The aim of both Open Educational Resources (OER) and Open
Educational Practice (OEP) is their integration into a culture of openness.
Yet, the latter still only exists as an aspiration. I want to use my blog – and
the illustrating photograph to draw out 3 hints from JISC 2013 and OER Evidence
2013-2014 to pick out factors which may contribute to this.
OER
and OEP may imply each other but, as yet are very different. For instance in
OER ‘pedagogic’ material is sometimes seen as an add-on, while to OEP is the central
and organising factor in transforming closed cultures. The latter depends on
softening boundaries between persons (like teachers and learners) and
institutions (private, public, third sector),
OER, in contrast tends, on its own to raise issues of individual ownership
and therefore a push to unique ‘brands’ vying for prominence ((JISC 2013 4f.).
Cultures
seek cultural goals – flattened hierarchies, the common facilitation of
personal development and unforeseen learning affordances. Meanwhile
resource-centred thinking tends to be conservative, fitting new brands to old
needs rather than generating emergent, otherwise untried connections between
people and things (ibid 7).
This
problem appears to emerge even in personnel during the adoption of innovations
in OER. Whilst the tendency of OEP is to sharing, co-producing and
co-facilitating, individuals often seize on a resource (if that is all they see
it as) as a means of polishing a personal expertise (ibid. 9). The latter route
can lead to the formation of elites and ‘expert’ neo-languages that exclude
rather than include aspirants.
There are no easy solutions. To
change we have to know and understand our own vulnerabilities and resistances
(sometimes the same thing). One of the saddest ideas in the JISC report was
that whilst open to OER that might enable my own progression, educational staff
are resistant to OEP because it does not ‘fit’ with their ‘current work
practices’. The answer is then access to reflective openness to change. Easier
said than done. But in the end is this not what learning is about.
H817 Acivity on OER
The aim of both Open Educational Resources (OER) and Open Educational Practice (OEP) is their integration into a culture of openness. Yet, the latter still only exists as an aspiration. I want to use my blog – and the illustrating photograph to draw out 3 hints from JISC 2013 and OER Evidence 2013-2014 to pick out factors which may contribute to this.
OER and OEP may imply each other but, as yet are very different. For instance in OER ‘pedagogic’ material is sometimes seen as an add-on, while to OEP is the central and organising factor in transforming closed cultures. The latter depends on softening boundaries between persons (like teachers and learners) and institutions (private, public, third sector), OER, in contrast tends, on its own to raise issues of individual ownership and therefore a push to unique ‘brands’ vying for prominence ((JISC 2013 4f.).
Cultures seek cultural goals – flattened hierarchies, the common facilitation of personal development and unforeseen learning affordances. Meanwhile resource-centred thinking tends to be conservative, fitting new brands to old needs rather than generating emergent, otherwise untried connections between people and things (ibid 7).
This problem appears to emerge even in personnel during the adoption of innovations in OER. Whilst the tendency of OEP is to sharing, co-producing and co-facilitating, individuals often seize on a resource (if that is all they see it as) as a means of polishing a personal expertise (ibid. 9). The latter route can lead to the formation of elites and ‘expert’ neo-languages that exclude rather than include aspirants.
There are no easy solutions. To change we have to know and understand our own vulnerabilities and resistances (sometimes the same thing). One of the saddest ideas in the JISC report was that whilst open to OER that might enable my own progression, educational staff are resistant to OEP because it does not ‘fit’ with their ‘current work practices’. The answer is then access to reflective openness to change. Easier said than done. But in the end is this not what learning is about.