Post in response to #H817open MOOC activity 11: The advantages of ‘little’ over ‘big’ OERs
Little v Big
Weller (2011) presents a number of advantages that little OERs (singular learning objects such as slide shows, graphs, texts, videos and pictures, that are easily adaptable and not overly contextual) have over their big (structured online courses and activities) counterparts:
- Low cost to free, if they are a by-product of an already costed product
- Small but unpredictable audience – Long Tail ( Anderson, 2006)
- Open Filter – anyone can publish
- No compromise – because no additional costs
- High reuse potential – easily aggregated into other content
- Pre-existing distribution channels (sometimes based on social networks) lead to easier uptake.
OER to OR
It also strikes me that little OERs can easily be used in non-educational contexts, in doing so, becoming just ‘open resources’. Whilst it is a little tricky if not impossible to put a boundary between where learning does and doesn’t take place, I can envisage situations where an object such as a slide deck or video clip originally uploaded with the intent of being used educationally, can be used for other purposes (even commercial ones should there be a license in place that allows this type of use).
I’m thinking again here of how a commercial training organisation might allow use of some of its materials for businesses and other organisations to use their materials for team briefing notes, within individual presentations etc. I must stress that my thinking is largely around how a niche training provider might allow public sector organisations such as Local Authorities or Health Trusts to use their materials, with the possible benefit of gaining credibility and developing a relationship with those organisations. However, it might also be possible to use this relationship to test the relevance and quality of those materials if a suitable feedback mechanism is built into the OER distribution channel.
Organisational strategies for producing little OERs
Weller goes on to describe how an organisation might go about producing little OERs and makes the argument that this can be done with little or no upfront investment costs. This ‘frictionless’ content production, which leads to little OERs being created as a by-product of other organisational activities involves:
- Institutional policies that address – access, cost, copyright and tenure
- Encouraging staff to change – space and allowance to make legitimate explorations
- Eliminate currently wasteful work practices – meetings and lectures, which do not produce shareable content.
These actions, which can be seen as falling broadly into the realms of changing processes and changing cultures, should lead to an increase in the organisation’s ‘generativity’ (Zittrain, 2008). Arguably, changing cultures is more difficult, though (within an HE context) Weller puts forward some suggestions as to why people might contribute to the production of OERs:
- Social connection with others
- Interest in subject
- Creativity and fun
- To engage (and share) with the community
- Ego
Weller, contrasts these strategies with those of organisations producing ‘big’ OERs. He likens these to broadcasts, typically involving large teams, lots of resources and investment. These requirements then demand specific aims, objectives, success criteria etc to justify the investment in them. Weller argues that these considerations serve to discourage experimentation in the area.