Filed under: Innovation, Open Educational Resources (OER) | Tags: collaboration, collaboration recommendations, collaborative laptop, open educational resources, Open Educational Resources Foundation
My work at BCcampus focuses extensively on generating collaborations and partnerships among largely autonomous public post secondary institutions. As a result of this focus I think a lot about collaboration.
My son Noah sent me a time lapse video of a big collaborative painting he did as part of an art show at the Fall Gallery here in Vancouver.
I love how Noah and his friends have taken the act of painting, traditionally a solitary venture, and made it into a collaborative real-time group event done publicly.
I often have this image in mind when I’m thinking about collaborations between groups of faculty on the creation of Open Educational Resources (OER). Authoring OER, or for that matter any course content for higher education courses, has historically been, and is largely still, a solo effort. One of my big hopes is that OER will shift the authoring process to a collaborative one. I’d love to host an OER authoring event that brings faculty together into groups based on shared academic field of study or subject area and supports them in collaboratively authoring OER.
BCcampus has been carefully setup and positioned to not be an institution itself. We don’t teach or credential and as a result we don’t compete with BC’s public post-secondary institutions for students or faculty. Instead we act as a facilitator of partnerships and collaborations among the institutions. This is a bit of a tricky proposition when working with autonomous institutions who want to maintain their self-sufficiency and not dilute their brand. Its further complicated by the competitive nature of higher education. Although the 25 colleges and universities we serve are publicly funded they actually operate as competitive business units. Each institution receives funding based on the number of student enrollments they acquire. This competition based funding formula is a major disincentive to collaboration.
In a sense at BCcampus we focus on enabling that which no one institution can do on its own. We get involved when multiple institutions want to work together toward a common goal. That goal may be development of a collaborative academic program, pooling requirements for educational technology and deploying a shared service that meets those requirements, or implementation of an online admissions service that allows students to apply to multiple institutions at the same time.
A major challenge for BCcampus is the voluntary opt-in nature of our work. We don’t force collaboration. Sometimes our role is simply creating opportunities for institutions to get together and hear about what each institution is doing. Through these events a shared understanding of challenges and successes can emerge and networks of like-minded people who share a common interest across institutions form.
Recently BCcampus joined the Open Educational Resource Foundation (OERF) as a founding member. Wayne Mackintosh who heads up the OERF asked us this interview question as part of the BCcampus case study writeup on their site;
“Traditionally, fostering collaboration among traditional research-led universities, community colleges and vocational education institutions can be hard given the cultural and operational uniqueness of these teaching institutions. Clearly, BCcampus is getting this right. Based on your experiences, what advice can you offer policy makers grappling with educational efficiencies in a digital world?”
Its a great question and in reply I said:
“Its true that fostering collaboration can be hard work and here in BC we are following an opt-in approach rather than anything mandatory, so this approach makes our work especially challenging. Over the years we’ve found the following kinds of approaches work:
- Focus on achieving outcomes that no one institution can do on its own
- Help institutions connect with each other and form partnerships by organizing and hosting events and virtual spaces that allow them to speak to each other and solve common issues or challenges
- Provide financial incentives (either new money or savings) for partnering and collaboration
- New licensing scenarios for technology can be structured such that licensing costs are based on the cumulative student enrollments represented by participating institutions. In this scenario the more institutions that collaborate the lower the cost for all
- Partnerships and collaborations need not involve the entire public post-secondary system for them to be successful
- Maturation and sustainability of value often follows a path from exploratory proof-of-concept work, to a pilot project with a few partnering institutions, to something that scales up to support as many institutions that want to participate.
- As services mature, support for them also needs to scale with different types of people required for ongoing operation
- Focus on providing value by generating real-time data on systemic activity that can be shared with everyone
- Generate and publish measures of partnership and collaboration that quantify the benefit received by each institution
You can find the full interview at http://wikieducator.org/BCcampus/Case_study
Laptops are typically for solitary, solo use. Some years ago when I worked at the Technical University of British Columbia I had this idea for a collaborative laptop. I’m still amazed that nothing like this has been developed so let me try and map out the basic idea.
When two people sit down together for a conversation they typically sit opposite each other. The conversation is livened by eye contact, gestures, and interpretation of facial cues.
Increasingly conversation is supplemented by inclusion of a laptop for sharing of digital work being done, media, and quick searches. However when a laptop is inserted into the mix it breaks the conversation connection by diverting the attention from the interplay between two people. There is a loss of eye contact as the attention of one member in the conversation shifts to to the interaction with the computer. Further exacerbating the issue is that the second person can’t see anything that the person using the computer is doing. This is frustrating for them and the conversation can break down. At its worse it leads to people feeling devalued and less important than whatever is on that damn computer.
The idea for a collaborative laptop come from observing this pattern of behaviour in the workplace and increasingly in social settings. The idea is pretty simple. What if the laptop lid facing the person not operating the computer had a second screen that could be revealed by sliding the metal covering open like a window. That way both participants in the conversation can see what is on the screen as a shared media element rather than an exclusive element only seen by the computer operator. When not being used in a collaborative context the laptop owner can slide the lid covering closed. That, in a nutshell is the collaborative laptop in it’s most basic configuration. Here are some basic illustrations.
Of course the collaborative laptop could be further extended by having a second keyboard be available that pops out at the push of a button if the second person wants to actively operate the computer too. With a collaborative laptop two people are sharing a single laptop while sitting in the classic conversation configuration. A common shared screen and optional second keyboard create a scenario where the laptop is an aid to collaboration and conversation rather than a hindrance.
A collaborative laptop transitions the computer from a solo device for solitary interaction to a collaborative device for use in social contexts.
Apple make me one please! Oh and ummm as the inventor of the collaborative laptop can I have a slice of the revenue from sales? đ
Filed under: Adult Learning | Tags: Adult Learning & Global Change (ALGC), Australia, Australian Centre for Photography, Australian Flexible Learning Network, e-Works, Monash University, Sydney Clinical School Skills & Simulation Centre, University of Technology Sydney
My work in online learning has been informed by my own first hand experiences as an online learner.
In 2004 I signed up for a 100% online graduate program called Adult Learning and Global Change (ALGC) involving students and instructors from four universities around the world – University of British Columbia (Canada), Linköping University (Sweden), University of the Western Cape (South Africa), and University of Technology, Sydney (Australia).
Students from around the world enroll in the program through one of the four universities. Courses are taught by faculty at all four universities giving students a rich range of experiences with adult learning and pedagogies from different countries. Throughout the two year program I got to know my fellow cohort of students really well as the online coursework involved extensive discussion and team-based learning assignments. Some of the students have become lasting friends. For those of you who have never taken an online course you may find it odd that a 100% online program could result in strong social bonds but my experience of this program was that the learning was far more social than any campus based classroom lecture I ever attended.
While still a student in this program I heard about a group of graduates from an earlier cohort who expressed interest in meeting each other face-to-face. Among themselves they organized a meeting in South Africa. This meeting was so successful that those participating decided to continue to organize a face-to-face gathering of ALGC students (both currently enrolled and alumni graduates) called the ALGC Institute every two years. In 2006, while I was still a student, the second ALGC Institute meeting was organized and took place in Vancouver. Students from my cohort and earlier ones came from around the world. It was fantastic!
In 2008 I attended the ALGC Institute in Sweden. And I’ve just returned from the 2010 ALGC Institute in Australia. I thought I’d share a bit of my experience from this most recent ALGC Institute in Australia as a way of solidifying my own experience and as a way of describing how I’m still learning from this online program despite having graduated years ago.
The Australia ALGC Institute was primarily organized by ALGC alumni students in Australia. I’m particularly grateful to Kirsty Foster and Barb McPherson for their dedication and efforts. The week long Institute is a wonderful mix of academic papers, site visits to different places involved with adult learning, presentations from ALGC students and alumni on their own adult learning work in their respective countries, and of course sight seeing and socializing. Accommodation is usually arranged in student dorms or other very affordable locations and meals are social communal affairs.
My trip started with a flight from Vancouver to Sydney. Before the Institute began I had two days of sight seeing. On my arrival I walked from the Y Hotel on Hyde street where I was staying through the central business district down to the circular quay where I caught a ferry boat ride out into the Sydney harbour to Neutral Bay and back. The Sydney Opera House is even more impressive than it appears in pictures. I went from summer in Vancouver to winter in Australia so it was odd to see bulbs coming up in the Sydney Royal Botanic Gardens. I checked out the Sydney Museum of Contemporary Art where I was totally impressed with aboriginal burial poles and bonsai art that integrated bonsai trees with vises and other metal tools. I ended my first day having yum cha (dim sum) at Marigolds in Chinatown.
Sydney Opera House From Ferry
The next day I hooked up with other ALGC students from Sweden and Canada for a day long trip to the Blue Mountains outside of Sydney. Our first stop was Featherdale Wildlife Park where we got up close to koalas, kangaroos, wombats, and emus. Featherdale started as a rehabilitation program for hurt and abandoned animals and now cares for over 2.200 animals representing the worlds largest collection of Australian native animals. From Featherdale we went to a local park where we all got to try our hand at boomerang throwing and learn about aboriginal culture. After a considerable drive we then took a guided walk to a spectacular cliff overlooking Jamison Valley with its sandstone cliffs and wild bush. It was great to experience the bush after the hub-bub of the city. From there we descended down into the valley via a flying cable car and had a guided walk beneath the canopy of the forest before ascending again via the world’s steepest railway. Next up a little shopping through the arts and craft shops in the charming town of Leura. The day ended with a cruise back into Sydney onboard the Rivercat which took us along the Parramatta River, under the Sydney harbour bridge, past the opera house and back to the circular quay.
Koala at Featherdale
The first official day of the ALGC Institute began with us all meeting at Maroubra beach for a beach walk and hike out to the amazing rock formations on Magic Point where we could look for whales. We didn’t see whales but we did see dolphins playing in the waves with the surfers. Kirsty Foster hosted a wonderful lunch for us all in her home. The official opening of the Institute took place that night at the Australian Centre for Photography where we given a wonderful reception and tour through their galleries and education facilities. The Australian Centre for Photography is Australia’s longest running contemporary art space and it was fascinating to hear Alasdair Foster describe its role in building community and fostering creative expression across all artistic endeavours.
Alasdair Foster telling us about Australian Center for Photography
On Monday morning we gathered at the University of Technology Sydney. This university was the original Australian ALGC partner institution but it has since dropped out and been replaced with Monash University based in Melbourne. However when I was a student in the ALGC program the University of Technology was still involved so I was interested in seeing what it was like. This day was devoted to a series of academic papers and presentations. Tom Sork from the University of British Columbia in Canada gave a presentation/paper titled A Quibble of Lawyers: Negotiating the Complexities of International University Partnerships which explored the challenges and experiences involved in getting the ALGC program approved and formalizing agreements between the four universities involved in delivering it. It really is a very unique program. Garnet Grosjean from the University of British Columbia in Canada and a teaching faculty member in the ALGC program gave a presentation/paper on Developing Social Capital in Virtual Communities which drew upon research as well as practical experiences from the ALGC program.
Garnet Grosjean on Magic Point at Maroubra Beach
We then had a now for something completely different presentation from Elaine Swan from the University of Technology in Sydney called Tracks of My Tears – Therapeutic Cultures and Bodies of Truth which explored the social and therapeutic importance of crying including gender differences, crying at work, and media depiction of crying. After lunch I did a session on Architecting EdTech and Deo Bishundayal from the University of British Columbia in Canada did a session on E-Learning with Diversity which explored the dynamics that can emerge when students from very diverse backgrounds are placed in teams and asked to do a group assignment. The concluding session of the day was by Gunhild Carlsson an ALGC alumni student from Sweden who gave a fantastic presentation on her own personal arts research logging thinking and decision making while creating frescoes in Florence.
On Tuesday we went to the University of Sydney Clinical School – Skills & Simulation Centre. ALGC alumni student Kirsty Foster and her colleagues Jacquie Langeris and Sue Wulf hosted us for the day leading us through hands on sessions in the simulation centre. The labs in the simulation centre are equipped with dummies that provide an opportunity for medical professionals to acquire and practice skills such as monitoring and analysing heart rate and breathing and perform resuscitation. Using the dummies we got some hands on practise learning to to open up an air way, take a blood sample, do suturing, work as teams using the camera and utensils involved with laparoscopy surgery. We had a tour of the simulation theatre and saw the way in which a full operating procedure can be simulated along with the subsequent debriefing that the team receives on what went well an what didn’t. Beyond the eye/hand skills acquisition that can be gained I was delighted to learn of the communication simulations which provide an opportunity for medical professionals to practice things like giving bad news to patients where, in this case, the patients are actors who cry real tears. It was a tremendous privilege to see this simulation centre and learn more about adult learning in a medical context. At the end of this day we all flew from Sydney to Melbourne.
Tom Sork, Ann Christine Gustavsson, Jacquie Langeris, and Kirsty Foster
On Wednesday morning we all went to Monash University the new Australian partner university in the ALGC program. Here more Australian based ALGC students currently enrolled in the program or recently graduated joined in on the activities. The day started with a warm welcome from Professor Terry Seddon, which was then followed by a presentation on Internationalising work and learning given by Tangerine Holt who supports the Monash Office of International Engagement in the management of and response to education and research related international activities. This presentation revealed the dramatic extent of growth Monash has undertaken in terms of setting up international campuses and recruiting international students a trend many universities around the world have followed.
Kirsty Foster then gave a very moving presentation on Building Critical Care Capacity in Timor Leste through Education which looked at her own work supporting the development of critical care hospital skills in Timor as part of their recovery from brutal repression by Indonesia.
Ann Christine Gustavsson, an ALGC alumni student from Sweden, then gave a presentation on her European Union funded work on the LYSA project involving workplace based training as a qualified complement to formal education. This project created a partnership of eight small communities in Sweden working together to develop an education and work placement program primarily for refugees. The program involved pooling teachers and students and using video conferencing to deliver the education across all eight communities. Industry participation resulted in a focus on developing skills and practical experience for participants in job areas with real employment opportunities such as work in a bakery, at a restaurant, house cleaning and as a personal assistant. The project has resulted in approx. 70% of participants getting employment.
Mogomotsi Kenalemang an Monash ALGC student presented work from his thesis which explored workplace learning in Botswana particularly as it relates to work in the diamond mines there. And Julie Dyer from Monash University presented her preliminary research work on Building the International Self which looks at the personal impact international travel, work and experiences has on our self identity and perception of the world. The day ended with a community café bringing together ALGC Institute participants with Monash students pursuing a BEd in Adult Learning for discussions of provocative questions over afternoon tea.
On Thursday we met Howard Errey, Kenneth Gooding, and Debbie Soccio who work for eWorks based in Melbourne. e-Works is an arms length business unit of the Kangan Batman Institute of TAFE. It is responsible for management of state and national initiatives related to the integration of information and communication technologies (ICT) in education and training initiated by the Australian Flexible Learning Framework. As e-Works has a lot of similarities to BCcampus, where I work, the session involved reciprocal presentations on our respective initiatives and general discussion among all about the similarities and differences. It was quite remarkable how similar many of our initiatives are. I was particularly impressed with e-Works TAFE Virtual Campus, Flexible Learning Toolboxes, and initiatives supported through their e-learning innovations fund.
For Friday’s site visit we went to BlueScope Steel Manufacturing on the Mornington Penninsula outside of Melbourne. BlueScope has the best safety record of any steel company in the world. After an orientation and tour we met with staff responsible for training and safety to learn how they managed to achieve such a safety record. Their safety goal is “zero harm” and charts showing lost time injury frequency rate tell an impressive story of how their programs have dramatically reduced injuries. I was also impressed with their interest in reducing harm to the environment.
After BlueScope we all went to Phillip Island where we visited Churchill Island Heritage Farm, a Koala Conservation Area, and watched the Penguin Parade at dusk when hundreds of penguins come out of the ocean and waddle along paths among the onlookers to their burrows. Amazing to be so close to them and to hear their calls.
Friday night we all got together for a celebratory closing ceremony over pizza and wine before going our separate ways on Saturday. A wonderful compilation of photos and scenes from the Australia ALGC Institute was put together and distributed by Barb McPherson. This .pdf has lots more photos and all the participants.
As I reflect on this Australia ALGC Institute and my ongoing interest I’m struck by the following:
- What an awesome approach to sustaining alumni interest in the program and providing a value add that truly makes it a lifelong learning experience
- The students and faculty in the ALGC program are like a kind of family to me. The friends I’ve made through this program and these Institutes have been longer lasting than friends I made through campus based education programs
- Going to each of the four countries involved in the ALGC program has become a kind of pilgrimage
- These ALGC Institutes are a kind of “edutourism”. Education becomes the lens through which you learn about the country. Instead of visiting chuches, museums, and other historic sites (although we do that too) the primary focus is on visiting places involved in adult learning. While in Australia I talked up the idea of doing a travel guide series based on this idea. Brenda suggested this could be called Learning Planet instead of Lonely Planet. I like that, so if you’re a travel guide publisher or an education enthusiast in another country and you’re interested in this idea, contact me.
- Can’t wait for the next gathering – South Africa 2012!
Filed under: Digital Economy | Tags: digital economy, digital film & animation, e-learning, interactive design, interactive entertainment, Ministry of Digital Technology, mobile, music
This post summarizes input I submitted to Canada’s federal government Digital Economy Consultation.
June 29, 2010
The Honourable Tony Clement
Minister of Industry
Government of Canada
Re: Digital Economy Consultation
In 2008 I was part of a digital media visioning and working group formed by the Cultural Human Resources Council. This group met throughout 2008 and published a Digital Media Content Creation Technology Roadmap in January 2009.
The Digital Media Content Creation Technology Roadmap report identifies six major technology projects and corresponding skills development initiatives, which need to happen over the next five years for Canada’s multi-billion dollar digital technology industry to be competitive in the global market.
The six technology projects are:
1. Open, fast, and affordable networks/access with quality of service
2. Tools for compression to optimize bandwidth use
3. Collaborative creation network environments and tools
4. Mobile network and device technologies to distribute, create and present content/services (Open network)
5. Digital media usability research network
6. Centralized interoperable mechanism for micro-transactions
I encourage the government to implement the technology steps, support the collaborations suggested, and take the skills development steps recommended in the Digital Media Content Creation Technology Roadmap report.
This project brought together leaders in the Digital Media industry from across the country representing:
– Mobile Content
– Digital Film and Animation
– E-Learning (this is the sector I was representing)
– Interactive Entertainment
– Interactive Design & Web 2.0
A research report “New Media Content Creation in Canada – An Overview Report” prepared by Steve Bocska for Industry Canada provided some essential structure and guidance. However, the diversity of sectors and rich range of perspectives and suggestions quickly created complexity. After sitting through a visioning session and some follow-on discussions I created a big picture visual representation of the key areas that need to be bolstered to enhance Canada’s digital economy. (click on image to enlarge)
This diagram identifies policy, research, business, technology, people and markets as main inter-related arteries of Canada’s digital economy. Both digital technology content creation and digital technology delivery are essential components of the industry with creation feeding delivery. A “destination” or overarching national goal for how digital technology will benefit Canada is required. This destination goal ensures that all Canadians benefit from the digital economy not just economically but socially and culturally too.
To advance Canada’s digital economy we need a comprehensive strategy and approach that utilizes policy, research, business, technology, people and markets. Here’s a quick summary of my recommendations:
Recommendation #1 Establish National Goals for Canada’s Digital Economy
- make Canada the best place to live for digital technology creators
- establish a public digital green space supporting innovation, linking digital creators & users, and ensuring universal benefits from digital capabilities
- promote the link between digital media literacy with happiness and prosperity
- develop a nationally pervasive digital innovation culture
- broaden perspective of digital economy beyond culture to include all sectors
- support and facilitate digital businesses domestically and internationally
Recommendation #2 – Federal digital economy research, policy, support and initiatives are spread across multiple ministries. This creates a fractured front for industry groups to deal with resulting in a lack of cohesion, coordination and impact. Establish a Ministry of Digital Technology.
Recommendation #3: While its important to protect intellectual property and generate economic worth from digital development there is a significant and growing movement around open public sharing, distribution, and reuse. Canada needs to have a balanced approach to copyright and openness. Ensure all publicly funded research and resources developed for education are licensed for open sharing and reuse.
Recommendation #4: Consider tax credits for the digital economy.
Recommendation #5: Establish policy and regulations around digital economy foreign ownership.
Recommendation #6: Support infrastructure for digital technology distribution that makes bandwidth equally available in rural and urban areas
Recommendation #7: Develop a policy strategy to support businesses in moving digital technology developments from development to commercialization.
Recommendation #8: Provide federal support for international market penetration.
Recommendation #9: Telco control has resulted in expensive wireless and a loss of national control of bandwidth. Establish policy and regulations that ensure bandwidth is a national public good and reduce the cost of wireless.
Recommendation #9: Research on the digital economy needs to substantially increase. Major ongoing research is needed on market trends and business models. Research should be done through academic and industry collaborations. Digital technology centres of excellence should be created. A research knowledge base needs to be built and benchmarks on the industry established.
Recommendation #10: Support digital economy businesses with market opportunity definition and investment & funding. Work with broadcasters, carriers, and providers to establish local and international sales support and systems for e-commerce micropayments.
Rcommendation #11: Develop a technology view and inventory of Canada’s digital economy. Include software, hardware, middleware and infrastructure. Define distribute channels, devices and methods of distribution including streamed and interactive.
Recommendation #12: Develop a human resource strategy to support growth and development of the digital economy. Define digital economy end users including demographics and individual vs. shared or mass digital media users.
Recommendation #13: Define and analyze local, national and international digital economy markets.
Recommendation #14: Define segments of Canada’s digital economy including e-learning, mobile, interactive design, digital film & animation, interactive entertainment, music, and other emerging technologies.
Paul Stacey
Filed under: Edtech Architectures | Tags: b, cloud computing, educational technology architectures, Educational Technology Users Group (ETUG), enterprise systems, learning management systems, personal learning environments, shared application services, student information systems
Architecting EdTech â Integrating Personal Learning Environments, Enterprise Systems, Shared Application Services, and Cloud Computing
Over the last few years I’ve presented a lot on Open Educational Resources and online communities. Thought I’d do a different kind of presentation at the 2010 Educational Technology Users Group Spring Workshop being held at the University of Victoria June 7 & 8.
With the explosion of tools and technologies being used for teaching and learning I thought it might be interesting to map out some of the major structural components, differentiate between elements of the architecture that are the responsibility of the institution vs. those that (potentially) are not, and assess the pros and cons of hosting in-house vs sourcing elsewhere.
I started thinking about this last year when I was trying to make sense of the educational technology landscape and choices that CIO’s at institutions face. I’d been reading a lot about Personal Learning Environments (PLE’s) vs. Learning Management Systems (LMS) and noticed they were frequently pitted against one another as if you had to choose one or the other. My own thinking is that there is no “one size fits all” magic solution and that a clear option is to architect an educational technology environment by drawing on technologies across the full spectrum of choices from personal technologies to cloud computing.
I’m not a super tech geeky kind of guy so what I’ve tried to do is approach this in a way that everyone can understand whether you are an instructional designer, faculty, administrator, or IT staff. Essentially I wanted to devise something that would take a complex topic “educational technology architectures” and break it down into more manageable understandable components that clearly depict the areas of provision and choice.
I began by looking for educational technology architecture diagrams.
Here’s one from JISC in the UK:
DEST (Australia), JISC-CETIS (UK), and Industry Canada. (2004). Service-Oriented Frameworks: Modelling the infrastructure for the next generation of e-Learning Systems. Retrieved June 6, 2010, from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearningframework
Michelle Lamberson from the Office of Learning Technologies at the University of British Columbia shared this one with me:
Lamberson, M., K. Fleming. (2008). Aligning Institutional Culture and Practice: The University of British Columbiaâs (emerging) e-Learning Framework. Nime International Symposium 2008
My colleague Scott Leslie has a great collection of personal learning environment architectures:
From: http://nogoodreason.typepad.co.uk/no_good_reason/2007/12/my-personal-wor.html
http://www.slideshare.net/sleslie/becoming-a-network-learner-presentation
And this Personal Learning Environment diagram from a faculty perspective by Alec Couros:
Alec Couros, PhD Thesis illustration, the Networked Teacher – http://educationaltechnology.ca/couros/580
Scott Leslie http://edtechpost.wikispaces.com/PLE+Diagrams
I also found diagrams that represent some of the enterprise applications in place at institutions such as Student Information Systems. Like this one of a Colleague system at North Idaho College:
Analysis & Programming, North Idaho College
http://www.nic.edu/compserv/csdepts/apstaff/pages/ERP_env.htm
Or this one of a Sungard Banner system:
The Big Bang! Upgrading to Banner 8.1 Presented by: TJ Rains, PMP Associate CIO, Enterprise Systems Emporia State University April 12, 2010 Session ID 0042
http://www.slideshare.net/rainstho/the-big-bang-upgrading-to-banner-81-3184987
While it was possible to find diagrams of individual components of the educational technology landscape, surprisingly, I found no diagrams that present a more macro view of educational technology with all these components shown together as a comprehensive and complementary suite of technologies.
So I thought I’d undertake to do just that. This workshop (and blog post) is intended to provide everyone with a template which can be used to create a diagram representing the combination of educational technologies currently at play.
To create some order out of the current chaos of educational technologies I’ve categorized them as a means of organizing our thinking around their use and to delineate responsibilities over their provision. The basic components of the framework are:
– Personal Information Technology & Learning Environments
– Institution Enterprise Information Technology
– System Wide Information Technology & Shared Services
I’ve culled out separately Teaching & Learning Educational Applications. Currently the method by which these are provisioned (personally, as part of the institution, or at the system level) is very much in flux. I’ve also added areas for Cloud Computing and External Application Service Provider as a means of further stimulating discussion around the provisioning.
For the purposes of this workshop I’ve laid this overarching perspective out in the following template:
I know how hard it is to generate an educational technology diagram from a blank sheet so I’ve generated, as a reference starting point an edtech architecture diagram representing my take on what the BC educational technology landscape looks like.
For the workshop, using this diagram as reference, we’ll discuss the technologies that comprise each of Personal Information Technology & Learning Environments, Institution Enterprise Information Technology, and System Wide Information Technology & Shared Services.
You then identify the technologies that make up your educational landscape based on your personal use, institution where you are at and/or your desired technology landscape and diagram these onto the blank template. One way of doing this is to imagine you are a CIO. How would you combine and integrate technologies from these sources?
There are many challenges around doing this for real. One of the challenges is integration. How can these technologies be integrated into a seamless end user experience? Gaps between framework components were put in to enable you to draw arrows connecting technologies to show that integration.
Another major challenge is the way in which a person’s digital identity is managed. Should a person’s educational digital identity be based on the digital identity already in use in their personal information technology environment? Be established as an institutionally based identity? Or be a system wide digital identity that can be federated across different institutions and educational settings?
Exploration of the Teaching and Learning Educational Applications component will delve in to provisioning. What are the pros & cons of hosting everything in-house at an institution vs. external provision? Can some of the teaching and learning educational applications be sourced from students own personal information technology? When should you consider using an external application service provider or cloud computing and what are the issues around provisioning technology this way? Rather than each institution having to make this kind of decision independently are their benefits that can be accrued from pooling requirements and using system level shared services?
At BCcampus system level shared services are an emerging and growing option so I thought as a closing part of this architecting edtech exploration I’d share a bit more information around how this works.
Based on expressed institutional interest and requests, BCcampus has been providing a number of educational technology shared services for BC public post secondary institutions. These shared services provide a consortium-based approach for educational technology service provision to students and faculty. These shared services can be used for academic programs, trades programs, and continuing studies.
Shared services typically reduce software licensing, provisioning, and support costs by aggregating system wide demand and negotiating system wide licenses and services. For most shared services BCcampus underwrites a portion of the costs associated with its provision leaving institutions to only cover costs associated with their own use above and beyond the BCcampus supported base.
Adobe Connect is a web conferencing system licensed by BCcampus on behalf of the entire post secondary system. The BCcampus Adobe Connect system is installed on a BCcampus server at Simon Fraser University (SFU) on the BCNET backbone. 24/6 server support is provided by SFU and maintenance of the server and installation of upgrades is done by SFU IT staff. On behalf of the post secondary system BCcampus licensed Adobe Connect on the basis of 40 concurrent user seats. A base level of 5 seats has been provided by BCcampus as a free service to institutions who expressed early interest in participating. Institutions can purchase licenses for additional seats at a discounted Adobe Connect one time license fee, plus annual maintenance/support. These seats can be used at the discretion of the institution for any purpose within the scope of the institutional mandate including 100% online courses, hybrid or blended courses, meetings, tutoring, etc. Langara College is providing some administrative support for all those participating in this shared service.
Here’s a diagram illustrating the extent to which the 25 public post-secondary colleges and universities in BC are participating in this service (based on Oct. 2009 status report).
Moodle is an open source software learning management system. As an open source software application it can be freely downloaded and used by anyone without paying licensing fees. BCcampus provides a free Moodle shared service with Moodle installed on a BCcampus server at Simon Fraser University on the BCNET backbone. 24/6 server support and maintenance is provided by SFU. Moodle installation and upgrades are done by Lambda Solutions, a Vancouver based e-learning company with extensive Moodle expertise. Each of the Moodle shared service participating institutions has their own instance of Moodle allowing for independence and flexibility with regard to upgrades. The shared service Moodle application can be used for testing, development and full production.
Here’s a diagram illustrating the extent to which the 25 public post-secondary colleges and universities in BC are participating in this service (based on Oct. 2009 status report).
Desire2Learn (D2L) is a learning management system licensed by BCcampus on behalf of the entire post secondary system. The D2L system is hosted by Desire2Learn on a server in Ontario. Desire2Learn maintains the server and installs scheduled upgrades. The D2L support desk is available 24/7 for designated institutional administrators. Each participating institution manages and controls their own courses and users in D2L. Initial training for both administrators and instructors has been provided and supported by BCcampus staff. As a system wide shared service BCcampus currently provides D2L for free to all collaborative programs including Applied Business Technology and Northern Collaborative Information Technology. At the institutional level BCcampus provides D2L for up to 3000 enrollments for free. Institutions needing additional capacity pay a fee for each additional enrollment (. BCcampus organizes monthly meetings among all participants.
Here’s a diagram illustrating the extent to which the 25 public post-secondary colleges and universities in BC are participating in this service (based on Oct. 2009 status report).
Elluminate is a web conferencing system used by a wide number of post-secondary institutions. BCcampus provides an Elluminate shared service based on an Open Access License model. This license differs from traditional enrollment or seat based licenses in that it allows for unlimited use by everyone in the institution. Such a license enables all departments to use Elluminate for any purpose including fully online courses, blended or hybrid classroom/online courses, meetings, tutoring, advising, etc. Elluminate is hosted by the vendor on servers in Calgary. Server maintenance and support along with upgrades will be done by Elluminate. Licensing fees are based on the combined FTEâs of all institutions participating in the shared service. As with other shared services BCcampus provides a level of base funding.
Here’s a diagram illustrating the extent to which the 25 public post-secondary colleges and universities in BC are participating in this service (based on Oct. 2009 status report).
These shared services show that decisions around provisioning technologies can sometimes be done in a way that leverages requirements across multiple institutions to generate system level services that create cost-savings and better service for all. Even in the small number of BCcampus examples there are a number of different business models.
I hope through this Architecting EdTech workshop/post you now can:
- identify and define major structural components of post-secondary information technology systems
- differentiate between elements of the architecture that are the responsibility of the institution vs. those that (potentially) are not
- discuss the challenges of provisioning educational technology solutions within post-secondary
- assess the pros and cons of provisioning teaching & learning educational applications through personal information technology and learning environments, in-house at the institution, at the system or shared service level, or via an external application service provider or cloud computing
- design an edtech architecture that integrates Personal Information Technology and Learning Environmentâs, Institutional Enterprise Information Technology, and System Wide Information Technology & Shared Services
If you generate an edtech architecture diagram I’d love to see it. E-mail it to me (pstacey@bccampus.ca), post it, or a link to it, as a comment to this post. I’d also welcome comments/links to any diagrams that show a piece of the overall educational technology landscape I’ve mapped out. I’m particularly interested in disgrams that you have found particularly helpful for you in making sense of the whole educational technology area.
And finally at the workshop I distributed large 11 X 17 versions of my edtech diagrams.
Let me know if you want one and I can either print one out for you or send you the .pdf.
Filed under: Online Communities | Tags: Digital Habitats, Educational Technology Users Group, online communities, online community enthusiasts, orientations, social structures, spidergram
On May 8, 2010 BCcampus hosted an Online Community Enthusiasts event at the Roundhouse Community Centre in Yaletown downtown Vancouver.
It was fun and apropos to hold an event for online communities in a neighbourhood community centre. I found the sounds, activities, and ambience of a mixed use community centre replete with drop-in gatherings of moms with infants in strollers, areas for play, music making, arts & crafts, playgrounds and athletic facilities, theatre areas, and coffee in the courtyard, an interesting juxtaposition for an online community enthusiasts gathering.
This event brought together around 20 people from higher education, K-12, government, NGO’s, and other sectors to explore technology stewardship of online communities of practice. The recently published book Digital Habitats was used as a resource for the day and one of the co-authors of the book, Nancy White, co-facilitated with Alice MacGillivray.
Nancy led the primary activity of the morning drawing on chapter 6 of the Digital Habitats book where nine orientations of online communities are described:
1. Meetings
2. Projects
3. Access to expertise
4. Relationships
5. Context
6. Community cultivation
7. Individual participation
8. Content publishing
9. Open ended conversation
Each of us indicated how important the nine orientations are to our online community on a diagram which had an Activities Orientation circle in the centre and nine radiating arrows representing each of the orientations emanating out. We indicated importance by placing a dot on each arrow. The more important the orientation the further out on the arrow the dot is placed. After placing a dot along each arrow the dots are connected to form a spidergram for your community.
Community Orientations Spidergram Example
This is the second time I’ve done this activity. The first time I did it as part of a group activity examining the Educational Technology Users Group online community. In that case we considered where the community is now on each of the orientation radiating arrows and placed a second dot where we’d like it to be.
Every time I do this activity I find myself thinking about whether these nine orientations represent the full range of activities I’ve experienced in online communities. I keep wondering about the usefulness of the diagrams as a means of comparing and contrasting communities. Of what use is the spider aspect of the diagram? Certainly, as described in the Digital Habitats book, understanding the orientations of your community gives you an important sense of what technologies you need to focus on in order to support those orientations.
In the afternoon Alice got us going with listing the challenges and the things community steward struggle with on sticky notes. A mind map summary of those challenges has been posted in SCoPE.
She then set up small group discussions of community dynamics using natural habitat images and themes including:
– eddies
– boundaries
– back and forth
– mutualism
Its interesting to contemplate and explore with others the way these ideas play out in community and consider the role they might have if deliberately used. A nice summary of some of the observations can be found in SCoPE.
I really enjoyed prepping for this workshop by reading the book Digital Habitats – a must read for anyone planning or running online communities of practice.
Reading Digital Habitats triggered an observation for me which I’ll post here as a suggestion/request for a new online community book. A tremendous amount of what has been written about Communities of Practice focuses on the technology underpinnings for communities. I totally believe this is an important topic as are the many books that talk about the activities that can be supported within online communities.
However, there is something missing for me.
Humans are by nature social. Online communities are doing a good job of mashing up individual voices, however they are doing less well at supporting the formation and expression of social groups. When I think about the challenges around the online communities I’m involved with most of the challenges revolve around the manifestation of existing groups within online communities. How can we create a club in an online community, a professional association in an online community, a special interest group, a users group, a committee, a school or institution, a company, and all the myriad variations?
Inherent in these social groups are governance and organizational structures. Governance might be by steering committees, or boards of directors, or elected officials. Organizational structures might be hierarchical, or flat, or some combination. How can these governance and organizational structures be represented and supported in online communities? How does an online community support the way these social groups conduct their business – meetings, consultation, decision making, reports, etc. that are currently done face-to-face? We need more writing about the creation and support of social structures in online communities.
Filed under: Open Educational Resources (OER) | Tags: BC Commons, creative commons, credentials, metrics, outcomes, partnerships, reuse, sharing, sustainability
I’ve been immersed in analysing data from the last seven years of the BCcampus OER initiative.
I’m particularly interested in conveying the value for money or outcomes associated with our initiative.
So how does BCcampus measure its OER outcomes?
One way of expressing the outcome is to simply quantify the BCcampus OER deliverables.
This is the metric I’m most often asked by the Ministry. The answer goes like this:
Through the BCcampus OER initiative 131 projects have received grants leading to development of 317 courses, 10 workshops, 18 web sites/tools and 338 course components (learning objects, labs, textbooks, manuals, videos).
That’s one way of expressing outcomes.
However, in my view this basic quantification of deliverables does not get to the deeper value for money outcomes.
Over the last couple of months I’ve been working with a data specialist to construct a complete picture of the OER initiative and to analyse the results more deeply. Here then are some of what I think of as the deeper and more meaningful BCcampus OER outcomes:
1. Partnerships
The public post secondary system in British Columbia is made up of largely autonomous institutions. Part of the mandate of BCcampus is to foster collaborations and partnerships between institutions and others.
BCcampus OER Partnership Outcome:
105 of the 131 BCcampus OER initiatives, or 80%, involve collaborations and partnerships between multiple BC post-secondary institutions. In addition there have been 45 external partners involved in the 131 development projects.
External partners include:
– national and international universities
– professional associations
– K-12 school districts and school boards
– e-learning companies
– foundations
– First Nations tribal councils
– health authority’s
– literacy groups
I’ve been told over the years that the multi-institutional partnership requirement of the BCcampus OER initiative is one of the more challenging aspects for institutions to fulfill. Institutions form partnerships with each other based on academic program synergy and a mutual academic need. Partnering involves pooling expertise and developing an online resource that both institutions subsequently use. Each institution has what might be thought of as its own “trading partners” with whom they repeatedly form partnerships. Trading partners often share a similar stature in the system such as partnerships among remote rural colleges or partnerships among large research based universities. I’ve been told that once partnerships form the partnership often extends out into other activities beyond the BCcampus OER initiative.
2. Credentials
A goal of the BCcampus OER initiative is to increase credential opportunities available to students throughout the province by funding development of post-secondary online courses, programs, and resources. Credentials in BC’s post-secondary are categorized as follows:
– Apprentice-Entry Level
– Associate Degree
– Bachelor’s Degree
– Certificate
– Citation
– Diploma
– Doctoral Degree
– Grad Cert/Diploma
– No Credential Granted
– University Transfer
* Note: This credential categorization is taken from EducationPlanner.ca
Credentials are developed through the BCcampus OER initiative in four ways:
1. A single round of funding allows for development of all the courses required for a complete credential.
2. A complete credential is built out gradually through multiple rounds of funding.
3. The OER initiative provides funding needed for development of the last few courses required to make the complete credential online.
4. The OER initiative creates a number of online courses that can be used across multiple credentials or serve as the building blocks for creating credentials.
The BCcampus OER initiative has contributed to the development of 41 credentials:
Associate Degree
– Associate of Arts Degree & Associate of Arts Degree in Geography
– Associate of Arts Degree in First Nations Studies
– Web-based Associate of Science
Bachelor’s Degree
– BAâPsychology
– Bachelor of General Studies (Police Studies)
– Bachelor of Tourism Management
– Bachelor’s Degree in Psychology
– Bachelor’s Degree with a Marketing Minor
– Classroom and Community Support Program
– Minor in Gerontology
– Northern Collaborative Baccalaureate Nursing Programme
Certificate
– Administration Assistant Certificate
– Certificate in First Nations Housing Managers Training
– Certificate in Gerontology
– Certificate in Tourism Event Management
– Community Development Certificate program
– Computer Technology Certificate
– Finance for First Nations Housing Managers
– First Nation Shellfish Aquaculture General Management Certificate
– Medical Office Assistant Certificate
– Practical Nursing Online Certificate
– Provincial Legal Administrative Assistant Online Certificate
– Renewable Energy Certificate Program
Diploma
– Aboriginal Business Administration Diploma
– Aboriginal Community Economic Development Diploma
– Access to Dental Hygeine Diploma
– Advanced Diploma in Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD)
– Advanced Diploma in Human Resources
– Animal Health Technology Diploma
– Business Administration General Management Diploma
– Continuing Health Care Administration Diploma
– Diploma in Local Government Management
– Diploma in Public Sector Management
– Early Childhood Care and Education Diploma
– First Nations Public Administration Diploma
Graduate Certificate/Diploma
– Graduate Diploma in Public Health
– Graduate Certificate in Child and Youth Mental Health
– Post Baccalaureate Diploma in Gerontology
– Post Bacclaureate Diploma in Marketing
– Post Graduate Technical Diploma in Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
Master’s Degree
– Masters of Applied Arts
In addition to explicit development of the above credentials some BCcampus OER initiatives develop multi-purpose undergraduate online courses or smaller course components for unspecified credentials. These initiatives typically express their intent as developing core foundation level resources that can be used across multiple courses and credentials.
To deepen the analysis I’ve been drilling down from the credential level to fields of study. The BC Council on Admissions and Transfer’s Education Planner site categorizes BC’s higher education academic offerings into the following fields of study:
– Agriculture Natural Resources and Science
– Business Management
– Communications
– Computer and Information Services
– Construction and Precision Production
– Development Programs (e.g. ABE, ESL)
– Education and Library Studies
– Engineering/ Electrical and Electronics
– Health Related
– Legal and Social Services
– Liberal Arts and Humanities
– Mechanical and Related
– Recreation, Tourism, Hospitality Service
– Sciences
– Social Sciences
– Transportation (Air, Land, Marine)
– Visual, Performing and Fine Arts
I’ve analysed the BCcampus OER initiative data to determine what percent are in each of these fields of study.
It breaks out like this:
Agriculture Natural Resources and Science = 4.83%
Business Management = 10.07%
Communications = .13%
Computer and Information Services = 1.21%
Construction and Precision Production = 0%
Development Programs (e.g. ABE, ESL) = 6.17%
Education and Library Studies = 3.36%
Engineering/ Electrical and Electronics = 1.20%
Health Related = 12.35%
Legal and Social Services = 3.36%
Liberal Arts and Humanities = 5.23%
Mechanical and Related = 2.55%
Recreation. Tourism, Hospitality Service = 7.52%
Sciences = 16.38%
Social Sciences = 10.34%
Transportation (Air, Land, Marine) = 0%
Visual, Performing and Fine Arts = 4.16%
As you can see the field of study area that has received the most development is in science with 16.38%, the second highest is health with 12.35%, then social sciences with 10.34%, and business management with 10.07%. The remaining percentage of development has gone toward development of professional learning resources and a small amount to apprenticeship.
Going deeper still, each field of study breaks down into subject areas. Visit Education Planner’s Program Search to see list of over 200 subject areas available. I thought it would be interesting to consider the extent to which the BCcampus OER initiative has resulted in development of resources across the full spectrum of subject areas. The BCcampus OER initiative has developed resources in 63 of the 200 subject areas.
BCcampus OER initiative credential, field of study, and subject area outcomes are shaped each year by the call for proposals. Typically the call targets development in areas of high student demand and labour market need. In some years the Ministry makes explicit priorities. For example in the 2009 call for proposals the Ministry expressed the following as priorities – Early Childhood Education; Health-related Programs; Programs aimed at Aboriginal Learners as well as learners with disabilities, mature learners and recent immigrants; Technician and Technologist Programs; Tourism and Hospitality. However, post-secondary institutions can submit proposals for any area and to some extent the credential, field of study and subject area coverage represents priorities of the entire BC public post-secondary system.
3. Sharing and Reuse
Like other OER initiatives the “open” goal of the BCcampus OER initiative is to create a source of digital materials that are openly shared and available for reuse by others.
The BCcampus OER initiative gives developers the choice of Creative Commons and BC Commons licenses. Developers wanting to participate in the global OER movement can go with Creative Commons. Alternatively they can choose the BC Commons license which provides for open sharing locally at the provincial level among all 25 public post secondary institutions.
One outcome I’ve been interested in tracking is, when given an option between these two licenses what license choice do developers make. I think of this as a measure of “openness”. In the first two years of the BCcampus OER initiative over 90% of developers chose the BC Commons license. In the next two years 78% chose the BC Commons license. In the last three years 47% chose the BC Commons license. In 2003 when we started the BCcampus OER initiative developers let us know in no uncertain terms that they were uncomfortable with wide open sharing. This comes through loud and clear in their license choices. However, as OER become a more widely known global phenomenon and the risks many initially feared from sharing diminish developers are becoming increasingly willing, and in some cases advocates for, being globally open.
I often think of OER as existing on a continuum of openness. At the most closed end of the continuum is fully copyright protected. At the most open end of the contiuum is public domain. BC Commons licensed OER are more open than copyright protected resources but not as open as Creative Commons.
Another obvious outcome to measure is reuse. On the surface this measure seems obvious. How many of the resources developed are reused by others? However, the answer is less easy to arrive at. Part of the challenge is defining reuse.
What are the use cases for OER? For global OER the most common use case is translation and use in a developing country. For some OER, such as Connexions the use case is student self study or assembly of OER components into a print-on-demand textbook. For MIT’s OpenCourseWare a significant use case is marketing whereby the OER are seen as a calling card for attracting students to enroll and pursue a degree at MIT. Once enrolled another use case is when MIT students view the OpenCourseWare not for self study but as an academic planning aid helping them pick which courses they’ll sign up for next term.
For those of us who have been involved in e-learning for many years the reuse of digital learning resources has a long history. Prior to OER, learning objects, small 2 to 15 minute units of learning, were seen as a key form factor for reuse. The key affordance of learning objects is that instructors can custom assemble them into larger modules of learning that fit their understanding of a domain or way of teaching. Interestingly reuse of learning objects did not take off and reuse of OER in this fashion similarly remains low.
The most common instructor use case for OER that I’ve heard of (and been told by many faculty) is different than what might be expected. For faculty development of a course is a creative exercise that represents their unique expertise and understanding of a field of study. There is a prevailing notion that no one else’s course could possibly be as good as the one they develop themselves. If faculty look at an OER they initially do so not with an eye to determining which parts of it they might use themselves but rather with an eye to seeing how a professional peer represents their own knowledge of a domain and the pedagogy they use to deliver it. This is the most common use of an OER by an instructor – the OER serves as a comparative framework for their own course with a view to how it is sequenced, how comprehensive it is, and the type of learning activities the instructor uses to engage students. This is in itself a form of reuse and a significant OER value proposition.
Of course the value proposition can be further enhanced if an instructor downloads the OER and reuses it in whole or in part. The licenses used for all OER support customization of the existing resource so instructors are not obliged to use an OER as is. They are free to use just a piece or to modify it to fit their needs.
BCcampus makes the OER produced through it’s initiative available in a repository that supports search, preview, and download. One way we can track reuse is to monitor whats being searched, viewed and downloaded. The software application used for the repository has limited reporting capabilities though – downloads for example are not easily tracked. But let me report out on views. From January 2008 through November 2009 634 resources in the repository were viewed. The total number of views was 1,853. So clearly the OER are at least meeting the first use case I depicted above where it is at least viewed. We can also see which resources have been viewed the most, giving an indication of popularity or high value.
Large scale reuse of OER across the full gamut of use cases remains elusive for virtually all OER initiatives. I believe much more work is required to show how OER fit within the instructional design process and we need to ensure that the level of effort required to reuse OER is less than the level of effort required to simply develop a new resource yourself. Most of all the credential and academic integrity of the resource needs to be preserved so that reuse involves more than simply repurposed content.
This exploration around measuring OER outcomes is my own take on showing value for money.
I’d love to hear from other OER initiatives on the metrics they are using and reporting on to show outcomes.
There has been a lot of talk about the sustainability of the OER movement.
Based on the analysis above I’d say OER must generate a return on investment right away.
OER generated through the BCcampus initiative have an immediate academic practical use with real students leading to credentials.
This outcome is itself worth the investment.
With that outcome in hand additional value comes through partnerships and reuse.
Relying on reuse outcomes alone to justify value for money is, at this time, folly.
Filed under: Open Educational Resources (OER) | Tags: BC Commons, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Capetown Open Education Declaration, creative commons, Hewlett Foundation, MIT OpenCourseWare, Open Learning, OpenLearn, Shareable Online Learning Resources (SOL*R)
Since 2003 I’ve been leading an Open Educational Resource (OER) initiative at BCcampus. This BCcampus Open Educational Resource initiative involves all 25 public post secondary institutions in the province of British Columbia, Canada.
Over the last seven years OER initiatives have proliferated. As the number of initiatives increase I’ve been following them with great interest and with an eye to compare and contrast them with each other and with ours at BCcampus.
I’ve noticed the BCcampus initiative is unique in a number of ways and thought I’d use this post to explore my thoughts about that uniqueness and raise some questions OER.
The BCcampus OER initiative differs from most others in that it is sectoral rather than institutional. In the BCcampus initiative OER are produced by all 25 public post secondary institutions in the province. As a sectoral initiative OER are primarily being developed via multi-institutional partnerships involving faculty and staff from more than one institution. Partner institutions each invest in the development of the OER and each use the developed resource. In addition many of the projects have formed partnerships with BC e-learning companies, not-for-profits, and professional associations to support the development effort. This maximizes the use of the resource and works toward the creation of an OER ecosystem within the province.
Other OER initiatives such as the MIT’s OpenCourseWare, Carnegie Mellon’s Open Learning Initiative, the UK Open University’s OpenLearn, and others are institutionally based with educational resources being produced from within the institution without partnerships across multiple institutions.
Another unique aspect of the BCcampus initiative is that it is funded using public tax payer money provided through the Ministry of Advanced Education. Investment is made annually via a competitive Request For Proposal (RFP) process. As of April 2010 BCcampus has done seven annual rounds of funding representing a total investment of $8.25 million dollars (CDN). Most other OER initiatives are funded through foundation grants including the Hewlett Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and others.
With funding coming from the Ministry of Advanced Education the primary goal of the BCcampus OER initiative is to increase the credential opportunities available to students throughout the province by funding development of post-secondary online courses, programs, and resources. The BCcampus OER initiative targets development at credit based, fully online learning courses in areas of high student demand and labour market need. Grants are intended to support curriculum development building out complete online programs leading to a credential.
The BCcampus OER initiative is focused on solving a provincial higher education need around credential opportunities and academic completion. I’ve noticed that many foundation supported OER initiatives are not actually seeking to solve academic or credential needs at the institutional or regional level. They are simply creating a pool of educational resources without an applied academic purpose or credential context.
Like other OER initiatives the “open” goal of the BCcampus OER initiative is to create a source of digital materials that are available for immediate free use eliminating the weeks and months of time it can take to seek permission to use existing digital materials. Reuse of openly shared online learning resources leverages an initial investment, in this case of public taxpayers dollars, many times over. It also stimulates and supports a culture inherent to education – sharing knowledge and building new knowledge off the work of those who came before you.
However, the breadth of the BCcampus OER goals differ from foundation funded OER initiatives. Most foundation funded OER initiatives have a global orientation not a regional one. A goal of the Hewlett Foundation OER grant program is to “Equalize access to knowledge for teachers and students around the globe through Open Educational Resources.” For some there is a moral and ethical imperative around the open sharing of educational resources globally based on a recognition of the world wide shortage of education. Globally open OER increases access to education by supplying content to those in need especially developing countries. This global rallying spirit is captured nicely in the Capetown Open Education Declaration. Another way of conceptualizing this is as a form of education philanthropy.
With the BCcampus OER being funded by a provincial government the focus is more on serving the needs of students in BC. The global philanthropy aspect of OER has not been mandated. However, limiting the focus to the province rather than the globe may also limit the extent to which the open nature of these resources has an impact. An underlying principle of OER is that others are free to change and improve the resource but must share it back when they do so for the benefit of all including the original developer.
A critical question for all OER initiatives is, “To what extent are OER being improved and modified by others and shared back to the benefit of the original developer and everyone else.?” The startling answer at this point in time is little to not at all.
The BCcampus OER initiative is unique in the licensing approach used. Foundation supported and globally oriented OER initiatives all mandate use of Creative Commons licenses. The provincial BCcampus OER initiative differs in that it offers developers license options. To make the OER open and shareable BCcampus OER developers are given licensing options of Creative Commons or BC Commons. Developers wanting to participate in the global OER movement and contribute to education philanthropy can go with Creative Commons. Alternatively they can choose the BC Commons license which provides for open sharing at the provincial level among all 25 public post secondary institutions rather than globally with everyone as provided through Creative Commons.
An important principle in the BCcampus OER initiative is choice. Developers must openly share but they can choose to share regionally or globally. Participation in the global OER movement is recommended but not mandated. The BCcampus OER is one of the few who give developers license options and allow them to decide for themselves where they want to participate on the “open” continuum.
To manage both global and local sharing BCcampus has deployed a Shareable Online Learning Resources (SOL*R) repository which provides a means for searching, previewing, and downloading OER. The resources that get developed through the BCcampus OER initiative are online learning resources primarily developed for deployment through learning management systems (LMS) such as Moodle, Desire2Learn, and Blackboard/WebCT. The multi-platform online learning form factor of our OER is another unique aspect of the BCcampus OER initiative. It has also complicated our OER effort enormously as the production of interoperable online learning resources is fraught with technical challenges exacerbated by LMS vendors who want to lock clients in to using their platform.
One other unique aspect of the BCcampus OER initiative is that a portion of each round of funding goes toward developing professional learning OER resources for faculty and staff. This acknowledges the growing importance of complementing online learning development and delivery with educator professional development resources on how to effectively do so.
As you can tell from the above I’ve been thinking a lot about what we are doing here at BCcampus and how it compares to what others are doing. I know from the many presentations I’ve given on the BCcampus OER initiative that some see our OER initiative as reprehensible for not mandating global sharing of the OER. I certainly believe in sharing of OER but I also believe in choice and the right for education developers to choose how openly they want to participate.
In thinking about the future of OER I call for:
– more diversity of OER approaches
– more partnerships between OER initiatives
– greater emphasis on the academic utilization of OER
– a shift to use of OER for credentials
Filed under: Open Educational Resources (OER) | Tags: Angel, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Connexions, creative commons, educational technology, IMS commons cartridge, open course library, open educational resources, open textbooks, Quality Matters, strategic technology plan, Washington, Washington State Board for Community & Technical Colleges
I spent April 26-27, 2010 in Vancouver Washington attending the Open Course Library Kick-Off meeting of the Washington State Board for Community & Technical Colleges.
The Open Course Library initiative is one of four Washington higher education programs being funded through a $5.3 million Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation three year grant. The Open Course Library portion of the grant is $1.8 million.
The Open Course Library initiative has the following goals:
– design 81 high enrollment, high quality courses for face-to-face (FTF), hybrid, and online delivery
– lower textbook costs for students (< $30)
– provide new resources for faculty to use in their courses
– fully engage Washington's college system in the global Open Educational Resources (OER) movement
– improve completion rates through good design and affordability
The kick-off meeting is for developers from across the college system who have received grants to support development of the first 43 courses. Phase 2 for the remaining 38 courses is slated for 2011.
I attended this event as a guest at the kind invitation of Cable Green who is Project Director for the Open Course Library initiative.
I went with a number of goals:
1. Assess the degree of state level support for the initiative vs. foundation level support
2. Learn more about the open/low cost textbook strategy being used as part of Open Course Library
3. Compare and contrast the Open Course Library initiative with BCcampus' own open educational resource initiative
4. Explore the potential for some kind of collaboration or partnership between our initiatives
The Open Course Library initiative is fascinating in many ways.
At the state level a Strategic Technology Plan for Washington State Community and Technical Colleges notes that: “Using open educational resources – and contributing to them – requires significant change in the culture of higher education. It requires thinking about content as a common resource that raises all boats when shared. It requires replacing our “not invented here” attitude with a “proudly borrowed from there” orientation. And it requires a new willingness to share and distribute the best of our own course content and software, and to participate in creating and maintaining open textbooks.”
The Plan goes on to list a number of guiding principles which includes one that states: “We will cultivate the culture and practice of using and contributing to open educational resources.”
Kudos to the state for producing a Strategic Technology Plan and supporting OER!
I particularly like the way Open Course Library is targeting development of high enrollment courses. Of the 43 courses being developed in the first phase the top ten in terms of annual enrollments are:
1. English Composition I with enrollments of 42,301
2. Intermediate Algebra with enrollments of 25,747
3. Intermediate Algebra with enrollments of 25,255
4. General Psychology with enrollments of 24,611
5. Pre-college English with enrollments of 17,658
6. English Composition II with enrollments of 16,165
7. Introduction to Chemistry with enrollments of 10,382
8. Precalculus I with enrollments of 9,307
9. General Biology with enrollments of 8,830
10. Lifespan Psychology with enrollments of 7,853
By targeting high enrollment courses the Open Course Library initiative immediately generates benefits for over 188,109 students annually. Thats a lot of students!
Enhanced design and digital resources for these courses will improve the teaching and learning experience for students and faculty alike.
I also really like the cost savings/affordability goals of the Open Course Library initiative. As part of the development of these courses the accompanying textbook must be $30 or less. The text can be in digital or print form. Publishers have been given the list of courses being developed and asked to inform developers what they can make available for that price. In Washington annual tuition is around $3K/year with textbooks adding a further $1K. Many textbooks are in the $100 to $200 range and textbook prices have been increasing at approximately 6%/year, a rate higher than annual inflation. A strategy that reduces textbook price to less than $30, when multiplied by annual enrollments represents a significant cost savings to students.
The Open Course Library grants will produce a complete digital course including:
– syllabus with clear learning outcomes
– course curriculum
– instructional materials
– formative and summative assessments
– surveys
– grading rubric
– cover letter describing tips and tricks of how to teach the course
– cover letter for licensing
– etc.
All the files for the entire course are submitted at the end of development. They will then be ported into the Angel Learning Management System (LMS) and exported in IMS Common Course Cartridge format that allows use in any LMS. Twenty eight of the states thirty four colleges use Angel so this requirement is far easier to meet than ours in BC where institutions are using Moodle, Desire2Learn and Blackboard.
All courses will be licensed for open sharing using Creative Commons (CC_BY). Third party copyright material used in the course must be documented.
Courses will be shared within the state via the Washington Online Angel system and with the world via Connexions http://cnx.org.
It will be interesting to see how this strategy plays out. Sharing with the world through Connexions requires breaking a course down into modules. Anyone else wanting to use that content within their own LMS will not easily be able to do so as Connexions content requires use of the Connexions web site or export as a .pdf which is inherently non-modifiable.
One of the most impressive aspects of the Open Course Library initiative is the recognition that development of digital courses is a team effort. Each faculty course designer gets a grant of $15K. When the call for proposals went out other complementary grants were also made available. Complementing the faculty course designers who provide the subject matter expertise are grants awarded to:
– instructional designers
– librarians
– institutional researchers
– ADA/Disability universal designers, and
– global citizen/multicultural experts
These complementary team members are responsible for supporting the development of all 43 courses. Each instructional designer, librarian, institutional researcher, etc. also has received a $15K grant. A comprehensive team approach like this has tremendous potential for creating exemplary courses. As introductions and presentations were made by all groups over the two days enthusiasm and excitement built as it became apparent support needed to ensure success was in place.
To further enhance the liklihood of producing great courses the instructional design team will use the Quality Matters Program http://www.qualitymatters.org. This program, uses a peer review process and national standards of best practices to ensure a course is designed to promote student learning. I’m particularly impressed with the Quality Matters rubric standards. In addition faculty are required to get feedback on their course design plan with at least two other system faculty in their discipline who are not part of the grant project.
Finally, it is wonderful to see a program like this walk the talk. Communication and sharing about the program and ensuing development is being openly posted at:
http://opencourselibrary.ning.com
http://opencourselibrary.wikispaces.com
In looking around at all the OER initiatives taking place I see a need for more interaction and collaboration between initiatives. It seems everyone is willing to enter into development of OER but few are interested in actually reusing the OER of others or collaborating around building OER collectively to create credentials. Going forward this year I see this as a strategy for BCcampus.
In discussion with Cable Green I committed to assessing what OER resources the BCcampus initiative has generated that could contribute to the development efforts of the 43 high enrollment courses being developed through the Open Course Library. We also discussed the potential to create collaborations and interactions between developers working on OER resources in a common field of study across OER initiatives. I’d love to see a “swap meet” where all developers creating say, biology OER resources, meet and show each other what they’ve developed along with exploring the potential to collaborate together going forward.
This is such an exciting field and I thank all participants at the Open Course Library Kick Off for allowing me to be a guest. It’s fantastic to see the enthusiasm and drive from all involved.
Filed under: web-based science | Tags: online labs, remote controlled instrumentation, web-based science
This week my friend and colleague Gina Bennett sent me an e-mail with a subject line saying, âScience for all, from big to smallâ.
She went on to tell me some of the latest news about a Web-Based Associate of Science curriculum project BCcampus has supported over the years. The project has been running for 3+ years now. Ron Evans, of North Island College, has been the project leader with Gina and the College of The Rockies where she works playing a supporting role and being joined along the way by a variety of other college & university partners.
The Web-based Associate of Science project started as an ambitious extension of Ron Evan’s distance-delivered astronomy course. In his astronomy courses, students are able to remotely control a telescope equipped with a camera situated at Tatla Lake in northern British Columbia. Using the photos & data obtained to complete their lab reports students learn about some of the largest objects (planets, stars, galaxies, etc.) in the study of science. See http://rwsl.nic.bc.ca/tloo/ for more.
Just last week the project acquired an online microscope which is now being configured for remote access so that students can learn about some of the smallest objects (bacterial cells etc.) in the study of science.
Gina went on to say, âit just occurred to me how cool this is that such breadth in the study of science is becoming available to ALL postsecondary students in BC, regardless of location or time constraints.â
It is totally cool and I thought Iâd provide more context and links regarding this project.
The Webâbased Associate of Science Project envisions an entirely web deliverable option for the BC Associate of Science degree program. It includes both the theory and lab components of the curriculum. Delivering the lab components over the web is the crucial challenge in this project.
To meet this challenge Ron and his partners are creating a Remote Webâbased Science Laboratory (RWSL) which provides a webâbased and robotic interface between the student and the lab equipment allowing actual laboratory exercises to be performed in real time while collecting authentic data and even making mistakes.
I encourage you to check out the Remote Web-based Science Laboratory web site at:
http://rwsl.nic.bc.ca/
Of special interest in terms of understanding the idea are the videos at:
http://rwsl.nic.bc.ca/videos.html
RWSL consists of the LabVIEW web interface, from National Instruments (http://www.ni.com/labview).
Students can remotely control cameras, sensors, and manipulation tools like the robotic arm
(http://www.aai.ca/robots/h_arm.html).
While nonâscience educational content has moved to webâbased formats with relative ease, the laboratory components of science courses have proven difficult to deliver via the web. Simulations are instructive, but they are not widely accepted as valid lab experience. RWSL allows laboratory based exercises to be delivered entirely over the Internet to student lab groups who perform these actual lab exercises in real time by controlling the lab equipment remotely. The data collected in this way is authentic data from a realâworld experience and students analyze it in the same way that they would if they had collected it while in the laboratory themselves.
As Ron, points out in one of his proposals âThis is analogous to scientists collecting data through a robotic deepâsea submersible or through the Mars Exploration Rovers and is something that is occurring more and more in science today. The scientists cannot be on site, but the data they are collecting is every bit as valid as it would be if they were.â
Filed under: Edtech Architectures | Tags: architectures, cloud computing, educational technology, enterprise systems, personal learning environments, shared applications
The last time I was in Victoria, British Columbia I did an end of day run along the beautiful paths bordering Dallas Road. Running through Holland Point Park to Clover Point the path curved along seaside cliffs overlooking the Juan de Fuca Strait where I always enjoy the ocean wind and sound of the waves.
This path goes by Mile Zero demarcating the start of The Trans-Canada Highway. Running from Victoria British Columbia to St. John’s Newfoundland The Trans-Canada Highway is the worldâs longest national highway with a length of 7,821 km (4,860 mi.) Thought Iâd start this blog at Mile Zero and invite you along for a journey stretching across the edtech landscape.
For a lot of people educational technology is specifically online learning but I think of it more broadly as encompassing the use of technology for all aspects of an educational experience. Certainly teaching and learning are at the heart of it but technology is used for other things such as â applying for admission, registering, paying fees, library services, etc., in short all the surrounding services that accompany the teaching and learning experience itself. For me educational technology cuts across this entire swath.
The BC Educational Technology Users Group (ETUG) spring workshop is coming up this June and I submitted a presentation â âArchitecting EdTech – Integrating Personal Learning Environments, Enterprise Systems, Shared Application Services, and Cloud Computingâ. Itâs a mouthful of a title but is intended to portray the breadth of educational technology.
Iâm developing the presentation now starting with an EdTechArchitecture diagram I created last year.
Have a look at the diagram and leave a comment with your thoughts.
For my presentation I want to help participants:
- identify and define major structural components of post-secondary information technology systems
- differentiate between elements of the architecture that are the responsibility of the institution vs. those that (potentially) are not
- discuss the challenges of provisioning educational technology solutions within post-secondary
- assess the pros and cons of in-house provision, shared service provision, and cloud computing
- design an edtech architecture based on a template that integrates PLE’s, enterprise systems, shared application services, and cloud computing
Iâll post more on this as it develops but thought Iâd kick off this blog with this big picture idea.
Paul Stacey 