Engelbart: Technology and How It Gets That Way

Animated gif of Doug Engelbart presenting online in 1968.This is one in a series of postings I am doing as part of the Engelbart annotation project. There will be some randomness to these notes but somehow, given the source document we are annotating, I think that is appropriate.  I am thinking a lot about education technology as I read through Engelbart’s Augmenting Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework for the Annotating Engelbart project. The vision of where technology and teaching and learning could be is hampered by our lack of vision.

It is refreshing to read this and to touch bases with the origins of much of what we do in education technology: especially after hanging out in Seattle last year consulting with education start-ups. Much of what goes on in education start-up culture is centered around figuring out how to package existing tools into learning experiences. That sounds great in theory but what it means is that the tools quickly begin to shape the learning. And this is what we would expect in a post-McLuhan world. We shape the technologies and the technologies begin to shape us. Engelbart asks us to envision something far greater though. His framework for solving problems asks us to envision shaping better tools in concert with artifacts (tools) language, methodology, and training.

How does he define these? Engelbart defines “artifacts” as physical objects designed to provide for human comfort, for the manipulation of things or materials, and for the manipulation of symbols. He defines language as ” the way in which the individual parcels out the picture of his world into the concepts that his mind uses to model that world, and the symbols that he attaches to those concepts and uses in consciously manipulating the concepts (‘thinking’).” He defines methodology as “the methods, procedures, strategies, etc., with which an individual organizes his goal-centered (problem-solving) activity.”And training as “the conditioning needed by the human being to bring his skills in using Means 1, 2, and 3 to the point where they are operationally effective.” In other words, to really solve problems, all have to be used in concert.

Currently we in edtech tend to take tools, processes, and concepts from the business world (analytics, for instance), tear them out of context and drop them into the schools. We do this often because the technologies are new and different – the feeling that we need to keep up with the latest. But we mostly apply the new technologies to the same problems in the same way we used the old technologies (e.g. treating websites as books or magazines). This is highly problematic as the current adoptions of new technologies seem to be completely divorced from discussions of consequences and ethics. And even more importantly, the tools are divorced from purpose and context. Why are we doing the things that we do around elearning?

One of my favorite comic strips was Hägar the Horrible, a marauding Viking whose vision of himself and the world is often at odds with reality. In one comic strip, Hägar returns from a looting expedition with a present for his wife. He tells her it was ripped off a tub in a palace in Paris. He then turns on the faucet and when nothing happens, he says “That’s funny, when I turned it on in the palace, water came out.” I have the same feeling when “innovators” dump business technology into a classroom without considering student privacy issues, accessibility, or cost.

Engelbart’s vision can help solve this problem because we could ask, how does this new technology enable us to solve problems in a new way? How does this technology increase our capacity to solve problems?

Posted in edtech | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

RISC Survey: Challenges to Student Success

These are my notes on the latest RISC Survey called “What Challenges to Success Do Community College Students Face?” from January 2019. I am mostly concerned with the education technology aspects of this report. Much of the report deals with social issues and support which I know that many programs on college campuses are already there to address (access to housing, food, etc.). The real solutions to these problems revolve around faculty training in online learning, online tutoring, student training in how to be an online student, and open textbooks (as well as open education practices). None of the solutions require new software, any gee-whiz widgets or ideas. None of the solutions are particularly fast and easy; therefore, elearning will still be listed as one of the problems for some time to come. 

Tutoring and Support
Students ask colleges to “Offer more weekend hours for the Tutoring Center and the Library – or later hours for each. With working 8-5 M-F, and classes in the evening well past 8 PM” and they go on to point out that “there isn’t much opportunity…to visit the library or the Tutoring Center.” We have to think differently about how we support our students. More and more students are coming to community colleges who not only may not have support from families, but are working and have families themselves. This means that their time is greatly impacted and a traditional campus schedule of 8-5 M-F is not a practical one. Here, online tutoring is another possible answer.

Cost
Cost of college and the cost of living is a significant challenge: “if a book is really expensive a student is not going to purchase it making them behind in classes.” We have already made significant inroads to address this here in WA state with our support of open textbooks.

Parking(!)
“Our survey results bear this out. Nearly one in five respondents indicated that parking presented a challenge to college success. Among those who indicated parking as a challenge, nearly all (86 %) reported difficulty parking on or near campus.” What is interesting about this to me is how much the student populations at community colleges have increased while the offerings have decreased. Online classes could be a significant answer to this problem.

Online Classes
It is significant that online classes are listed as a problem when they are a possible solution to so many of the other issues in this survey. All of the problems listed in the survey are faculty preparation problems, course design problems, and student preparation issues. Lets look at the following issues from the survey:

  • Difficulty learning material on my own 53 %
    • This is a student preparation issue – students need to learn time management and have a realistic idea about how much time it takes to take an online class
  • Lack of interaction with faculty 44 %
    • This is a faculty preparation issue. Faculty need to understand that the number one issue around student success and retention in online classes is interactivity. Faculty need to learn how to facilitate interactivity online.
  • Online classes 21 % (n = 1,295)
  • Difficulty keeping up because of no regular class times 38 %
    • Student preparation. Students need to learn how to manage their time effectively for reading and engaging online.
  • Difficulty using course technology 27 %
    • Student prep. Students need adequate training in how to be an online student
  • Lack of interaction with other students 25 %
    • This is both a faculty issue and a course design issue. Student-student and faculty-student interaction needs to be built into the lessons
  • Difficulty taking exams at testing center
    • This is an instructional design issue. Why are we doing this? Online courses can utilize a wide variety of assessments besides high stakes testing: course portfolios, projects, and group work can take the place of exams. The research shows that there is an equal to no difference in the amount of cheating that happens online versus face-to-face: and that if the test is worth more than 20%

Their conclusions include “…convenient online classes are not necessarily the answer to making things better for busy students. Our findings suggest that online courses are not without their problems. An investment in online instructional support may help improve these classes and alleviate some of the concerns students have about them.” This is access without support is not access (Tinto). I think it will also take a radical change in how some colleges view online courses. Some colleges use online classes as rewards for tenure because the thinking is that online classes can take faculty less time or that they can “teach in their pajamas.” Some colleges I have worked at gave online classes to faculty who were getting ready to retire as a way to free up classroom space and help ease the faculty member into retirement (clear out the dead wood) – you can imagine how successful those classes were. Faculty have to learn how to teach online just as students need to learn how to be online students.

Online tutoring, faculty certificates in online teaching, an online course for students to learn how to be online students, and open textbooks can solve many of these problems. I would love to talk to anyone facing these problems in their college. I have a lot of solutions that I have implemented in many colleges and that are discussed elsewhere in this blog. 

Posted in studentsuccess | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

No school like old school…

The DEC PDP 6 computer from 1964Next month I am joining a group online that is going to read and annotate Engelbart’s Doug Engelbart’s 1962 research report and manifesto, Augmenting Human Intellect: A Conceptual Framework. I first read about this in Gardner Cambell’s blog posting on the project. I am glad we are doing this. Innovation and advances are a beautiful thing but sometimes we throw the baby out with the bath along with some really cool font designs. I first twigged to that idea sometime around 2003 when I had attended one of Edward Tufte’s seminars while working for Harcourt eLearning.  At that seminar he talked a little about Katzoff’s “Clarity in Technical Report Writing” and I don’t think I have found a better example of clear writing and how it works any where else. There is no great deep meaning to this posting other than a note to myself to remember to also look at where we have been when we think we know where we are going.

Posted in writing | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Alternatives to Keynote Speakers

Medieval Lecturer

The more things change, the more things stay the same…

I am on the board for a great elearning conference, and we are in the middle of looking for keynote speakers. I am not against keynote speakers per se. I have been to some amazing conferences and have had some career changing moments with some amazing people who were keynote speakers. Our little conference with a big heart does a lot to keep the costs down – this is one of the reasons why I volunteered to be on the board here – it is a low cost conference with high quality presentations. We could increase corporate sponsors and increase the keynote fees, but I think that would ultimately raise the price of the conference for attendees. And then we would be even more dependent on corporate money. I am not saying that I don’t want a keynote. I am just thinking out-loud to myself here on the internet: what are the alternatives? I personally value open. If “open” (as in open education resources, open access, and open pedagogy) is one of my chief values, what would a keynote look like through that lens? There is a great irony of thinking that we are doing something innovative by promoting an event with a “sage on the stage,” another one-way dump of information that promotes the hierarchy of the status quo. It has been my experience as a teacher and an elearning professional that real learning takes place in the community, through engagement, and interactivity. It has also been my experience that conferences, elearning or no, can be the last places that anything like that happens (I am thinking here of the Educause cattle-chute approach).

So I have done some cursory reading over the last few days looking at alternatives to keynotes. Here are some promising tacks:

1. Participants
In his posting at the Event Manager Blog, Jan-Jaap In Der Maur asks “…why have someone on stage telling participants what to do, if they can tell each other? Think of alternative formats, where participants work in smaller groups, talk directly to each other, or delegates are invited on stage spontaneously to be interviewed or join a panel.” In other words, why can’t the keynote be an activity? We can guide the activity or discussion around a central theme.

“Why have someone give information, tell ‘the truth’ about a topic or make decisions, when the combined wisdom of the crowd is much bigger than that of a speaker?” asks Jan-Jaap when we can get people involved in providing the content, debating, or making decisions.

2. Expert Debates
I liked this idea from Martina Cicakova’s Sli.Do posting “Expert Debate: an Interactive Alternative to a Traditional Keynote Session” but it still leaves me wondering where to find the money for TWO experts. One way to handle this is to virtually stream the experts in which is less expensive. This could help emphasize that the conference is about the participants, not the expert personalities. I like this though because if you read Martina’s article, she says that it was highly interactive: “In total, the audience submitted nearly 50 questions to be answered during the session and placed 323 ‘likes’ on questions.” They used Slido as the tech platform behind the debate.

3. Panels
Another possible alternative to keynotes are panels. Panels can be organized in such a way that the panel members are not only talking to one another, but they are engaging the audience as well. An article at Innovation Women, “The Event Manager’s Guide to Creative Panels” has a number of useful suggestions for keeping panels engaging.

4. Video 
We could watch a short video on the theme of the conference and use it as a catalyst for small group discussions, bring that back to a larger discussion with a moderator summarizing the themes that come up to be addressed later in the conference. The catalyst could just as easily be a live or recorded performance. I have seen presenters use this effectively.

5. Unconference
We do a little bit of this already with our conference preview during the breakfast portion of the conference. But an unconference allows participants to sign up and present brief presentations – I am thinking that the Pecha Kucha technique of 20 slides/20 seconds a slide would be ideal here. The genius of this is that each participant of the conference gets to decide what they think is important enough to dedicate 6 minutes and 40 seconds of stage time too. We get to crowd-source the genius of the participants.

Again, I am hoping that we find someone who is knowledgeable about elearning, professional, inspiring, and not insulted by our travel expenses + smallish stipend, but I am also interested in alternatives to the standard conference. If you have some ideas that should be added to this list or if you have had interesting alternative experiences to the standard conference/keynote experience please comment below, contact me by email, or chime in on Twitter.

Posted in conference | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Peralta’s Equity Rubric

Peralta Community College District logoIf you haven’t seen this before, I think this is a pretty big deal: Peralta Community College’s Equity Rubric. I have been thinking about this for a while now. There are similar efforts around Edu. There are some that attempt to assess diversity and inclusion but they use terms that are not well defined or are vague. One diversity and inclusion rubric I read from the University of Rhode Island included “actions” such as “can understand” which would be hard to demonstrate, and used sociological references from 1967.

According to their website, the “Peralta Equity Rubric is a research-based course (re)design evaluation instrument designed to help online teachers make the online course experience more equitable for all students.”

The rubric’s criteria include:

  • addressing students’ access to technology and different types of support (both academic and non-academic);
  • increasing the visibility of the instructor’s commitment to inclusion;
  • addressing common forms of bias (e.g., image and representation bias, interaction bias);
  • helping students make connections (e.g., between course topics and their lives with the other students);
  • and following universal design for learning principles.

As a consultant and instructional designer – this is very interesting. These are actually things that we can DO to make the educational experience more inclusive. This is exactly what Dr. Eddie Moore, Jr. was asking us at the Rendezvous 2018 conference: what is in your portfolio? We need to come up with ways to document and analyze our work toward inclusiveness rather than discuss what we think or believe. Developing rubrics like this is a concrete step in that direction.

Posted in diversity | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

A Math Textbook for Adult Basic Education

I want to thank folks who contacted me about open textbooks for adult basic math. I taught the course last quarter with downloaded worksheets, old textbooks, and out-dated GED teaching materials. My class made it work – I turned it into a projects-based curriculum, and it was a lot of fun.

The next quarter I teach the class will be somewhat different because I have settled on a textbook: The Fundamentals of Mathematics by Burzynski & Ellis from OpenStax (Rice University). I like the text because it is clear, contains well laid out, step-by-step explanations, and it is very visual. According to the site: “The work text format gives the student space to practice mathematical skills with ready reference to sample problems. The chapters are divided into sections, and each section is a complete treatment of a particular topic, which includes the following features:

  • Section Overview
  • Sample Sets
  • Practice Sets
  • Section Exercises
  • Exercises for Review
  • Answers to Practice Sets

The chapters begin with Objectives and end with a Summary of Key Concepts, an Exercise Supplement, and a Proficiency Exam.”

Strangely enough, I could not find the book there from the front page, I had to Google it. I will have to email to see if the book is being retired or something. I down-loaded a pdf just in case.  The text is free, openly licensed, not behind a login or a paywall.

My main concern with textbooks is getting them into the hands of students in a timely fashion. Many of my students are in marginal economic circumstances. I would also like to break the book down into modules and put it up online. Both of these cases require an openly licensed book.

I looked at a number of sources – there are some great ones from the University of British Columbia but the illustrations were all of things like Canadian money. I looked at others that were teaching the right subjects but the audience was obviously 6th graders – lots of juggling clowns, etc.

If you have any other suggestions – feel free to send them my way OR if you have taught using this textbook, I would love to hear from you!

Posted in opentextbooks | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Commons and OER: Metaphors Matter

David Wiley in his blog, Iterating Towards Openness, wrote a post on the Commons metaphor and OER: “…is the commons the right metaphor for our work with OER? There are incredibly important – some might argue fundamental – differences between commons and OER.  I don’t know who these “some” are, but I feel that there is a fundamental connection between the idea of the Commons and OER. It is true that an open textbook is not the same as a resource like fish or land. A metaphor is not a literal, one to one relation. I think that the idea of the Commons regarding OER is one of principles. The shared principles between the traditional idea of the Commons and OER include:

  • Access
  • Sharing
  • Stewardship
  • Collective Non-Localized Governance

When we are using OER, maybe we should be asking ourselves how our use of a resource promotes these principles? We should be willing to look at what we are doing and ask questions: How is my use of this resource promoting its dissemination and use? How does putting a resource behind a paywall or even a password promote access to this resource? An open resource should be freely available: how are we sharing it? Does my practice look like responsible stewardship or merely self-interest?

How we decide also matters. Elinor Ostrom defined the Commons as “a community of users that self-governs the resource through institutions that it creates.” There are foundations, universities, and other non-profit organizations that help with this. But I have seen the mission of such organizations de-railed by discussions of “sustainability” which almost always lead to muddying the waters with corporate money. No, I don’t think corporations are evil in themselves, but it seems difficult for people to think clearly around large piles of cash. All of a sudden, maybe redefining “open” to include maximizing profits doesn’t seem like such a bad idea after all. Let’s change the mission from “free access to information” to “lower cost.” And then we can even go further and say “why should this be about money at all – maybe it is really about convenience and outcomes.” But I digress. My point is that definitions have consequences, and who shapes the definitions is important. 

Maybe the real question is why is the Commons metaphor so common? What are the consequences to the free access of knowledge if we see or define OER as merely commodities, separate from the means, ideas, principles, and organizations that created them?

There is an article in Wikipedia that discusses the idea of the Commons and its relation to knowledge as a social structure: “The connection between knowledge and commons may be made through identifying typical problems associated with natural resource commons, such as congestion, over-harvesting, pollution and inequities, which also apply to knowledge. Then, effective alternatives (community-based, non-private, non-state), in line with those of natural commons (involving social rules, appropriate property rights and management structures), solutions are proposed.” This is exactly what I hope happens with open education resources in general and open textbooks in particular. The best use cases for OER are coming out of the libraries and the universities: that is, the very communities that are developing the materials are the very ones that should be guiding these discussions – not private corporations with a literal and non-metaphorical invested interest.

The article in Wikipedia goes on to say that “…the commons metaphor is applied to social practice around knowledge. It is in this context that the present work proceeds, discussing the creation of depositories of knowledge through the organized, voluntary contributions of scholars (the research community, itself a social common), the problems that such knowledge commons might face (such as free-riding or disappearing assets), and the protection of knowledge commons from enclosure and commodification (in the form of intellectual property legislation, patenting, licensing and overpricing).”

Playing with and stretching definitions to fit a particular end or agenda is a dangerous game. Corporate or political money can make that game really attractive. But in the end, the long term weakening of a word (and then the idea) does nothing but closes access, prevents sharing, abdicates stewardship, and creates social structures around the resources where the only ones with a voice are those with the money. Collective governance over a resource can last hundreds maybe thousands of years – there are examples of this all around the world. But corporations get bought and sold all the time – that is often a sign of success or even the very definition of it. But then what happens to the resource then? Flatworld Knowledge was a great example of this. They openly licensed books and then changed the licenses. It was not other businesses that rescued that work but it was foundations and individuals that scrambled to re-host the materials elsewhere.

I am not against businesses taking a role per se. Flatworld Knowledge made important contributions to the discussion around Open Textbooks. Frischman says that one of his goals in his book, Governing Knowledge Commons (2014), “is to stake out knowledge commons as an independent, affirmative means for producing innovation and creativity and an important domain for research. In our view, commons are neither wholly independent of nor opposed to markets based on exclusive rights (whether formal or informal), nor are they subordinate to them.” Nothing is more subordinate than to let a corporation make the definitions around free access to any resource. 

If one wants to create a business to sell and repackage the works of others then do that. It is called a “private business” and there are plenty of models out there: businesses and publishers are already doing that. There is no judgement here – it is the American Way, but redefining “open” and “commons” to justify the use of those labels in a private corporation is not necessary and appears disingenuous at best.

Posted in OER | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

Week 4 EL30: Graphs and Decentering the Self

Indra's Net“The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.” ― Friedrich Nietzsche

I am still reading the articles for our class, eLearning 3.0 and am not quite sure the value of thinking of my self as a decentered graph. Our assignment is:

Create an Identity Graph:

  • We are expanding on the marketing definition of an identity graph. It can be anything you like, but with one stipulation: your graph should not contain a self-referential node titled ‘me’ or ‘self’ or anything similar
  • Think of this graph as you defining your identity, not what some advertiser, recruiter or other third party might want you to define.
  • Don’t worry about creating the whole identity graph – focusing on a single facet will be sufficient. And don’t post anything you’re not comfortable with sharing. It doesn’t have to be a real identity graph, just an identity graph, however you conceive it.

I took my first stab at this what-was-my-original-face-before-I-was-born-type exercise and thought about how much of my thinking about my identity depends so much on what I do. The graph captures what I do but does not capture my relationships with other people, the depth of my social media relationships, the magazines and books that I read, philosophers, religions, my favorite beers, food, cooking, sports, or travel – all of which go into who I am. I am sure Google knows this already.

What the graph does capture is the interconnectedness of the roles – the over-lap in all the things I do and how dependent they all are on coffee.

A number of Europeans that I have met are insulted by this idea: that what we do for a living has much to do with who we are essentially as people. Sometimes the work that people do have little to do with aspirations and more to do with luck or other circumstances. Many Americans define themselves by work. It is a very Puritanical/Capitalist thing to do.

Image of a concept map that defines Geoff Cain by what he does

And then there’s the Joke via Kurt Vonnegut:
“To be is to do”—Socrates.
“To do is to be”—Jean-Paul Sartre.
“Do be do be do”—Frank Sinatra.

Posted in conceptmaps | Tagged , , , , , , | 6 Comments

A conversation with Ben Werdmüller

I watched a video today for our eLearning 3.0 class – an interview between Stephen Downes (course facilitator) and Ben Werdmüller, cofounder of ELGG and Known.

This was an interesting conversation for myself because I am very interested in the Indie Web and wrestling what we can of the internet away from the corporations. In the spirit of this, I went with Reclaim Hosting (Hippie Hosting back in the day) to host my website, geoffcain.com, and I am also using WordPress. I would like to build out something here to help my family migrate into a post-Facebook world and get control back of their data. And by data, I mean their identities, stories, photos, etc. past, present, and future. I loved a few of the reasons Ben gave for the creation of the distributed web:

  • Ownership
  • Control
  • Audience
  • Career

These are all the reasons I am in this space. I want to own my data and identity, control my own data and internet space, develop my audience based on something besides ad revenue, and promote my professional life. I would also add how important privacy is now. I think it is obvious to everyone now that Zuckerberg and company are not our friends.

I find it hysterical when people freak out about the “dark web,” distributed web, or IPFS because criminals are using it. I think the internet now is a criminal enterprise with people buying and selling our privacy and our politics.

I like the attention to ethics that seems to be happening in this course. I think it helps that Downes has a background in philosophy. That is one of the biggest problems in tech (and many other sectors in our society) is that over-specialization leaves out ethics and thinking about the long-term consequences (and unintended consequences) of the choices that we make when building internet tools and platforms.

I found this video very inspirational and I am looking forward to learning more about distributed web spaces and how we can use them not only for education but to get my family to create our own social network!

 

Posted in Internet | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Some Thoughts on OER-Enabled Pedagogy

“It is the essence of certainty to be established only with reservations.”  
― Maurice Merleau-Ponty

Definitions matter. In the September issue of the International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning vol. 19, no. 4, David Wiley and John Hilton published a paper “Defining OER-Enabled Pedagogy.” As a humble practitioner of education, I do not find the term or the definition useful or accurate. It is a narrow definition that only further commodifies education.

The term “OER-Enabled Pedagogy” is not useful because we already have a term “open pedagogy.” For myself, it is not a vague term. There are years of research on open pedagogy. Yes, the term is used in many ways but so is the word “open” and the word “pedagogy.” As discussed in the Open Pedagogy Notebook ““Open Pedagogy” as a named approach to teaching is nothing new. Scholars such as Catherine Cronin, Katy Jordan, Vivien Rolfe,  and Tannis Morgan have traced the term back to early etymologies. Morgan cites a 1979 article by the Canadian Claude Paquette: “Paquette outlines three sets of foundational values of Open Pedagogy, namely: autonomy and interdependence; freedom and responsibility; democracy and participation.” I think it is important that the term “Open Pedagogy’ remains broad because it can then account for a wide variety of practices. David Wiley himself has contributed significantly to the discussion of Open Pedagogy in the past – I particularly appreciate his discussions contra the “disposable assignment.”

OER-Enabled Pedagogy implies that there is a “Commercial Textbook-Enabled Pedagogy” and no matter what Cengage or any other publisher tells you, there is no such thing. A textbook is not a course. Education, real education, is not a commodity. The term “OER-Enabled Pedagogy” focuses on the object: “OER,” not teaching and learning, which is pedagogy. There are OER-enabled practices, just as there are face-to-face classroom practices or online teaching practices. Of course, my definition of teaching or learning has a lot in common with Grotowski’s definition of theater in “Towards a Theater of the Poor”: theater starts with two people in chairs facing one another; everything else is window dressing. Basically theater occurs where ever two or more are gathered. Things like sets in the end are extraneous. Theatre, like the teaching and learning process, is a series of choices about authenticity, communication, and expression.

I can practice Open Education without an OER and without discussing permissions. There are many educational practices that do not rely on copyright or OER, and yet, I would define them as part of Open Pedagogy. This is why I say the definition is too narrow. My students and I have a discussion about the impact of tariffs, they go out and scour the newspapers and journals and come back with their thoughts and reactions. They then write letters to congressmen. They do something about what they are thinking about. I am oversimplifying my assignments but I long ago learned that if you want to keep the curriculum fresh, don’t rely on a two to five year old textbook to keep your students abreast of what is happening in the world. Why would I limit my definition of Open Pedagogy to how I relate to a commodity or an object? I would be happy to discuss how OER can enable my teaching practices but OER is not a pedagogy, not even the permissions that OER allows is a pedagogy. Someone can use OER, realize the full potential of the permissions in their course, and still serve up a bad course.

One of the ironies of this is that I participated in a MOOC that had as one of its outcomes to come up with some examples of student work that was enabled by OER in order to come up with a definition of OER-Enabled Pedagogy. Even back then I was not really impressed with the idea because the work did not include discussions of engagement or interactivity, which from research in online teaching and learning, we know are some of the factors in student success in face-to-face or online learning. It is funny that the world of instructional design and OER is so small that I might have contributed in a tiny way to this.  

The fact that “Open Pedagogy” has a complicated and multifarious definition and a past is a good thing. It means that as educators we are on to something. The defining and redefining hone the thoughts about what Open Pedagogy is or could be. That is what academics are supposed to do. I don’t object to neologisms per se or “OER-Enabled Pedagogy” itself – I just find it odd when someone has to invent a word to describe something that people have already been doing while using a term that seemed adequate to describe the practice: “Open Pedagogy.”

I don’t see how this term actually clarifies anything. If you see it in any other way than an attempt to further control the narrative around OER and rewrite history, or if you feel that education should be transformative and not a transaction, please feel free to comment below. 

Posted in pedagogy | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment