Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Banff presentation mg final


Published on

This presentation was delivered at the ROER4D (Research in Open Education Resources for Development) workshop in Banff, Canada, 20th April 2015.

This study is part of a series of studies conducted by ROER4D researchers in the global South.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Banff presentation mg final

  1. 1. OER IN AND AS MOOCS: IMPACT ON EDUCATORS’ PRACTICES IN AFRICAN-DEVELOPED HIGHER EDUCATION COURSES Michael Glover Laura Czerniewicz and the UCT MOOC Team Centre for Innovation in Learning & Teaching, University of Cape Town Open Education Global Conference, Banff, Canada 20 April 2015
  2. 2. OVERVIEW o Orientate o Research question and hypothesis o Types of evidence o Conceptual framework o Discussion
  3. 3. CONTEXT o CILT 18 month study of first 3 – 5 MOOCs at UCT o One of seven case ROER4D studies on the impact of OER
  4. 4. ABOUT THE UCT MOOCS PROJECT o First major MOOC initiative in Africa o 12 MOOCS+ over 3 years o Multi-platform approach o Intention for OER outputs o Creative commons licensed material Medicine and the Arts: Humanising Healthcare What is a Mind?
  5. 5. RESEARCH QUESTION How does the adoption of OER, incorporating both creation and use, in African-developed MOOCs impact on educators’ (primarily creators, but may also include re-users) open educational practices?
  6. 6. SPOTLIGHT THREE ASPECTS • Adoption of Open Educational Resources • Impact • Educators’ practices
  7. 7. INTERESTED IN Observing changes in attitudes, behaviours and practices of these educators in their post-MOOC teaching practices and research and, where possible, whether other educators re-use the OER and in what manner
  8. 8. HYPOTHESIS OER adoption in a MOOC format contributes to the spread of open educational practices
  9. 9. OPENNESS DEFINITION OEP defined by Beetham et al 2012 1. Opening up content to students not on campus/formally enrolled 2. Sharing and collaborating on content with other practitioners 3. Re-using content in teaching contexts
  10. 10. 4. Using or encouraging others to use open content 5. Making knowledge publicly accessible 6. Teaching/learning in open networks
  11. 11. EVIDENCE • Interviews, transcriptions • Artefacts (e.g., open policy documents) • Notes from interviews • Learning analytics
  12. 12. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: CHAT Tools Subject Rules Community Object Division of labour Outcome
  13. 13. • Use the evidence collected to create rich Activity Systems at 3 time intervals for each MOOC • Note tensions and contradictions • Note changes in Activity Systems
  14. 14. PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS • Hopes for MOOC emergent • Nascent grasp of OER (CC licensing) • Variety of views on challenges of making MOOCs and OERs • Finding CC licensed images and source readings & alternative texts • Disparate views on: rules, community, division of labour
  15. 15. PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS • RE educators: Early positive response from MATA MOOC • It is up to institution, not platform to specify the license • Re-use of MOOC materials in face to face course • MOOC entering face to face course • Face to face students remark that they are ‘learning a lot’ from the MOOC
  16. 16. REFERENCES • Beetham, H., Falconer, I., McGill, L., & Littlejohn, A. (2012). Open Practices: a briefing paper, JISC 2012 • Engeström, Y. (2001). Expansive Learning at Work: Toward an Activity-theoretical Conceptualization. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1), pp. 133-156.
  17. 17. DISCUSSION