as a tool that could be incorporated into formal learning contexts outside the classroom.

What will learners be expected to do?

At this point in time, three weeks into my study of mobile learning, I believe that the most critical issue for the design and development of learning material for mobile learning is clearly identifying the purpose of the learning materials and why they are being designed and developed for mobile learning.

And I can now narrow this broader issue down more specifically. As I was thinking about this issue, I came across a very recent article on this very topic (via Tony Bates’s blog). According to Judy Brown, a mobile learning strategist analyst, the most critical issue to address when considering mobile learning materials is to consider what you expect learners to do with the learning materials: will they be consuming content, creating content, or both? (Brimah, T. and Fusch, D. [2010] Considering mobile learning for your institution Academic Impressions Higher Ed Impact: Weekly Analysis January 28)

This advice from Brown makes sense to me for a couple of reasons:

• The first consideration when designing any learning materials is to consider the purpose and the outcomes: what is learner expected to be able to demonstrate upon completing the course of study (or the specific learning activity).
• Some mobile devices may be fine for delivering content but inappropriate for creating content (depending on the type of content to be created).

In my initial experience with my mobile device (iPod Touch) testing it as a mobile learning device, I’ve discovered that the materials that are output from the device can be very user-friendly (e.g., a podcast from Writers & Company, a YouTube video on how to butterfly a chicken; a Wikipedia application designed specifically for the iPhone). However, input (or, in a learning situation, creating some kind of content) can be a challenge. For example, using the iPod Touch to create extended text such as might be required for a written assignment or a blog posting can be frustrating. A handheld mobile device like the iPod Touch, or iPhone, or other smartphone is fine for creating a short message (text message, tweet, etc.) or email, but trying to write a blog posting or an extended written assignment would be a chore. Therefore, when designing materials for mobile learning, determining whether the learning materials are intended primarily for consumption of content as opposed to creation of content is a critical issue.

As Judy Brown suggests in the same article, rather than trying to transfer current learning methods to a new technology, it is more helpful to try to think about the strengths of the technology and adapt the learning to drawn upon those strengths. For example, learners might more easily create content using a smartphone if the content involves photographs rather than text. Brown provides the example of students in an art class studying topography, and tasked with taking photos of various signs and uploading them for discussion with others in the class.

Brown also mentions some of the key issues that are critical to designing and developing any instructional materials. As an instructional designer, I typically start by analyzing the needs of the project, which primarily involves identifying the purpose and goals of the learning. In the instructional design process, this initial analysis leads to development of the specific learning outcomes to be achieved and the most appropriate ways to assess the learning. Using these starting points is helpful in determining the theoretical/pedagogical approach most appropriate (often, a combination of different approaches to the learning) and, thus, the learning activities that will best help the learner to achieve the learning outcomes.

Another critical issue in designing and developing materials for mobile learning is identifying the prospective learners: Who are the learners? (i.e., what is the learner profile?) What is their access to technology? Their comfort with technology? Connectivity? Can the materials be downloaded and used offline? These issues would need to be addressed at the outset to ensure that the prospective learners had the basic skills and access to the tools to be able to engage in a meaningful way with the mobile learning materials and situation.

Additionally, the type of mobile device expected to be used would certainly be an important issue in developing learning materials. Since there are many types of mobile devices, ranging from smartphones to laptops and netbooks, and now the iPad, the interface to be used to present the content would vary widely. The interface would need to be considered when designing and developing the materials to ensure that they could be delivered effectively on a variety of mobile devices.

So, while identifying the critical issue of considering what the learner is expected to do, I’ve also outlined some other equally important issues that would need to be considered when designing and developing materials for mobile learning. Undoubtedly, my thinking will change as I learn about this process over the next several weeks and read what my fellow learners have to say.

A Mind Map of My Personal Learning Environment (PLE)

MERLOT: A Case for Sustainability

I chose to examine MERLOT primarily because I had heard much about it over the past several years but hadn’t yet found the time to explore it. I wanted to see what a functioning learning object repository looked like and to try to discover why it has succeeded (i.e., it’s still operational) while many others have failed.

First, MERLOT is an acronym for Multimedia Educational Resources for Learning and Online Teaching.

Second, the information in this report draws primarily from the MERLOT website. Another useful resource is a 2006 EDUCAUSE interview with Sorel Reisman, Managing Director of MERLOT and email communication in August 2009 with Sorel Reisman for updated information.

Strategic Goal of Merlot

MERLOT focuses on reusable online resources for higher education. The organization describes itself as a free and open resource / community with the stated strategic goal “to improve the effectiveness of teaching and learning by increasing the quantity and quality of peer reviewed online learning materials that can be easily incorporated into faculty designed courses” (MERLOT: About us).

Background: How Merlot Came into Being

This background section of the report draws primarily from the “History” section of the MERLOT website.

• 1997: California State University Center for Distributed Learning (CSU-CDL) starts MERLOT and provides free access.
• Modelled after an NSF-funded project “Authoring Tools and An Educational Object Economy (EOE)”
• 1998–1999: Informal consortium between CSU-CDL and higher ed institutions/systems in Georgia, Oklahoma, North Carolina, and California State University system to expand MERLOT collection, conduct peer reviews, add assessment instruments
• Since 1999, further partnerships have been developed with other post-secondary institutions, professional associations and corporations, and educational institutions in other countries (e.g., MERLOT Africa Network). Refer to further details of MERLOT partners.

Although MERLOT is called a “repository” it doesn’t host the materials itself; rather, it acts as a registry to provide reviewed catalogued links to the resources: it is a “user-centered, searchable collection of peer reviewed and selected higher education, online learning materials” (http://taste.merlot.org/; Interview with Sorel Reisman, Nov. 2006).

Building and Operating MERLOT

This analysis is organized using some of the factors identified in the 2009 Ithaka report, Sustaining Digital Resources: An On-the-Ground View of Projects Today for building and operating a digital resource (page 12).

Note:  I don’t have information about the technological infrastructure of MERLOT, so that has not been included. A new version of the MERLOT website was rolled out in 2006 (Interview with Sorel Reisman, Nov. 2006). The website includes information about system enhancements. Information about revenue generation is discussed later in the report in the section “Prognosis: Sustainability.”

Project management and administration

The California State University Center for Distributed Learning (CSU-CDL ) established and maintained the leadership and responsibility for the operation and improvement of processes and tools in the early years of MERLOT’s development (from the “History” section of the MERLOT website). At least five years ago, the administration of MERLOT  became separate from the CSU-CDL. While the activities and projects for both MERLOT and the CSU-CDL report up to one senior CSU director, for the most part, the management, planning, and activities of each are separate (email from Sorel Reisman, August 18, 2009). Since the  management and administration of the project was established and maintained by the CSU-CDL  in the early stages of growth as MERLOT developed relationships with other institutional and community partners, this approach probably helped the organization maintain the integrity of its administration and project management in the early years when it was establishing the larger consortium.

Content development

MERLOT relies primarily on its members to contribute content. An editorial board consisting of faculty from the discipline leads each community is tasked with the responsibility of building the collection in the discipline, reaching out to educators and the community, and managing the MERLOT peer review process of resources for the particular discipline.

MERLOT’s peer review process follows the model for peer review of scholarship. It includes a set of established evaluation criteria and a rating system to ensure quality assurance. A “triage” process is used to establish priorities for peer review.

MERLOT includes 14 different types of educational resources: simulations, animations, tutorials, drill and practice, quizzes and tests, lectures/presentations, case studies, etc., organized by discipline. Members can also compile materials into personal collections for reuse and can post comments on materials within the repository.

The MERLOT website makes it quite easy to contribute materials to the repository. The initial contribution screen with preliminary information (title and URL of resource) is on the main page, and the following screens ask for further information, including a brief description, type of material, primary audience, keywords, language, author information, and other optional information including technical requirements, LMS, cost, availability of source code, copyright status, and Creative Commons status. These final options for metadata include “unsure” in addition to “yes” and “no.”

(Note: I joined MERLOT so that I could walk through the steps of contributing a resource. While the User Agreement was somewhat daunting to read—and I’ll have to read it again more carefully—the process of contributing a resource was fairly painless.)

Intellectual property and Creative Commons

MERLOT publishes some of its own material under Creative Commons licensing and it encourages members to publish their own materials under CC licensing. Since most of the resources in the MERLOT repository are links to external items, CC licensing will vary by the individual or institution that holds copyright to the resource. Their policy distinguishes between MERLOT Partners, whose relationship is defined by specific Letters of Understanding, etc.,  and its community members (i.e., those who contribute to the repository) and users. See further details of MERLOT’s practice toward Creative Commons, which includes a link to a presentation by Sorel Reisman explaining MERLOT practice.

Prognosis: Sustainability

For my analysis of the state of MERLOT and prognosis for future sustainability, I’ve used the key factors for sustainability outlined Section 4 of the 2009 Ithaka report, Sustaining Digital Resources: An On-the-Ground View of Projects Today. This part of the report is organized by the key factors for sustainability.

The Ithaka report defines sustainability as “the ability to generate or gain access to the resources – financial or otherwise – needed to protect and increase the value of the content or service for those who use it” (p. 11).

Dedicated and entrepreneurial leadership

From a review of the MERLOT website, including the organization’s history and the work that has gone into building MERLOT, one can deduce that a dedicated and entrepreneurial leadership has been at work. While directors are assigned part-time to the position, it is clear that the founding organization and the various partners have maintained their commitment to building MERLOT over the past ten years. Also, maintaining the administration of the project with California State University Center for Distributed Learning would ensure continuity of the operation.

MERLOT continues to expand opportunities and partnerships. For example, according to the spring issue of its newsletter, Grapevine, it has established some new partnership portals  as well as a new YouTube channel, which includes instructional videos about using MERLOT. A recent press release indicates that MERLOT has partnered with RIM to provide MERLOT Mobile Search Access (free feature). The organization clearly continues to build upon the past with the use of new technologies.

In addition, over the past few years MERLOT has extended its concept and services from being a learning object repository to providing faculty support for the use of technology in education for its partner members. While maintaining a focus on faculty users, it is also directing efforts toward addressing the needs of higher-ed institutions as they integrate more technology into teaching and learning (Interview with Sorel Reisman, Nov. 2006).

A clear value proposition

As of August 15, 2009, MERLOT has over 21,000 materials and more than 72,000 members.

The MERLOT website foregrounds its emphasis on “discipline communities,” going beyond offering  simply a repository of learning objects to establish discipline portals to information that includes teaching tips and collaboration with other members in a discipline as well as links to discipline-specific information beyond MERLOT (e.g., journals, conferences) and featured showcase items in addition to the learning resources. For example, the history page showcases the 2008 MERLOT Classics Award-winning resource for history: “Great Unsolved Mysteries in Canadian History” produced by University of Victoria.

The peer reviews include significant information about the resource, allowing potential users to get an immediate sense of the resource without investing a significant amount of time reviewing the resource in detail. Here’s an example of a peer review of “Great Unsolved Mysteries in Canadian History”. User comments are also included as is information about whether the resource has been included in the personal collections of members. It gives users an idea of the level of reuse.

MERLOT also includes resources to help users make use of the resources in the repository. For example, the history area of the website includes a link to a presentation outlining how to use MERLOT resources to create new courses and remake old ones that includes a brief week-by-week outline and screen shots of the related resources used for topics in a course on the Civil War.

In addition, MERLOT holds annual international conferences, publishes JOLT, an online journal of learning and teaching, and includes a directory of experts in a Virtual Speakers Bureau. Again, its focus on “discipline communities” rather than simply a repository of learning objects provides added value for its users and members by extending its reach to other activities related to teaching and learning.

Minimizing direct costs and developing diverse revenue sources

MERLOT is funded primarily by the California State University System; they are the only “sustaining partner” identified on the organization’s website.  Note: Ontario’s Co-operative Learning Object Exchange (CLOE) was a sustaining partner in 2006 (Interview with Sorel Reisman, Nov. 2006). Since CLOE is no longer in operation, I assume that that particular source of funding would have ceased.

In addition to the sustaining funding from the California State University System, MERLOT has developed its consortium partnerships as follows:

(This information is drawn from the from the “History” section of the MERLOT website.)

• Developed the repository with partner support (dollars and in-kind contributions)
• Contributions from institutional/system partners:
  • 1999: Each of four partners contributes $20,000 in cash to develop the MERLOT software and over $30,000 in in-kind support
  • January 2000: each partner sponsors 12 faculty (48 in total) to develop evaluation standards and peer review processes for online teaching and learning materials
  • July 2000: each of an additional 23 partners  contributes $25,000 and in-kind support from each institution for eight faculty and a part-time project director to coordinate activities
  • Additional campus system partners and individual university partners continue to pay to participate in MERLOT
  • Corporate partners either provide funds or make in-kind contributions:
    • O’Reilly funds IT fellowships.
    • Adobe provides software as in-kind contribution.
    • Partnerships with learning management systems such as Blackboard, Desire2Learn, who have integrated MERLOT search functionality with their LMSs (Interview with Sorel Reisman, Nov. 2006).
    • The website provides an overview of various types of MERLOT partnerships.

MERLOT has managed to minimize its direct costs by maintaining fewer than twelve full-time staff, leveraging their initiative with a further 350 faculty in the US and Canada working on MERLOT through release time (figures are as at November 2006; Interview with Sorel Reisman).

MERLOT recognizes the increasing need to ensure sustainability and continues to seek further institutional, community, and corporate partners: “To that end, MERLOT is advancing the current collaborative framework, exploring a variety of business models, and developing its sustainability plan so MERLOT can serve the current and future academic technology needs of faculty, students, staff, and institutions” (http://taste.merlot.org/howmerlotstarted.html).

Given the current economic climate in the US and the particular fiscal challenges that the State of California faces, it’s conceivable that there might be some financial pressure on an organization like MERLOT.

Clear accountability and metrics for success

Since I do not have access to internal MERLOT reports or data, I’ve restricted this portion of the analysis to information from the organization’s website.

MERLOT demonstrates accountability in closely tracking its growth and use. The homepage includes continually updated statistics about numbers of members (72,660 members as of August 15, 2009 [up from about 38,000 in 2006]) and materials (21,005 materials [up from about 15,000 in 2006]). (The 2006 numbers are from the EDUCAUSE interview with Sorel Reisman, Nov. 2006.) In addition, the newsletter includes a section on numbers including reports on the MERLOT collection (learning materials, peer reviews, member comments, personal collections, assignments); reliability of links to MERLOT materials (98%), average number of monthly visits (150,979 in the spring of 2009), and a list of the top ten countries using MERLOT (http://grapevine.merlot.org/#numbers01).

Conclusion

Using the Ithaka report criteria for sustainability, the evidence indicates that MERLOT is well positioned for continued sustainability. The organization continues to develop new partnerships and extend its reach in the global educational community, maintains the integrity of its collection through its editorial boards, and continues to monitor and extend its value to its users through discipline communities and embracing new technologies. As Sorel Reisman describes MERLOT , the organization has become more “service-oriented” than in the past (Interview with Sorel Reisman, Nov. 2006).

I believe that MERLOT is a good case study in sustainability for any new initiatives of this kind.

References

An Interview with Sorel Reisman, 2006 EDUCAUSE Conference, Dallas, TX.  Nov. 3, 2006. Interviewer: Matt Pasiewicz.  Podcast available at http://www.educause.edu/blog/mpasiewicz/AnInterviewwithSorelReisman/166386.

Email communication with Sorel Reisman. August 17 & 18, 2009.

MERLOT www.merlot.org

JISC Strategic Content Alliance. Sustaining Digital Resources: An On-the-Ground View of Projects Today. Ithaka Studies in Sustainability. Prepared by Nancy L. Maron, K. Kirby Smith and Matthew Loy. Version 1.1, July 2009. Available at http://www.ithaka.org/ithaka-s-r/strategy/ithaka-case-studies-in-sustainability/report/SCA_Ithaka_SustainingDigitalResources_Report.pdf

The reusability paradox

The dates of the readings for this week’s blog activity are telling: Wayne Hodgins’s The Future of Learning Objects (2001) and David Wiley’s The Reusability Paradox (2004).

Hodgins’s 2001 summary chapter for The Instructional Use of Learning Objects provides a utopian futuristic view of educational learning objects as they were envisioned around 2000, before the reality of the problems associated with reuse became apparent. Wiley’s briefer 2004 article “The Reusability Paradox” succinctly highlights one of the significant issues around potential reuse: the importance of context for effective learning.

The three most important points I found in the Hodgins’s reading were the following, and they are instructive in moving forward with open educational resource initiatives:

• “Planning Backwards from the Future”: envisioning what the future should look like (what do we want from learning objects/oers?) and then plan toward that; “imagine what the step immediately before arriving at the future would be,” and then the step before that, and so on. If creators of learning objects had taken this approach, then perhaps what Wiley terms the “reusability paradox” would have become apparent at the time
• “Make It Relevant, Make It Easy”: End users will need to see the value of learning objects and be able to use them easily. Evidence in failed learning object initiatives make clear that more focus needs to be on the user.
• “Connecting Everything to Everything”: Hodgins mentions the importance of being able to make connections between/among learning objects and between people (he provides examples of peer-to-peer sharing). He anticipates the social web and opportunities for  remix and mashup.

Wiley’s “The Reusability Paradox”  points out the inherent paradox between the creation of reusable (i.e., granular, stand-alone) learning objects and the pedagogical importance of context in effective learning in these three succinct points:

• “The more context a learning object has, the more (and the more easily) a learner can learn from it.”
• “To make learning objects maximally reusable, learning objects should contain as little context as possible.”
• “Therefore, pedagogical effectiveness and potential for reuse are completely at odds with one another.”

While it’s a simple enough matter to change the language in a learning object from referring to what was learned “in the previous module” to something like “recall from your prior learning,” there’s still the issue of ensuring that the learning objects are sequenced to include the context and learning needed for the specific learning situation. This part of the process was, perhaps, underestimated in the utopian vision of learning objects as Lego blocks (or even “atoms”); as we know, analogies can readily lead us astray.

But lots of lessons learned, and let’s hope that those involved in oer initiatives keep these ones in mind.

Lessons from LOs: Where’s the value for users?

Listening to the recording of Peter’s Elluminate presentation on the CLOE project highlights the issues of sustainability that are set out in the July 2009 Ithaka report “Sustaining Digital Resources: An On-the-Ground View of Projects Today.” It also recalls my experience with the “learning object” phase and appears to offer a textbook example of why learning objects failed.

In the Elluminate session, Tracy raised the question that was primary in my mind when she asked if a needs analysis had been performed before the project started. Peter’s response echoed that provide by D’Arcy Norman in discussing the CAREO project: both were basically top-down driven with no need/demand identified from prospective users (CLOE modelled after MERLOT; CAREO: “build it and they will come”). (And Peter wonders the same about OERs—where’s the demand?–echoing my question from a few weeks back.)

Creating and using either learning objects or OERs is a highly complex undertaking, often underestimated from all aspects of the producer side (cost, expertise, sustainability, etc.) and the user side (most potential users have not likely heard of either learning objects or open educational resources, nor would they be likely to invest the time needed to try to find a suitable object that they could reuse without being shown the value for their work).  As Peter has pointed out, context, context, context: most users will want to tweak whatever object they find to make it fit their own purpose.

It seems that the successful OER projects identified in the Ithaka report (July 2009) either already possessed or created resources that would be of value to users (e.g., V&A Images; Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, etc.), and a key aspect of their sustainability was to focus on users to build upon the initial repository that they created with grant funding and other mechanisms such as subscription, contribution in kind, etc..

Many issues to explore further; my apologies if this posting is a bit reductive. Blame the medium!

The copyright question: to CC or not to CC?

Question: “Is the preponderance of different types of licenses making it easier to reuse resources, or is it adding another layer of complexity which in effect works to place a barrier on using oer? In other words, are all these divergent licenses actually restricting the ways in which resources can be reused? Would it be simpler if we just had copyrighted work, which had to be cleared and public domain work which was free to use.”

I’ve become used to the world of copyright and public domain in my work as an instructional designer developing course curriculum for post-secondary distance education. The “copyright” issue has become part of my modus operandi, and in my organization we have an intellectual property officer who looks after clearing third-party items for inclusion in our course materials (print and online). In the past, we’ve developed primarily original content for our course materials, with third-party items mainly limited to quotations, selected readings, and images and/or media not developed in-house. Also, our organization publishes its materials under copyright. This is the framework I’ve become accustomed to.

Creative Commons licensing would complicate my working world, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Right now, Creative Commons licensing, while opening up an array of potential resources for reuse, does complicate the creation and distribution of the kind of curriculum that I develop, for a few reasons:

• Given that we publish our materials under copyright, the “share alike” (by-sa) provision would preclude my using resources with a by-sa designation for our courses. (If the institution moved toward publishing its own materials under CC by-sa licensing, then I believe that would open up those open resources for our reuse.)
• The CC “non-commercial” (by-nc) license appears to allow reuse for our educational institution, although we do at times license our own materials to other institutions, so I’m not sure whether that would still be consider “non-commercial” or not. As both David Wiley and Stephen Downes have pointed out, there is no definition of “non-commercial”; therefore, this type of license is open to interpretation and possibly dispute.
• The CC “no derivatives” (by-nd) license could also be problematic for the curriculum development work I do, and harkens back to the issues related to reuse of learning objects. Tweaking and modifying is often needed to contextualize objects or resources to the specific learning situation. Thus, Depending on the granularity of the resource (i.e., the more granular the resource, the less the need for adapting), resources licensed under “by-nd” provisions might not be useful.  A flickr photo licensed under by-nd could more likely be reused, while an open course (or even an open course unit or module) might not.

I believe that leaves the least restrictive license, “attribution” (by) for potential resources that could be used in our course curriculum.

So, speaking from my individual situation, it might be simpler from an administrative perspective to keep with the current system of copyright and public domain categories.

From a larger perspective, as Marco Fioretti has pointed out in “The tragedy of the commons,” the issue of copyright and CC licensing is primarily a western issue that doesn’t affect practice in many less-developed countries. Another common criticism, according to Fioretti, is that “CC doesn’t fight copyright; it just puts a nice, much friendlier face on it. CC leaves unchallenged the concept that property rights on creative works are a good thing, and unfairly favours the creators of culture over the consumers, as only authors decide what others can do with their work.”

I believe that it basically comes to down to whether you support an “open” commons of educational resources or whether, to use Stephen Downes’ description, you support an “enclosed” system.

Defining “open educational resource”

Defining “open educational resource” appears to be a tricky task. After reading the various “resources” for this week’s topic, I realize that I’ve been thinking about OERs in much too narrow a way. Here’s a shot at defining the various constituents of the term based on what I’ve read so far:

“Open” = free and unfettered access to use, reuse, adapt, and share

“Educational” = aimed at teaching and learning in formal or informal settings by individuals or groups with the goal of constructing knowledge and motivating to action for the public good

“Resource” = a digital artefact, tool, or system that can be used as a source for learning

Breaking up the constituent parts of the term “open educational resource” is useful as a way of examining and analyzing each component. For me, each carries equal weight within the term “open educational resource,” but the three words taken together imply more than the sum of their parts.