| 51329 |
abstract |
The ubiquity of networked and social technologies provides an environment within which
new approaches to knowledge sharing and co-construction have flourished. This trend
in knowledge co-construction is taking place within a society that increasingly is
open.
One of the most visible manifestations of emerging approaches to knowledge sharing
within the formal education domain is the discourse around Open Educational Resources
(OER). OER have been defined as, “digitised materials offered freely and openly for
educators, students and self-learners to use and reuse for teaching, learning and
research” (OECD, 2007).
Ideas around OER originated around 2002 through the Education Program strategic plan
of the Hewlett Foundation on Using Information Technology to Increase Access to High-Quality
Educational Content (Atkins, Brown, & Hammond, 2007) and the MIT Open CourseWare initiative
(see the chapter by Vale and Littlejohn in this volume). OER has been informed by
concepts around open and distance learning, open access to knowledge, free sharing
and peer collaboration. Activity around Open Educational Resources has been prolific
over the past decade: from a standing start 10 years ago, a Google search on open
educational resources now produces over 163million results.
The origins have focused OER activity around content production, release and use in
education, rather than the wider use and benefits of OER for learning in general.
While potential benefits of OER have been recognised (OECD, 2007; McGill, Beetham,
Falconer, & Littlejohn, 2010; Yuan, MacNeil, & Kraan, 2008), OER release and use are
not widespread professional practices, even within the education sector, and understanding
of the impact on teaching and learning is limited. While it is recognised that the
release of OER in itself does not automatically lead to use by others (Lane & MacAndrew,
2010; McGill et al., 2010), the contexts within which OERs can impact on the learning
practice and/or the professional practice of academics are unknown.
On the surface, educational communities of practice such as subject communities seem
ideal settings to encourage and support the release and sharing of Open Educational
Resources. However, earlier studies have flagged inherent difficulties in the community
release of online resources – for example to create economies of scale (Margaryan
& Littlejohn, 2008). Firstly, academics dealing with day-to-day, immediate work issues
tend to focus on short-term goals, missing potential longer term gains associated
with releasing resources that can be used by (unidentified) others (ibid). Secondly,
academics place importance on contextual factors that conflict with the idea of open
reuse of resources across a range of contexts (ibid). Thirdly, although communities
provide a trusted environment for changing professional practice, long-term these
communities can become inward facing, inhibiting potential growth, creativity and
innovation (Littlejohn, Beetham, & McGill, 2012). These underlying tensions inherent
in the enterprise of OER release and the role of communities may undermine successful
implementation of OER initiatives yet are often overlooked by policy makers and practitioners
(Littlejohn & Margaryan, 2010).
The characteristics of bounded communities, where people have tight links with colleagues
and learners, are at odds with the diverse needs of a wider group of (often unknown)
users in open networks (Margaryan & Littlejohn, 2008). Bounded communities – for example
groups of academics working within a single subject discipline - tend to be more tightly
knit than dispersed groups, such as industry subject experts who are seeking resources
to teach a specific concept. Academics, particularly those who are used to teaching
within conventional ‘closed’ courses, often fail to consider the wider groups of people
who may benefit from the resources released.
Dimensions affecting communities include the purpose (shared goal and interests),
interaction (modes of participation and communication), roles and responsibilities,
coherence (whether the community is close-knit or loosely confederated and transient),
context (the broader ecology within which the community exists), rules (implicit and
explicit rules that govern the functioning of the community) and practices (predominant
approaches used in the community) (Margaryan & Littlejohn, 2008). These characteristics
vary across different user communities, which may cause problems if OER are designed
for a specific group of users, making them less adaptable by individuals and groups
across a range of diverse communities.
The aim of this chapter is to surface intrinsic problems in the release of OER within
communities bounded by common expectations, practices or other parameters. We focus
on emerging rules and roles relating to new professional practices. These were identified
within the context of the UK Higher Education Academy and Joint Information Systems
Committee’s (JISC) UKOER pilot programme. |