• Like
The Open Course Library: Bridging the Gap Between LMS and OCW
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

The Open Course Library: Bridging the Gap Between LMS and OCW

  • 611 views
Published

 

Published in Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
611
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Through a match from the Gates Foundation and the State Legislature, the Open Course Library initiative was created. The goals of the Open Course Library are to:design and share 81 high enrollment, gatekeeper coursesImprove course completion ratesLower textbook costs for students (<$30)Provide new resources for faculty to use in their coursesFully engage our colleges in the global open educational resources discussion
  • Many early OpenCourseWare initiatives were designed with a separate workflow that included a middle layer of support staff This was done to minimize the extra work faculty needed to do to create open courses from their existing course materials, but it was expensive and often unsustainable.
  • The Open Course Library leverages the existing learning management system (LMS).
  • The Open Course Library leverages the existing learning management system (LMS).

Transcript

  • 1. The Open Course Library: Bridging the Gap Between LMS and OCW Open Ed 2011 – Park City, UT October 25, 2011 Tom Caswell, Open Education Policy Associate Connie Broughton, Director of eLearnng and Open Education WA State Board for Community & Technical Colleges
  • 2. Making the Case for “Open”Why Is “Open” Important in Education?1. Efficiency: Build on existing investments2. Affordability: Students can’t afford textbooks3. Quality: We tend to do our best work when we know our peers can see it4. Self-interest: Increased faculty exposure, reputation, and opportunities
  • 3. Open Course Library • Goals – Design and share 81 high enrollment, gatekeeper courses – Improve course completion rates – Lower textbook costs for students (<$30) – Provide new resources for faculty to use in their courses – Fully engage our colleges in the global open educational resources discussion.
  • 4. Timeline • Phase 1: 42 courses – Available October 31, 2011 at http://opencourselibrary.org • Phase 2 : 39 courses – Available Spring 2013
  • 5. Design Process 81 courses built by our own faculty 1. Define learning objectives 2. Use existing, quality Open Educational Resources (OER) 3. Fill in gaps with their own content
  • 6. Typical OCW Workflow Master Faculty Course Support Staff Open CourseProblem: Open course updates require ongoing support staff time because theopen course is separate from the faculty’s master course.
  • 7. Open Course Library Workflow Faculty Open Master Course Course Course Designer• Single workflow; more sustainable • Leverage existing LMS to build open courses • Many LMS’s now offering “open publishing” feature
  • 8. Future Open Workflow Faculty Master & Master Course Open Course Designer Course• Master & open course materials are linked • Faculty update both together • Older versions still available • Proprietary content is flagged and hidden from open course
  • 9. More? Better? Faster? How does OER help teach more students and teach them better? 1. Non-rivalrous, scalable, searchable 2. Allows students to preview and review • Paves the way for lifelong learning 3. Can be customized, translated, improved • Data feedback loops are useless without the ability to change the content
  • 10. Potential Savings • 81 courses = 411,133 enrollments / year • Textbook savings up to $41M+ in / year • How much could you be saving your students? • Completion rates may also increase when all students can afford course materials (See Student PIRGs 2011 report: “High Prices Prevent College Students from Buying Assigned Textbooks”)
  • 11. Lessons Learned Phase 1 Faculty Concerns: • Many were unfamiliar with ANGEL LMS • No way to compare work between course teams • Too many websites to keep track of Phase 2 Adjustments: • Using Google Docs to collaborate & share as we go • All project information in one Google Site
  • 12. Why Google Docs? Pros: • Collaborative, consistent, simple tool – Similar to Microsoft Word • Broader adoption base – not limited to specific LMS communities (LMS-neutral) • Allows for easier viewing, sharing, saving copies Cons: • No automated quizzes & assessments • No formal metadata or content packaging
  • 13. Next Steps Driving Open Course Library Course Adoptions • Regional conferences and workshops • New faculty trainings Building open sharing into existing teaching workflows and technologies • Next LMS will have “open sharing” feature • Explore open sharing via Tegrity • Working with system librarians to track and promote open content
  • 14. Tom Caswell tcaswell@sbctc.edu Connie Broughton cbroughton@sbctc.edu http://opencourselibrary.orgSlides at: http://slideshare.net/tom4cam