Nordlet Open Education Summit 2011:Towards a Nordic Baltic Free Sharing Area #NORDLET Prof. Dr. Jan M. Pawlowski Stockholm, 23.11.2011
How to make an ―OER difference‖in the Nordic - Baltic countries?
Licensing: Creative Commons You are free: to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work to Remix — to adapt the work Under the following conditions: Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes. Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/ http://www.slideshare.net/jan.pawlowski
ContentsWhy it does not work…Barriers of OER useCase Study Results: How does it work inthe real life in Finland?Recommdation Systems in the Future:Building your networks
Open Educational Resources…Resources: Learning materials, courses,simulationsTools: LMS, collaboration tools, …Practices and experiences!
Sample contentsOpenScout: Open Content for Management – http://www.openscout.netMace Project (technology base) – http://www.mace-project.euITunes University – http://www.apple.com/education/itunes-u/OpenLearn (Open University UK) – http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/Globe Network (Federation) – http://www.globe-info.org/Ariadne Foundation (Europe) – http://www.ariadne-eu.org/ 7
The starting pointsWaste amount of content is available in repositories, alarge number of experts and users are active in socialnetworksGreat potentials for collaboration, sharing and socialinnovationOER is a big topic for the E-Learning communityCurrent trends – From contents to context – From repositories to practices – From (technology-supported) mass sharing to human-oriented, trusted networksThe Nordlet perspective – Nordic countries have a strong tradition for education as a public good – Baltic countries have undergone rapid and dramatic changesGreat starting point for a free sharing area…
Experiences from our Case Study: Sharing of materials made by others Whose Materials would you use? 100,00 % 80,00 % 60,00 % Finnish Teachers 40,00 % European Teachers 20,00 % 0,00 % Colleagues at Colleagues from Colleagues from Colleagues from the same school the same elsewhere in my outside my geographical country country areaConclusion: Finnish teachers are more willing to usematerials made by others than European teachers
Sharing: Who would you give your materials to? Who would you give your materials to?100,00 % 90,00 % 80,00 % 70,00 % 60,00 % Finnish Teachers 50,00 % 40,00 % European Teachers 30,00 % 20,00 % 10,00 % 0,00 % Colleagues Colleagues Colleagues Colleagues None of the at the same from the from from outside above school same elsewhere in my country geographical my country area Conclusion: Finnish teachers are less willing to give materials to others than European teachers
But…Overall, the willingness to sharematerials with other teachers ishighWillingness to share across theNordic Baltic countries is high,the context seems positiveBut: It still does not work…
So, why doesn’t it work in Education?- Barriers – ―not invented here‖ + Potentials & needs – Education budget – ―Education is – Focus on new stuff something special!‖ – ―I have no time‖ – Cooperation and synergies – Googling might not be – Skills in the use of ICT enough and tools – Complex tools – Enormous resource – Curriculum integration pools – Insecurities –…
Experiences from our Case Study: International concerns…
How to make it work…Focus on good practicesImproved recommendationsCurriculum integrationAddressing cultural barriersProviding simple tools and supportmechanisms for adaptationIntegration of users’ requirements, barriers,needs and preferencesUsing existing networks and professionalcontacts – NORDLET!
ChallengesWhich are good practices?What are the main barriers and successfactors?What can we recommend to the Nordic-Baltic community?What is necessary to make the FreeSharing Area work?
Creating the Nordic Baltic OER DeclarationGoal – Developing a clear statement how to develop OER in our region – Identifying the key challenges and solution – ―How to achieve the Nordic Baltic Free Sharing Area?‖Developing clear recommendations for differentlevels – Policy – Technology – Pedagogy – ….
Some initial input…Results from the conference wikiPolicy recommendation candidates: Open Content should be considered in publically funded projects to improve participation A Nordic Baltic steering group should be built to monitor and promote share and re-use across the Baltic and Nordic region Inclusivity and community ownership is essential - be open to different ideas and interpretations.Implementation recommendation candidates: Build small but efficient sharing communities Show Open Educational Practices - this will lead to more awareness and attention and show interested educators how to make use of OER. Show clear integration steps for the curriculum, this is the main argument against OER Ensure quality if you are a provider of Open Content repositories Build strategies and guidelines in your organization how to incorporate OER into the daily operations See OER as a natural extension of current practice, not as a new "project" dropped in to the middle of current work
Some initial input…Results of the Stockholm preparation workshop, Oct 2011 Build small but efficient sharing communities Show Open Educational Practices - this will lead to more awareness and attention and show interested educators how to make use of OER. Show clear integration steps for the curriculum, this is the main argument against OER Ensure quality if you are a provider of Open Content repositories Build strategies and guidelines in your organization how to incorporate OER into the daily operations.. See OER as a natural extension of current practice, not as a new "project" dropped in to the middle of current work
Some initial input…On Oct. 14th, a small preparation workshop was held in Stockholm with asmall group of experts on OER - the result was an unexpectedly huge list ofrecommendations, here listed in an unreflected format...what is missing still?Still to be sorted...Accreditation authorities: It is mandatory or a criteria for good evaluation ofinstitutions or research centres to use/publish OER resourcesOpen Standards should be used in order to give real access to OER Youshould be able to use, reuse, mix and remix a resourceThe author rights should be ―addressed‖, i.e., the author should beconvinced to give his resources awayTechnical Identification of resources gives a key to sharingCareer part of authorship should be separated from the commercial sideMake it much easier to attribute resources - people are in a hurryThe institution has to support the authors in their authoring and publicationprocess, ensuring that the attribution and carrier aspects of producingresources are fulfilledMake it more ―attractive‖ to reference OER authors - make it cool to build onyour peersUnpack the possibilities of accreditation institutions to promote OERpractices --teachers should have OER --include work of other colleagues --use international resources
Some initial input…Providing OER to the community should be valued in assessment systemsas community & research contributionsInvestigate if the tools work contrary to OER, e.g., using the digitalwhiteboards to push things to your own ―teaching web‖ – Turn the teachersright to his/her own resources as a means to open up access to resourcesGive easy control of what is available or notExplore the differences in HE and SchoolsEvaluation of HE academics and K12 teachers is very differentCollaboration support built into the solutions we provide to our institutionsEnsure that authorship is not lost - traceability, tools...Cushion the lazy people Incentive from above, collaborative work is neededmore than everFight ―what is free is not good‖ - or at least prove that they are wrongLearn from the Open Source community and history - the Darwinisticsolution to promote OER. The dinosaurs will die (well, then we wait for thenext meteorite)Self-flagellate the OER apostles (when the reach a critical mass)Test the assumptionsGlobish Observe the differences (levels, domains, etc.) -- some resourcestravel better then others
Some initial input…Language matters - technology (translators) may come to help Makelanguage technology used by the intelligence community free!!!!Bridge up with other communities, e.g., the library sector, the open datacommunity…The Ministries must provide risk funds, to allow schools and universitiesto take risks supporting OER (allow you to guarantee that you have allrights to a work)Wrong doers should get absolution Explore the danger of being sued ifyou do anything wrong explore the barriers from the individual’sperspective OER as a mandatory element of teacher professionalpractice, teachers educationdigital (OER) literacy is key to progressOntology work in the ED domain should be encouraged.Google should be the only solution for finding resources --work withGoogle --work besides Google --prepare if Google defaults
Some initial input…Liaise with the forest department - to unhide the trees from the forestBuild OER practices into the socio-technical practices of LETIs OER the top level term (what we want to achieve)? Open accessmore important than OER?Buy a hen. Make an egg. Get a chicken. Open and AccessibleResources Remember that OER are used within LET - and the contextrulesWhat is Open? -- dont forget to have a nice discussion on this questionIdentify the barriers the end users experience, e.g., language,technology, licence, competence, etc.Easily share stuff with defined groups of people. So, we need someEnterprise stuff in place to support efficient sharing.Standards’ contributions --Groups (G+?) --Sharing interfaceRecognise the licence etcAspects of classificationOpen within boundaries – is it still OER?Quality - community based quality mechanismsQuality assurance close to the end users
Conference Outline17:00 - 17:20 Welcome by Jan Pawlowski, coordinator ofNORDLET and University of Jyväskylä17:20 - 18:30 My favourite -- NORDLET partners andparticipants present their favourite learning resource,repository or technology – Where did we come from and where are we heading? Moderator: Peter Karlberg, Skolverket, SwedenMethod: – Brief introduction of the presenters and guests: What is the project you are presenting, what is the key experience you bring to the conference, what are your expectation?Intended outcome – Idea what is going on in each country, what do each partner stand for?
Conference Outline18:30 - 19:30 I will sleep on this one - My case for a Nordic Baltic OER Declaration: Short presentations of the participants input statements to prepare the ground for next days meeting. Input statements: – What are the main success factors, what are the main challenges Intended outcome – Collection of inputs (success factors, recommendations) Sort input regarding the questions: – Collaboration: How to organize successful Nordic Baltic collaborations in Open Education, what are differences and barriers? – Pedagogies: Why does Open Education and sharing work better in the Nordic-Baltic countries? How to embed OER in the curriculum and teaching activities? – Technical aspects: How to make OER work on a technical level? – Internationalization: How to deal with cultural & language differences? – Legal and policy aspect: How to deal with IPR? How to get support on a policy level? OER informal discussion (19.30-20.15) – Each presenter to set up a small stand and explain what the project is about – People to walk around the stands
Conference OutlineTheme: Setting the Future Agenda for Open EducationalCollaboration9:00 - 9:30 Wrap up of last nights recommendations and startingpoints09:30 - 11:45 Key challenges for exchange of learningresources - Group discussions facilitated by Airina Volungeviciene,Lithuanian Distance and e-Learning AssociationMethod: Learning cafe - change tables after 30 mins, documentstory on the table – Set up tables (at least one for each focus area), document discussions – Document and group challenges – After 30 minutes: rotate tables, explain to new group – For each important challenge, write a card / statement (metaplan)Intended outcome – List of challenges regarding collaboration, pedagogy, technical, internationalization/culture, legal / policy
Conference Outline11:45 - 13:00 10 statements that will change the OER agenda inthe Nordic and Baltic countries, facilitation: Tore Hoel, Oslo andAkershus University College of Applied SciencesMethod: Seperate tables (5 -6 persons) – Each (topic) table to come up with 5 ranked statements (30 mins) – Present ranking – Which 10 overall statements, which topic recommendations?Intended outcome: – Initial list of 10 recommendations – Additional topic centered recommendation lists13:00 - 14:00 Lunch
Conference Outline14:00 - 15:00 Sense-making and negotiations - Faciliation: ErlendØverby, Karde AS and Christian Dalsgaard, Aarhus UniversityMethod: Again by small groups, presenting and merging in the end – What are the main steps to achieve the recommendations? – What is the intended future status? – Build a future scenario - how would the perfect nordic baltic OER landscape be? – Which steps to achieve this?Intended outcome – Future scenario – Step by step plan to achieve this15:00 - 15:15 Refreshments15:15 - 16:00 Committing to common goals: Do we agree on anOER Declaration and what do we do with it? Facilitation: JanPawlowski and Tore Hoel – Who will do what? How can the steps be achieved? Who should receive the declaration – Final signing of the declaration
Contact us…Prof. Dr. Jan M. Pawlowskijan.email@example.comGLIS on the web…http://users.jyu.fi/~japawlowNORDLET OpenScouthttp://www.nordlet.org/ http://www.openscout.net