Feels like the theory, innovation and advocacy phase of the open educational resource (OER) movement is fast approaching its “best before date.”
Watched the screencast this morning of the Wiley Downes Dialogue from OpenEd09. Couldn’t help thinking phase change when the discussion crisscrossed terrain that has been traveled many times before at various conferences, forums and meetings since about 2000. “It’s deja vu all over again,” as Yogi Berra said when describing repeated back-to-back home runs by Mantle and Maris in the early 60s. But it was more like veja du for me – I know I’ve been a party to these conversations countless times before. The discussions/arguments continue to hover around definitions, clarifications of terms, and wishful thinking about an education system that is what it is.
Some tweets on the subject (unattributed):
- …how many angels can dance on the head of a Creative Commons license? hoping Downes/Wiley move on to more fertile ground
- Let’s move it along Stephen and David… and, we wonder why the OER movement hasn’t really taken off…
- Didn’t expect Stephen and David to spend so much time arguing about what the definitive Zeppelin album is. And really… PRESENCE?
Now the above tweets have been selectively chosen to help me make my point. There are other tweets that reveal that many participants were drawn into the arguments to some degree. See here for more –> #opened09. And that’s a pity.
Unfortunately for the OER innovators and early adopters, what needs to happen to move the OER approach ahead is a lot more focus on the how, rather than on the what and why parts of the argument. A phase change really needs to take shape – one that involves actual practitioners, people who teach courses, normal humans, real instructors. A quick peek into the wiki list of participants at the OpenEd09 reveals a usual-suspects array of characters, devoid of the instructor base at which this innovation is aimed and pitched. This is not be the stuff of change, of implementation, of mainstreaming.
To move this innovation ahead will require another skill set, better (more authentic) marketers – and a phase change.
d.
Would love to hear more of your ideas on how to attract “the instructor base at which this innovation is aimed and pitched.” David and Stephen’s discussion was actually held precisely to clarify some definitions and language over which they had been stumbling for quite a while, and they explicitly questioned the conversation’s value to anyone else. Yet that said, clearly there is a long way to go before OER becomes mainstream, and any positive and practical suggestions you had on how to move it that way I’m sure would be appreciated by the community.
This brief response needs to be a longer post, which I’m noodling.
–
Your prod at my original question turns it around for response. Thanks.
I see the issue of target audience bounded by three primary factors at the Me level (personal, instructor, faculty, teacher level):
▪ Pain for gain threshold (resonant value proposition)
▪ Making my teaching life easier and/or more rewarding
▪ Making the learning experience for my students more engaging and empowering
Alan Levine’s Amazing Stories of Openness gets at some of resonant value aspects, and the really visceral “why would I do this” terrain. But it may not be enough for some who will be asking more about the reward system generally for participation. It really is a personal choice for faculty, teachers and instructor whether to engage. Some will want to, so the process of engaging has to be smooth and elegant as an authoring and reuse workflow.
Brian Lamb’s post prior to the OpenEd 2009 conference that asks, Are You Open Enough? is instructive and is a great starting point for working with folks who opt in, or who are on the cusp of opting in.
Heck, it is the agenda for an agile training program that models straightforward open practices across various disciplines, and provides a viral, convivial pass-along mechanism for working with colleagues.
The part about making the learning experience for students more engaging and empowering is more like an outcome that instructors might use to test the open strategy to see whether it works or needs further adjustment.
All of this lives in a larger context that looks something like:
Me –> my working colleagues –> my peers –> my institution –> my systemic academic orbit –> the world
There needs to be an implementation strategy for all those circles as we move outward. We saw at least one country-wide strategy on the systemic academic orbit level from Fred Mulder, from Open University of the Netherlands. I’m sure there are others out there, too.
Cracking the Me level participation seems to be on the critical path. Demonstrating simple, powerful and resonant ways of getting there is what needs to be solicited and shared. And, I don’t think the proponents of the open movement need to do this all by themselves, either.
d.