Personal Blogs

I joined Twitter because my University wanted faculty to start using it to connect with learners.  I hated it.  But because I could see the potential benefits I signed up for a half day course.  By the end of this I was part of a group, all talking about health care service improvement.  Through this group I discovered the School for Health and Care Radicals and through their Tweetchats and webcasts my community grew.  Jim began following me, so I returned the favour.  Every week he sends me - and a bunch of other like-minded people - a tweet.  When I was hitting a brick wall with one of my MAODE assignments, I sent out a "help me" tweet - and Jim replied.  We Skyped.  He set me on the right track and not only that, gave me the courage to transform my idea into reality.  

In the process I had to wrestle with wikis.  I remembered seeing Staurt, medical student, present his work on wikis in undergraduate medical training, so I joined the wiki group and sent him an email.  Discussions on the H817 and H800 tutor group forums led to the germination of a research idea and after a few tweets to share resources Stuart and I are putting together a research proposal.

I've never met these people but they have helped me so much in my learning.  So, when Jim tweeted a link to his TED talk on virtual communities of practice and his personal learning network, what else could I do but share it with you?

I used to consider MOOCs (massive open online courses) as a means of studying for free on the internet that is available to everyone.  Many are precisely that.  But as Dave Cormier says “using the internet makes things different”.  It opens content that might otherwise be contained by the barriers of time, money, geography and previous achievement.  But if you think that is the extent of a MOOC, you are missing something much more exciting.  Because when you access something online, consider how many people are doing exactly the same.  Then think how many did this an hour, day or week ago and how many will do this in the future.  This creates the massive in a MOOC.

This feature of the internet has enabled us to construct social networks and many MOOCs exploit this to the full.  In doing so they bring a diverse range of people together in ways that simply aren’t possible in the real world.  Mass participation can allow to see issues from multiple perspectives, generating multiple ways of doing things, laying multiple paths to success.  Through MOOCs we can take and make “bits and pieces” of learning that are meaningful to us personally, whilst remain part of something much, much larger.

But this connectivity can create burdens as well as benefit, the most obvious being the sheer volume of information.  How can one sift through this amount of data and not be overwhelmed?  In these situations, it’s often those with the “loudest” voices who get heard.  Passion does not equate to knowledge; fame does not always come from expertise.  And where there’s an enormous amount of information, certain things grab our attention more than others.  Colour and pictures can increase engagement more than quality of content. 

...........See what I did there?

We are talking about the power of influence (Moore and Kelly, 2009)– the capacity to have an effect on the character, development or behaviour of someone or something (Cambridge English Dictionary).  It is not about being authentic or conforming to accepted rules - that’s legitimacy - and it’s not about controlling through authority.  It’s far more subtle but just as damaging.  Misplaced influence risks marginalising quieter, less confident participants, resulting in a myopic (rather than diverse) discussion (Muijs et al, 2010) and perhaps even the “unacceptable behaviour” (such as overly-intellectual debating) described by Mak et al (2010).

My conversion to MOOCs comes from my passion for learning through social networking, a passion that does not make me an expert in connectivism.  Like many other people that have already met online (or yet connect with), MOOCs remind me that I am learning to learn (Liyanagunawardena et al, 2013).  Perhaps the magpie in all of us is attracted to “shiny” learning objects, but we have to be mindful of these influences and not let this spoil the wonderful opportunities of MOOCs.

References:

Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Adams, A. A. and Williams, S. A. (2013) ‘MOOCs : a systematic study of the published literature’, The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(3), pp. 1–13.

Mak, S., Williams, R., & Mackness, J. (2010). Blogs and forums as communication and learning tools in a MOOC. In Networked Learning Conference, University of Lancaster, Lancaster, 275-285.

Moore TA, Kelly MP. (2009) ‘Networks as power bases for school improvement’, School Leadership & Management, vol 29, no 4, pp 391-404.

Muijs D, West M, Ainscow M. (2010) ‘Why network? Theoretical perspectives on networking’,  School Effectiveness and School Improvement vol 21, no 1, pp5-26.

Defining Learning Objects

There is a lack of clear agreement on what the term "learning object" means (Friesen, 2003; Lamb, 2009).  Here I present 3 definitions that I have found.

1. A collection of content items, practice items and assessment items that are based on a single learning objective (Wikipedia - link to original reference not working, quote attributed to Wayne Hodgins, 1994).
2. A modular resource, usually digital and web-based that can be used and reused to support learning (Docebo)
3. Any entity, digital or non-digital, which can be used, reused and referenced during technology-supported learning (IEEE, 2001).
4. Polsani (2003) describes a few more.

This creates a dilemma.  If you don't agree what it is you are sharing, how can you agree to share it effectively?  Nevertheless, learning objects have been (and are still being) collected, categorised and shared - despite lacking this clarity of understanding.  According to Friesen (2003) the term "object" in this context is a technical term, originating from object-orientated programming.  I agree with his argument that this is confusing and meaningless for those of us who aren't programmers.  A seemingly simple name belies the complexity of the concept (Rehak and Mason, 2003).

The Rationale for Learning Objects

Online learning resources are expensive in terms of time and money (Downes, 2001; Lamb, 2009) so it makes sense to share them. But often these digital materials weren't written in the same code (Lamb, 2009).  The result was an expensive item that couldn't be shared, adapted or improved.  A very expensive wheel kept being reinvented.  One solution was to create repositories, where learning objects are categorised using metatags and catalogued according to rules that allowed access and sharing (Lamb, 2009).

Reuse of Learning Objects

If the learning object is to be reused (as in definitions 2 and 3 above) we have to consider certain attributes.

Granularity. 

This refers to the size of the learning object.  Not its file size, but how discrete it is and how it relates, in its own right, to the learning objective (see definition 1).  Duncan (2003) argues that the finer the granularity (that is, the smaller and more discrete it is) the more easily the learning object can be reused.  In creating an open educational resource the designer might include finely granular objects so that they can be reused.  However, there is a risk that this compromises the coherence of the whole. 

Who decides on the granularity of the learning object?  Is it the person who designs and/or delivers the educational activity or the learner who uses it?  Who owns the learning?

Context

When held in a repository, learning objects are isolated from the context in which they were designed to operate.  This means they can loose meaning.  Labels may go some way to indicating their previous use(s) but this requires some imagination on the part of the new user.  Wiley (2015) describes a "reusability paradox" whereby resources used outside of the original context compromises its educational effectiveness.  The more context, the greater the learning but the lesser the capacity for reuse.

Aggregation and Disaggregation

Repurposing learning material to adapt to new context may reclaim its authenticity and educational effectiveness (Wiley, 2015).  The ability of the learning object to be taken away, reused and repurposed in different contexts is known as aggregation/disaggregation (Rehak and Mason, 2003).  The finer the granularity, the greater the ability to aggregate and disaggregate learning objects.

The Problem with Repositories

According to Lamb (2009) the processes involved in repositing learning objects was lengthy and complex for the technologists, never mind the teachers.  Lamb (2009) argues that new technologies were easier (not to mention free) to use.  Web 2.0 technologies , such as wikis and blogs, became the new agents for the storage and sharing of learning objects.  For instance, he cites blogs as a means of asking questions and sharing good practice (Note, this is an example of connectivism in my opinion). 

Repositories tended to mimic real-world sharing and failed to account for differences in the virtual world.  Google, for example, changed the way websites are categorised, which in turn affected learning object repositories (Lamb, 2009).  Downes (2001) was proved wrong when he assumed it would be "reasonable to expect that many of the elements of resource sharing the old way will be replicated in an online environment" (no page). 

Conclusion

There's no doubt that learning objects exist, but what exactly they are is up for discussion.  Nevertheless, the sharing of educational material makes economic and educational sense.  It's how we do it that deserves attention.

References

Downes, S. (2001) ‘Learning objects: resources for distance education worldwide’, IRRODL, vol. 2, no. 1 [online], http://www.irrodl.org/ index.php/ irrodl/ article/ view/ 32/ 378 (accessed 28 October 2016).

Duncan, C. (2003). "Granularization." Reusing Online Resources: A Sustainable Approach to eLearning. A. Littlejohn (ed.) London: Kogan Page.

Friesen, N. (2003) ‘Three objections to learning objects and e-learning standards’ in McGreal, R. (ed.) (2004) Online Education Using Learning Objects, London, Routledge, pp. 59–70. Draft available online at http://www.learningspaces.org/ papers/ objections.html (accessed 28 March 2016).

IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee (LTSC) (2001) Draft Standard for Learning Object Metadata Version 6.1.

Lamb, B. (2009) Who the hell is Brian Lamb? (video), Barry Dahl blog, 26 October [online], http://barrydahl.com/ 2009/ 10/ 26/ who-the-hell-is-brian-lamb/ (accessed 28 March 2016).

Rehak, D. & Mason, R. (2003). "Keeping the Learning in Learning Objects." Reusing Online Resources: A Sustainable Approach to eLearning. A. Littlejohn (ed.) London: Kogan Page.

Wiley D. (2015) ‘Forgetting our History: From the Reusability Paradox to the Remix Hypothesis’ Iterating Towards Openness 15 April [Blog]. Available at opencontent.org/blog/archives/3854 (accessed 28 May 2015).

Until I began my MAODE study I hadn't considered openness in education beyond the price tag (or rather lack of it).  If it was available online (so I didn't have to take time off work) vaguely relevant to my learning needs and without charge, then I considered it open.  My colleagues were firmly of the opinion that this made it inferior to face-to-face teaching (but that's a different story). 

It was only when one of my fellow students on the H800 discussion board pointed me towards the Paris OER declaration that I realised that openness means far more than acquiring knowledge online for free. Openness incorporates the concepts of remixing, reusing and repurposing educational material - putting it out there for others to take, tinker with, remodel, improve and then give back.  It's about sharing and creating.

I decided I had to get to grips with this, so jumped at the chance to do a MOOC through a well known (and shall remain nameless) medical charity.  I duly registered and received an email from the course leader suggesting that this course wasn't for me.  I wasn't the "right" type of student.  So much for openness and inclusivity.  I persuaded the organiser to let me join - just in time as places were reaching the limit of...40.  Hardly massive.  There was nothing to remix or repurpose.  All resources were encased in intellectual property rights, with not a creative commons licence in sight.  That said, it was a great learning experience. Asynchronous discussions were lively, informative, supportive and polite.  I learnt a lot and it's changed my practice at work. 

Then I enrolled in the School for Health and Care Radicals, which comprised webcasts, Tweetchats, slideshare, pinterest...all aimed at creating boundary-spanning, barrier-crossing change.  Openness was in abundance.  Resources were shared and modified with enthusiasm and every chat-box and comments sections were brimming.  It was overwhelming and at times chaotic.  But it was liberating.  And the experience did not finish when the course came to an end.  I met new people who still send me tweets and occasionally Skype.  We share links, pictures and blogs and through the School I've been invited to contribute to the occasional project and conference.  I've even mentored others in subsequent editions of the programme.  None of this is possible if you aren't open to the opportunities created when you share and work together on a massive scale.

The Evidence Hub  intiative, part of The Open learning Network (OLnet), aims to gather, collate and harness collective intelligence from and about the emerging field of OER, providing a structure for "debates around key questions from the OER movement" (McAndrew and Farrow, 2013, p.68).

One of the underlying challenges for OERs is the lack of a robust evidence base upon which to base policy and practice (McAndrew and Farrow, 2013).  On a deeper level, debates about underpinning learning theory (Nichols, 2003) contribute to the challenge, whilst the socio-cultural influences of technology on educational practice are generating a faster pace of change that few are familiar with.  It is this gap in both knowledge and "know how" (Cook and Brown, 1999) that the Evidence Hub sets out to address.

The openness of the Evidence Hub (in contrast to another OLnet project, Cloudworks) embraces the diversity and inclusivity of OER itself.  My concern about the Evidence Hub relates to my experience of using Cloudworks (in my case through course H800).  The utility of both depends on the motivations of the user group, requiring active, purposeful and mutually respectful contributions.  Without this the resource risks rapidly becoming redundant.

The success of the OER movement will be in its ability to embrace diversity and mobilise the social capital it holds towards a shared purpose, in the model of a New Social Movement (Muijs et al, 2010).  Along with other tools in the OLnet portfolio, the Evidence Hub may unintentionally become an enduring and stabilising cultural artefact of the movement itself.

References

• Cook, S.D.N and Brown, J.S. (1999) ‘Bridging epistemologies: the generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing’, Organization Science, vol 10, no 4, pp 381–400.

• McAndrew, P. and Farrow, R. (2013) ‘Open education research: from the practical to the theoretical’ in McGreal, R., Kinuthia, W. and Marshall, S. (eds) Open Educational Resources: Innovation, Research and Practice, Vancouver, Commonwealth of Learning and Athabasca University, pp. 65-78.
• Muijs, D., West, M. and Ainscow, M. (2010) 'Why network? Theoretical perspectives on networking', School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice, vol 21, no 1, pp 5-26.
• Nichols, M. (2003) ‘A theory for elearning’, Educational Technology & Society, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 1–10.

I never fail to learn something when I mark assignments.  This week my learning has been more pertinent than usual, as my roles of teacher and student sharply intersected.

The assignment required students to describe how and why they would improve their clinical service.  One was a compelling narrative of cancer care in India, providing a window onto a societal and organisational culture well beyond my experience.  In my other role as learner, I just happened to be reading Minds on Fire by Seely Brown and Adler (2008) , an article which referenced the Digital Study Hall (DSH) initiative in rural India.  As my interest had already been piqued I decided to look further into this educational initiative.

The DSH is constructed upon a "hub and spoke" model to disseminate educational materials, using peripheral experts, not necessarily qualified teachers, reminiscent of a similar initiative in rural South Africa (Potter and Naidoo, 2006).  The project team seem to accept from the outset that resources are scarce and unlikely to be forthcoming, so made use of the technological tools (such as telephony and dvds), systems and processes to hand - a concept termed as bricolage (Grint, 2008;  Sharples et al, 2014).  Thus DSH is an educational innovation that is surviving in a context challenged by the digital divide, paucity of expertise and huge demand.

The DSH website contains a page on research conducted through the project.  These are reports rather than peer-reviewed publications and are somewhat biased in favour of the intervention.  Furthermore, there is little evidence of the evaluation of outcome measures, although this may be due to prioritisation of limited resources towards provision rather than research.  

Given my special interest in medical education, I was pleased to see that since the publication of Minds on Fire the project had expanded into public health education, through the Digital Polyclinic project, with focus on maternal and perinatal care.  Despite all the obstacles inherent to the context,  the DSH is an innovation with purpose that clinical education can look to for inspiration, whatever our discipline, location and geopolitics.      

References:

• Grint, K. (2008) ‘Wicked problems and clumsy solutions: the role of leadership’, Clinical Leader, vol. 1, no. 2.
• Hilbert, M. (2011) ‘The end justifies the definition: The manifold outlooks on the digital divide and their practical usefulness for policy-making’, Telecommunications Policy, vol. 35, issue 8, pp. 715–736.
• Potter, C. and Naidoo, G. (2006) ‘Using interactive radio to enhance classroom learning and reach schools, classrooms, teachers, and learners’, Distance Education, vol.27, no.1, pp.63–86.
• Seely Brown, J. and Adler, R. (2008) ‘Minds on fire: open education, the long tail and learning 2.0’, EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 16–32 [Online].  Available at http://net.educause.edu/ ir/ library/ pdf/ ERM0811.pdf (accessed 31 January 2016).
• Sharples, M., Adams, A., Ferguson, R., Gaved, M., McAndrew, P., Rienties, B., Weller, M. and Whitelock, D. (2014) Innovating Pedagogy 2014: Open University Innovation Report 3, Milton Keynes: The Open University.