Edited by Jonathan Turner, Wednesday, 5 Feb 2014, 05:30
Openness reflection
1.How would you judge OpenLearn in terms of your definition of innovation?
This question supposes that I have a definition of innovation, which I’m not sure I do. I would say that it depends less on my definition and more on context, so Open Learn may be innovative for some, but for others, simple access to a word processor could be considered an innovation.
Although not a response to the above question as such, it strikes me that the current period in which we find ourselves with OERs is similar to other periods of the internet when openness and innovation thrived (in Web 1.0 and 2.0) before ultimately becoming subsumed (at least in large part), to the Facebook and Googles. I.e. it is a matter of time before the commercialization of OERs comes to the fore. Still here’s one occasion when I hope I’m wrong, and let’s be honest it wouldn’t be the first time J.
I think it is helpful to think about innovation in terms of metaphor and the juxtaposition of the transmission model VS let’s say Wenger’s Communities of Practice certainly suggests innovation, but there is the caveat of how much the reality of learning tallies with this vision, i.e, the course talsk the talk, but does it walk the walk? And if we have grown up in a transmission model of learning are we as students ready to rip up the old accepted hierarchies?
2.How open did you find OpenLearn?
I’m not sure if I have a clear idea of what ‘open’ means yet. Also I’m already familiar with the look and feel of the OU site, so it would seem that my view is already skewed towards a favourable viewpoint. I would say that the OU interface is clear and easy to use and the site navigation seems clear. I would question the international flavor of the site, i.e. Non-native speakers might find some of the rhetorical flourishes typical of (e.g. “Can you make it through our pain quiz unscathed? “) British English in this context a challenge, and this may hinder their use.
3.How does OpenLearn challenge conventional assumptions about paying for higher education modules?
The main issue is highlighted in the paper, i.e. “the requirements for formal accreditation of learning”. I would never for example study this course unless I got the piece of paper, the amount of investment involved (time investment) would be prohibitive enough alone, but there are few of us who study at this level unless we hope to see some tangible career benefits, and as we all know, that means bits of paper.
I do however study other stuff ‘for fun’ for example I’m studying Arabic at the moment and there is no way I would pay for an Arabic course (at least not a lot), because I don’t expect a return on my investment, i.e. it’s not going to enhance my career prospects. In addition I’m able to access a wealth of resources on the internet for free, so again why pay? My wife is also studying a language for fun (Italian), but when she realized she could take a course in the OU as part of her undergraduate degree she went from using free internet resources and a cheap class, to paying over 1000 pounds because it would contribute to her degree and so be ‘real’.
I looked at Carnegie Mellon Open Learning Initiative at a beginner’s Arabic course.
Again I’m struggling a little with the definition of innovation; I mean the innovation here seems to be that the course material is free rather than the delivery mode. This may be because I’m not locating the social aspects of the course. I chose to look at the Arabic course and I could find the content but not any discussion threads. Of this doesn’t mean they don’t have them, it just means I can’t easily find them.
It is interesting that the site separates content for students and teachers, i.e. it encourages teachers from other institutions to use the site for teaching purposes. It is also interesting to note that the site has more of interest than the OU site for the more casual student or at least for me, and I found myself getting sidetracked looking at the Arabic course and not doing this activity!
Week 2 Activity 5
Openness reflection
1.How would you judge OpenLearn in terms of your definition of innovation?
This question supposes that I have a definition of innovation, which I’m not sure I do. I would say that it depends less on my definition and more on context, so Open Learn may be innovative for some, but for others, simple access to a word processor could be considered an innovation.
Although not a response to the above question as such, it strikes me that the current period in which we find ourselves with OERs is similar to other periods of the internet when openness and innovation thrived (in Web 1.0 and 2.0) before ultimately becoming subsumed (at least in large part), to the Facebook and Googles. I.e. it is a matter of time before the commercialization of OERs comes to the fore. Still here’s one occasion when I hope I’m wrong, and let’s be honest it wouldn’t be the first time J.
I think it is helpful to think about innovation in terms of metaphor and the juxtaposition of the transmission model VS let’s say Wenger’s Communities of Practice certainly suggests innovation, but there is the caveat of how much the reality of learning tallies with this vision, i.e, the course talsk the talk, but does it walk the walk? And if we have grown up in a transmission model of learning are we as students ready to rip up the old accepted hierarchies?
2.How open did you find OpenLearn?
I’m not sure if I have a clear idea of what ‘open’ means yet. Also I’m already familiar with the look and feel of the OU site, so it would seem that my view is already skewed towards a favourable viewpoint. I would say that the OU interface is clear and easy to use and the site navigation seems clear. I would question the international flavor of the site, i.e. Non-native speakers might find some of the rhetorical flourishes typical of (e.g. “Can you make it through our pain quiz unscathed? “) British English in this context a challenge, and this may hinder their use.
3.How does OpenLearn challenge conventional assumptions about paying for higher education modules?
The main issue is highlighted in the paper, i.e. “the requirements for formal accreditation of learning”. I would never for example study this course unless I got the piece of paper, the amount of investment involved (time investment) would be prohibitive enough alone, but there are few of us who study at this level unless we hope to see some tangible career benefits, and as we all know, that means bits of paper.
I do however study other stuff ‘for fun’ for example I’m studying Arabic at the moment and there is no way I would pay for an Arabic course (at least not a lot), because I don’t expect a return on my investment, i.e. it’s not going to enhance my career prospects. In addition I’m able to access a wealth of resources on the internet for free, so again why pay? My wife is also studying a language for fun (Italian), but when she realized she could take a course in the OU as part of her undergraduate degree she went from using free internet resources and a cheap class, to paying over 1000 pounds because it would contribute to her degree and so be ‘real’.
I looked at Carnegie Mellon Open Learning Initiative at a beginner’s Arabic course.
Again I’m struggling a little with the definition of innovation; I mean the innovation here seems to be that the course material is free rather than the delivery mode. This may be because I’m not locating the social aspects of the course. I chose to look at the Arabic course and I could find the content but not any discussion threads. Of this doesn’t mean they don’t have them, it just means I can’t easily find them.
It is interesting that the site separates content for students and teachers, i.e. it encourages teachers from other institutions to use the site for teaching purposes. It is also interesting to note that the site has more of interest than the OU site for the more casual student or at least for me, and I found myself getting sidetracked looking at the Arabic course and not doing this activity!