Content-Centric OER: Means vs. Ends


Published on

April 4, 2011
Judy Baker

Published in: Education
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Crowdsourced commenting tools provided by Eleven Learning ( this week connect open textbook authors with potential textbook adopters who provide feedback to improve content. Crowdsourced rating systems such as peersourcing ( ) and Google Slam ( can facilitate seamless discovery of OER and participation in the review process.
  • CETISFrom CETIS LI blog February 3, 2009
  • CETIS Li Yuan’s BlogNovember 11, 2010
  • Content-Centric OER: Means vs. Ends

    1. 1. Content-Centric OERas Untenable: Means vs. Ends<br />Judy Baker, Ph.D.<br />Dean of Technology and Innovation<br />Foothill College<br />
    2. 2. Value of OER<br />Emphasis on content in curating OER perpetuates the belief in OER as an end rather than as a means<br />Value of OER<br />Not about free content, it’s about the knowledge sharing,collaboration, and customizing that it affords <br />Disruptive innovation that allows educators to gaingreater control and customization of learning materials for teaching<br />
    3. 3.
    4. 4.
    5. 5. OER as Means vs. Ends<br />
    6. 6. Content-Centric OER Efforts<br />
    7. 7. Process-Centric OEREfforts<br />
    8. 8. Dynamic Textbook Project<br />A multi-institutional collaborative venture to develop the next generation of open-access textbooks <br />to improve STEM post-secondary education <br />to develop and disseminate free, virtual, customizable textbooks that will substitute for current, commercial paper texts in multiple courses at post-secondary institutions<br />ChemWiki<br />Open Access textbook environment constantly being written by faculty and students <br />
    9. 9. ChemPaths<br />Not an Online Textbook, A Student Portal<br />Student Portal of the Chemical Education Digital Library<br />Built to assist instructors put online tutorials and web-resources multimedia resources into one cohesive package ready for student-use<br />
    10. 10. Content or Process Centric?<br />
    11. 11. Content-CentricReviewers<br />Compensated<br />
    12. 12. Process-centric Review of OER?<br />Crowdsourced rating systems <br />
    13. 13. Original Homepage<br />Current Homepage<br />
    14. 14. Process-centric<br />Reviewers voluntary<br />
    15. 15. Faculty Attitudes about OER<br />Foothill-De Anza Community College faculty surveys indicate that major factors in faculty decisions about adoption of open textbooks and open contents are content-centric: <br />Concerns about quality and versioning<br />Availability of affordable options for students to order shipped printed copies<br /> Availability of a printed and bound instructor’s copy of the open textbook<br />Content-centric OER efforts perpetuate such faculty attitudes and fail to promote a culture of knowledge sharing with an awareness of other benefits of OER<br />
    16. 16. “The value of OER will not be best achieved through static resources, but rather through their potential to engage a wide range of educators and learners to share ideas and expertise, and collaborative knowledge building. <br />… a culture of openness and sharing will only emerge when OER has embedded and become an integral partof teaching practice and learning process in HE.”<br />~ JISC CETIS Li Yuan’s Blog<br />
    17. 17. Sustainability of OER practice<br />Need educators to participate in communities of practice where OER development and reuse becomes a normative<br />Encourage institutions and educators to adopt a community of practice approach to create and maintain content and use existing networks to disseminate and share resources<br />