Anto’stuff

Hard assignments for these weeks..

Lot of pages to read, lot of concepts, approaches, issues to consider and, of course, so little time…

So, I decided to start from a point that I feel as very important: the definition of OER.

Yes, I strongly need to get a precise idea of what OER definitely are. Is OER a new term for “learning object” or is it referred to pieces of content, although not technically structured as LOs? Is it related to only content? It seems to me that the word resource is wide enough to replicate the “elephant syndrome” that afflicts learning objects!

We risk, one more time, of speaking about something not (yet) well defined….

Then I tried to start from definitions and considerations offered by our readings.

For OECD, OER are:

“..digitised materials offered freely and openly for educators, students and self-learners to use and reuse for teaching, learning and research”. OER includes learning content, software tools to develop, use and distribute content, and implementation resources such as open licences. This report suggests that “open educational resources” refers to accumulated digital assets that can be adjusted and which provide benefits without restricting the possibilities for others to
enjoy them..”

For Atkins et al:

OER are teaching, learning, and research resources that reside in the
public domain or have been released under an intellectual property
license that permits their free use or re-purposing by others. Open
educational resources include full courses, course materials, modules,
textbooks, streaming videos, tests, software, and any other tools,
materials, or techniques used to support access to knowledge.

The OLCOS position is more problematic, they say:

OLCOS has gathered expert opinions and suggestions on open digital educational content […] but does not attempt to provide its own fully-fledged definition of Open Educational Resources.

At a glance, I sympathize with OLCOS: recognizing that defining OER is a difficult task is a very good starting point, but in fact this is a dead end!

It seems to me that OECD point of view is quite traditional, they are speaking about “accumulation of digital assets”: is the “silo model” of knowledge that strikes back?

The Hewlett report, by Atkins et al. offers a more articulated definition where the words “public domain” and “intellectual property” show up and make immediately think to the legal issues. I appreciate the attempt to include in OER a wider range of resources, with an important distinction between “full courses” and “course material”. I argue this is a key point: for instance, we can consider this course as an open resource that …includes the instructor (thank you David while MIT-OCW courses are limited to materials. Of course there are many differences between these two examples, for example in terms of reusability…

We can conclude that perhaps only combining these definition we can obtain, if not a precise definition, an idea of the areas to be considered to understand the OER movement. To me, it is particularly important not considering OER uniquely as materials. An OER can be an experience, too.

But I cannot escape from the other questions!

However, I found the comparative reading of the three documents absolutely not easy, so I hereafter write some ..frewheeling impressions:

• The OECD document is, as usual for this organization, partially committed to statistical comparison between countries, related to OER (no surprise for the absence of Italy from the main group of respondents…).
• The OLCOS paper covers a wider range topics: it can be read as a compendium of the state of the art in educational technology. From e-learning standards to Web 2.0, from metadata to Creative Commons, they offer a 360° view on OER and not only…
• OLCOS and OECD documents share some “drivers vs. inhibitors” overviews on the main factors involved in OER development. OLCOS offers also useful synthesis tables of them.
• Reccomendations from OLCOS report are interesting, even if few are too generic (”foster the development of OER”…). I appreciated the reccomendations for students: I think it is important that they assume a more active role, also for OER development and use. After all, students are the “final customers”, aren’t they?
• Atkins et al. emphasize the various experiences activated worldwide (again, no trace of Italy..).
• One special topic from Atkins et al. is the proposal of the OPLI iniative and the vision of an ecosystem able to foster the OER diffusion. It’s not very clear but a fascinating view…
• Atkins et al. is originated from the Hewlett Foundation, that is a big player in the OER field, while the other two papers are produced by important international organizations: a “special attention” for OCW and other Hewlett projects is, of course, intelligible. Neverthless, we must admit that OCW is at present a milestone, a reference point for OER in HE!

David is also asking us which is our “preferred” report, the most clear. I have to confess that I had no preference and that to a certain extent I think that the reports are not directly comparable. I can only remark the “encyclopedical approach” found in the OLCOS report.

The overall sensation is somehow confusing and I find difficult also the last question: basically I’m more involved in technical issues (for example I appreciate the criticism about using PDF in early OCW, from Atkins et al.) but I feel that, perhaps, OER have to be considered in a more holistic way. Technical, economical, legal, ethical, pedagogical, political issues are too much connected with one another: this is a big difficulty in this field.

Suffice it to think to this phrase, from the OLCOS report:

“It is important to note that current educational practices are decisive in determining whether – and how – digital educational content, tools and services will be deployed and utilised. If the prevailing practice of teacher-centred knowledge transfer remains intact, then OER will have little effect on making a difference in teaching and learning.

I think that if we reverse the reasoning, we can also think to OER as a powerful driver for innovation in education!

When I read the first week assignment from our course’s wiki I thought there was a very obvious question: I have ever been sure that the right to education is a fundamental basic human right!

Of course my belief is affected by my local culture: here in Italy we have a strong public schooling system and the mandatory primary instruction is absolutely consolidated, although, unfortunately, not entirely free..

However, if possible, the readings have enforced my opinion: I could not believe that in an advanced nation like the USA the right to education is NOT constitutionally guaranteed!

I think, in brief, that there is no real freedom without education. This statement is not (only) related to local political conditions like Brazil (no vote right for illitterate…). In “Removing obstacles…” (pag. 8 ), Tomasevski stresses the reasons for education, including access to good jobs and higher level of salaries. But I want to add one more reason: people need education to be free. Free to understand, free to choose, free to change, free to decide of their life.

So, I think that a state should make great efforts to make their citizens free, guaranteeing to them the higher education level.

Now, if the first question was “if people need to be educated”, the second one is related to how to educate people. If the first question was very easy to answer, this one is tremendously difficult! It involves a number of issues, to which we are likely to give answers too much conditioned by our cultural background. Examples from Tomasevski are very illuminating: is it “traditional school” the right way to educate everyone, everywhere?

We must also be aware of terms: education and instruction are not synonymous…

But what education is needed? Schooling or alternate ways? Mandatory or not? I would add: publicly-funded or not?

My personal opinion is that, at least for primary level, “traditional” schools are yet an invaluable occasion of experiences and knowledge sharing for children. We can dispute about organization, using or not using technologies, and so on, but classes are so important for the growing of our young citizens! I am also a strong supporter of the publicly-funded schooling system.

It strikes me that Greg talks about the right to refuse education. It is an interesting point of view: a sign of civilty about the balance between public and private rights. However, I am not able to completely agree: are we sure that Lesotho herders should continue to be herders? What if they had the opportunity to be more educated? I guess that the cause-effect chain is not always so clear…

I see another issue in the background: is education to be considered a new way of colonization? This is a serious problem. We can start from the problem of language, that I consider very important. Stian raised this question, too. For instance, the level of knowledge of English, in Italy, is becoming nowadays a strong discriminant for access to better jobs and opportunities: this course is an example….
This is a problem enhanced by the Internet: most of the valuable educational resources available on the Web are in English. On the other hand, as stated by Stian, it is crucial to preserve contextualization of educational content and practices.

Of course, there are many other obstacles and issues. Economics is perhaps the main one: the education system is expensive, both for governments and families. Poverty is a big obstacle, but illiteracy generate new poverty.. so we have to find a way to break this vicious circle. Anyway, I think that public funds should be allocated rather to schools than to military!

It’s worth noting that economics may play a role also in the opposite sense. For example, in some of the richest regions in Italy (the so-called “north-east disctrict”) there are so many occasion of work (even if often unqualified) that the teenagers (and their families) are not encouraged to finish high school: they do not consider higher education relevant.

But the Tomasevski’s papers are an endless source of situations to which we rarely think: removing of racial and gender discrimination, avoiding old and new colonialist approaches, respect of the contextualized nature of education, risks of education as a way for indoctrination.

There are further issues regarding adults and lifelong learning. It is a topic just mentioned by Tomasevski but it will be more and more important in the future.

A final annotation: maybe if the World Bank and the IMF were more committed (Removing obstacles…, pag. 9) to the right of education, many things can change…