OER Adoption: Crossing the Chasm
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•410 views
Pitch It! presentation delivered at EDUCAUSE 2016 to solicit ideas and collaboration in higher education to achieve greater OER adoption. Solutions proposed include a standard scheme and an authoring/remixing tool.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to OER Adoption: Crossing the Chasm
Similar to OER Adoption: Crossing the Chasm (20)
More from Jeremy Anderson
More from Jeremy Anderson (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
OER Adoption: Crossing the Chasm
- 2. $0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 2003 2008 2013 2018 2023 Price of College
- 3. $0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 2003 2008 2013 2018 2023 Price of College U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2016).
- 4. 22% $4,648 U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics (2016).
- 5. $0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 2003 2008 2013 2018 2023 Price of College
- 6. $1,298 The College Board (2016).
- 7. “the open provision of educational resources, enabled by information and communication technologies, for consultation, use and adaptation by a community of users for non- commercial purposes" UNESCO (2002).
- 9. Accelerate Adoption Relative advantage Trialability Complexity Compatibility Observability Rogers (2003).
- 10. Allen & Seaman (2016). OER S-Curve
- 11. Cost to student Comprehensive content Easy to find Recommended by other faculty Adaptable/editable Supplemental instructor material Works with LMS Familiarity with brand Includes test banks Familiarity with brand Easy to find Works with LMS Recommended by other faculty Comprehensive content Includes test banks Supplemental instructor material Adaptable/editable Cost to student Importance Satisfaction Allen & Seaman (2016).
- 12. The Gaps Comprehensive content Adaptable/editable Supplemental instructor material
- 13. 60% Allen & Seaman (2016). Courses using textbook + other text
- 14. Not enough resources Too hard to find No comprehensive catalog Not used by other faculty Not high quality Not knowing permission to change Not current Difficult to integrate with tech Lack of institutional support Too difficult to edit The Barriers Lumen, OpenStax, Boundless OER Commons, Khan Academy OER Commons OER Commons, MERLOT Lumen, OpenStax, MERLOT Lumen, OpenStax, Boundless IMS Global Those Addressing
- 15. The Barriers Difficult to integrate with tech Too difficult to edit
- 16. The pitch!
- 20. A tool for authoring + remixing
- 21. + +
- 23. Allen & Seaman (2016). OER S-Curve
- 24. Thank you!
- 25. Questions
Editor's Notes
- Good afternoon, my name is Jeremy Anderson and I’m here from The American Women’s College at Bay Path University in Springfield, MA. I’d like to share a few ideas about how to cross OER’s adoption chasm.
- Would anyone like to guess what this line represents?
- Average cost across all types of institutions – 2-year, 4-year, public, private Per US ED
- This represents a 22% increase, or $4,648 additional Want to see something even scarier?
- The projection is that the price will climb another $4,000 to around $26,000 in the coming decade
- Of the total bill, the average undergraduate pays $1,298 for textbooks each year. Per the College Board This is an area where costs can be contained with existing technology and ideas
- One of those ideas is open educational resource, or OER…<read definition> There are thousands of open courses and who knows how many tens of thousands of other types of OER? So we have a problem, and there is a solution, or at least part of a solution, so what’s the problem?
- Before going any further, let’s consider Rogers’ famous S-Curve of innovation This plots the time to adoption and the proportion of the population adopting Essentially, there comes a tipping point where a critical mass of adopters pushes the diffusion widely
- Rogers instructs us that there are few tried and true ways to accelerate the curve Relative advantage – there has to be something in it for the faculty Trialability – they have to be able to pick it up and play with it Complexity – it has to be dead simple Compatibility – it has to fit in existing schemas of what educational resources are Observability – have to be able to see others doing it
- Let’s apply this concept to OER in higher education. The Babson Research Group has been tracking OER adoption for a few years and they’ve found that we’re stagnant around 5% adoption <click for animation> We must not be using the levers very well
- Babson provides some additional insights into the situation. Since OER is still in the early stages of diffusion, let’s start by looking at all educational resources first. The BRG asked faculty what was most important to them when picking educational resources, open or not, here is what they said Then faculty were asked to rate their satisfaction levels were with the same criteria. That looked like this <animate> Let’s start to analyze this a bit by charting the gaps. Red are negative gaps, while green represents times when satisfaction outstrips importance ratings. We can take out those positive gaps since we’re doing well, at least according to the faculty who drive adoption Then we can take out the cost element since that is an inherent feature of OER We’re left with the gaps worth addressing
- Remember, those gaps are across all ed resources – open and proprietary Two things jump out at me from this list: Faculty don’t want a basic text. They want supporting materials, media, instructor resources They want to be able to build mix and edit this content to fit their needs
- Supported by the fact that Babson found that 60% of courses use a combination of resources You can see this, too, when you peak into virtually any LMS shell and see links to videos, journal articles, blogs, etc. Own experience with OER shows this – Trey & PSY205/206 example
- Now let’s consider OER, specifically, in this context. Again, the BRG has provided excellent data about the barriers specific to OER adoption We have companies and organizations pushing to generate content, keep it fresh, make it easy to find and rank or evaluate. Here is just a smattering of those partners in Higher Ed. <animate> We also have standards like LTI so that we can integrate the OER with target systems Let’s clean up the equation by taking out barriers that are being addressed <animate> Then let’s take out the variables that the market doesn’t have much control over <animate> We are left with two barriers that need more work
- These are the types of problems that innovators and early adopters will put up with these barriers because they are so excited to try Example: PSY205 & PSY206 Worked with RIT to ingest multiple OER sources for psych – NOBA & Lumen PDFs and Word documents. No way for the program director or SME to blend these resources on own in an expedient fashion Had to rely on technologists Each OER source used a different schema and structure for their documents We didn’t have the internal resources – time, expertise – on our team Engaged with RIT developers to port OER schemas to RIT schema No wonder why more people aren’t jumping on board
- So here’s a pitch for how to overcome these gaps and barriers
- First , we need to work to provide a standard structure to OER documents What we’ve been doing: working towards RIT’s standard – we adopt their terminology, definitions, and XML markup for things like objective lesson activity
- Our approach to date has been too narrow since we have so many OER providers, each with own originating schema built around their preferred terminology and definitions Plus faculty, subject matter experts, instructional designers, etc. each use their own terms for the same thing. The semantic game of what’s an Course Competency, a Weekly Objective, etc. makes it almost impossible to work together Mapping schemas is labor intensive and costly <animate>Should have a shared language based upon concepts with common definitions.
- Each concept would have standard properties. Let’s use the “package” concept as a quick example. <animate>It could have properties like a title, author, delivery type (OL, OG, HY, lab, lecture, etc.) There is a payoff for all content providers since they’d know that their resources would plug and play.
- Blending will be easier from a technical standpoint since schemas will matched Next we’d need something that will allow faculty to quickly search for and connect these resources from disparate locations Addresses faculty wants and the current barriers Comprehensive content Adaptable/editable and they want this to be easy Easy integrations
- There are some partners in the space that are doing components of this. OER commons has a really nice document author and module builder. Includes metadata, a simple WISYWIG editor, structured fields….BUT NO MIXING <animate>H5P provides standard interactive components that otherwise would be out of reach of many instructors…BUT NO QUICK ABILITY TO ADD TO A LARGER, UNIFIED WORK <animate>GitHub has this great way of allowing users to share materials, borrow, remix, re-author, BUT NOT PARTICULARLY ACCESSIBLE TO FACULTY Each does a part of the puzzle, but none contains all of the tools Need to bridge capabilities into a single authoring and remixing tool. There is a market since it would allow easier adoption of digital content. Low cost providers – Boundless, Lumen, etc. – could see great increases in business. Put more competition into the marketplace
- Achieving that tool, and building it upon standards, will flip most of the levers to accelerate diffusion Relative advantage of cost, mixability, comprehensiveness – all the things faculty and students want Easy to try and low complexity since it’s built upon standards and a unified tool Compatible with existing tech like authoring in an LMS
- Our prediction would be that the outcome of these standards and an authoring/remixing tool would be achieving <animate> critical mass and accelerating diffusion across higher ed.
- Thank you!
- I’m glad to take questions from the audience.