OER...defining, using and (dis)engagement
I want to explore three potential issues with OER from the reading I have done on it, these issues are not necessarily critical barriers to the success of OER, but could be contributory factors to the lack of a revolution that its initial proponents foresaw.
Firstly and possibly most importantly it seems that there is still no clear definition or understanding of what OER actually is comprised of. In terms of individual words the concept is easy enough - 'Open Educational Resources', the content being created needs to be accessible, device agnostic, reusable and transferable. However, when one digs deeper to define what this content would look like it becomes more complex - "No one seems to know what a learning object is in the first place. One of the absurd definitions I heard was, 'as small as a drop, as wide as the ocean.' In other words, if everything is a learning object, then nothing is a learning object" (Merrill, as cited in Welsch, 2002). This makes the point quite well- the basic concept is a good one, and the justification for doing so a noble one. But when one tries to understand this from a practical perspective it is actually quite hard to get to grips with what these objects will be comprised of.
Secondly the point made by David Wiley in 2013, was that we learn by making connections with prior learning and knowledge, therefore context in learning is very important. By the very nature of OER the learning needs to be without context (although this will to a certain degree depend on the scale of the content, as questioned in the previous point about definition). For example a piece of content that can be situated for the learner is likely to have more impact and relevance as well as being better able to be processed. However, if OER content is truly reusable a lot of this context would need to be removed. Within the NHS when I have worked at creating content we always try to localise content to make it as relevant as possible - for example if you complete some learning on a piece of equipment that features equipment not used by your organisation the content is irrelevant. So to provide OER content on this kind of topic would be very problematic. Even to the scale of imagery - if one looks at a photo of someone who does obviously not work in their organisation, does this make the content less relevant?
Thirdly I feel there is a barrier to OER that is put in place by the very people best placed to make use of it. In the Southwest (NHS) we have tried for many years to create a kind of OER content by getting people to share and re-use content, however, this has not taken off. In part I think it is due to those being involved seeing their job role as the creation of learning content, therefore there job relies on creating this content, and the idea of OER therefore could be a risk to their job - if content can be sourced widely and freely less people would need to be employed in this role. I wonder if this is true of OER more widely - the point that Downes (2001) made about OER was that it was ridiculous for content to be created 1000 times, mainly due to the cost implications of this. However for the thousands of people who's jobs rely on creating these 1000 pieces of content they obviously derive gain from perpetuating this state of play. As these people are often the gatekeepers to this content and are involved in decisions around this, it is possibly no wonder that OER has not revolutionised learning as was initially thought it would. I do not accuse all those involved in learning and content creation as being mercenary and unable to work for the greater good, however, I do question whether sometimes decisions are impacted by a caution for preserving ones job.
Firstly and possibly most importantly it seems that there is still no clear definition or understanding of what OER actually is comprised of. In terms of individual words the concept is easy enough - 'Open Educational Resources', the content being created needs to be accessible, device agnostic, reusable and transferable. However, when one digs deeper to define what this content would look like it becomes more complex - "No one seems to know what a learning object is in the first place. One of the absurd definitions I heard was, 'as small as a drop, as wide as the ocean.' In other words, if everything is a learning object, then nothing is a learning object" (Merrill, as cited in Welsch, 2002). This makes the point quite well- the basic concept is a good one, and the justification for doing so a noble one. But when one tries to understand this from a practical perspective it is actually quite hard to get to grips with what these objects will be comprised of.
Secondly the point made by David Wiley in 2013, was that we learn by making connections with prior learning and knowledge, therefore context in learning is very important. By the very nature of OER the learning needs to be without context (although this will to a certain degree depend on the scale of the content, as questioned in the previous point about definition). For example a piece of content that can be situated for the learner is likely to have more impact and relevance as well as being better able to be processed. However, if OER content is truly reusable a lot of this context would need to be removed. Within the NHS when I have worked at creating content we always try to localise content to make it as relevant as possible - for example if you complete some learning on a piece of equipment that features equipment not used by your organisation the content is irrelevant. So to provide OER content on this kind of topic would be very problematic. Even to the scale of imagery - if one looks at a photo of someone who does obviously not work in their organisation, does this make the content less relevant?
Thirdly I feel there is a barrier to OER that is put in place by the very people best placed to make use of it. In the Southwest (NHS) we have tried for many years to create a kind of OER content by getting people to share and re-use content, however, this has not taken off. In part I think it is due to those being involved seeing their job role as the creation of learning content, therefore there job relies on creating this content, and the idea of OER therefore could be a risk to their job - if content can be sourced widely and freely less people would need to be employed in this role. I wonder if this is true of OER more widely - the point that Downes (2001) made about OER was that it was ridiculous for content to be created 1000 times, mainly due to the cost implications of this. However for the thousands of people who's jobs rely on creating these 1000 pieces of content they obviously derive gain from perpetuating this state of play. As these people are often the gatekeepers to this content and are involved in decisions around this, it is possibly no wonder that OER has not revolutionised learning as was initially thought it would. I do not accuse all those involved in learning and content creation as being mercenary and unable to work for the greater good, however, I do question whether sometimes decisions are impacted by a caution for preserving ones job.
Very elocuently presented. I agree the issue of “creativity” is always a complex one and what some believe to be “repetitive” others might think on that as a different version. Are all translations of the same book a repetition or a new creation?
ReplyDeleteA lot of people are very reticent about sharing their work or resources online because they don't fully understand what OER means and they think they'll loose that sense of ownership.
ReplyDelete