![The Vision
… At the heart of the [open] movement toward Open
Educational Resources is the simple and powerful idea
that the world's knowledge is a public good
… and that technology in general and the WorldwideWeb in
particular provide an extraordinary opportunity for
everyone to share, use, and reuse it.
Hewlett
Foundation](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/citesymposiumopenedoerandmooc-140613034701-phpapp01/75/Cite-symposium-Open-Education-Open-Educational-Resources-and-MOOCsopen-ed-oer-and-mooc-11-2048.jpg)
Uploaded byCITE
Cite symposium Open Education, Open Educational Resources and MOOCsopen ed, oer, and mooc
The document discusses the concept of open education, highlighting the importance of open educational resources (OER) and massive open online courses (MOOCs) in creating accessible learning opportunities worldwide. It outlines the barriers to producing and using OER, the benefits they can bring to education, and the evolution of MOOCs as a flexible learning model that caters to diverse learners. Key themes include the democratization of knowledge, technological advancements facilitating education, and ongoing challenges in ensuring equitable access.
More Related Content
![Overview of Open Educational Resources (OERs) [faculty presentation]](https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/overview-of-open-educational-resources-oers-faculty-presentation287-thumbnail.jpg?width=640&height=640&fit=bounds)
Similar to Cite symposium Open Education, Open Educational Resources and MOOCsopen ed, oer, and mooc
Cite symposium Open Education, Open Educational Resources and MOOCsopen ed, oer, and mooc
- 1. Open Education, OER,and MOOCs Tian Belawati For CITE Research Symposium, University of Hong Kong, 13 -14 June 2014
- 2. CONCEPTUAL ORIGINS ofODL • Open education, or open learning, is a vision of an educational system accessible to every individual with minimal restrictions • It emphasizes flexibility of the system to eliminate hindrances of access due to aspects related to place, time, economy, geography, and age • Open and distance learning (ODL) combines the methodology of DE with the concepts of open learning and flexible learning. • Distance education system better fulfill the idealistic concept of ODL than conventional face-to-face (f2f) educational approaches, given birth to the open university model (Bates, T. 1995)
- 3. GENERATION of DE •The correspondence model - Print • The multimedia model - Print, Audio/Videotape, Computer-based learning (e.g. CML/CAL), Interactive video (disk and tape) • The tele-learning model – Audio/Videoconferencing, Broadcast TV/Radio • The flexible learning model - Interactive multimedia (IMM), Internet-based, access to WWW resources , Computer-mediated communication; • The networked/connectivism model - Interactive Internet-based, use of OER, social media communication - MOOCs Re-invent the open education vision
- 4. The notion thateducation is a public good Everyone has the right to education Access disparity, digital divide, and economic scarcity 67 million children & 74 million adolescents are out of school 793 million lack basic literacy skills 100 – 150 million new places for HE are needed before 2025 DRIVING FACTORS
- 5. ICT advancement •Hardware is getting smaller and cheaper • Software is getting more interactive - new generation of www ENABLING FACTORS Everyone can become both producer and consumer of information
- 6. Everyone writes, makesvideos, publishes, shares, comments ….. everyone reads, watches, downloads, uses, remixes, republishes ….. giving birth to the paradigm of sharing Sharing Paradigm
- 7. The Power ofSharing
- 8. Global openmovement • Open source software – not the same as free software “… the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software…” (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html). • Open content – can be semi or fully open, not always free 5R: Retain, Reuse, Revise, Remix, dan Redistrbute (Wiley, 2014) →Learning Object (LO) or Learning Object Materials (LOM) →Open Courseware (OCW) • Open license – Scheme for sharing without violating the copy right – copy left →GNU Public License (GPL), Apache Public License, Modzila Public License, Creative Commons ENABLING FACTORS
- 9. CREATIVE COMMONS Creative Commonsdefines the spectrum of possibilities between full copyright — all rights reserved — and the public domain — no rights reserved. Creators choose a set of conditions they wish to apply to their work. • Attribution. You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your copyrighted work — and derivative works based upon it — but only if they give credit the way you request. • Noncommercial. You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your work — and derivative works based upon it — but for noncommercial purposes only. • No Derivative Works. You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform only verbatim copies of your work, not derivative works based upon it. • Share Alike. You allow others to distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs your work. Lawrence Lessig
- 10.
- 11. The Vision … Atthe heart of the [open] movement toward Open Educational Resources is the simple and powerful idea that the world's knowledge is a public good … and that technology in general and the WorldwideWeb in particular provide an extraordinary opportunity for everyone to share, use, and reuse it. Hewlett Foundation
- 12. • The term"open educational resources" was first adopted at UNESCO's 2002 Forum on the Impact of Open Courseware for Higher Education in Developing Countries What are OER?
- 13. UNESCO • "teaching, learningand research materials in any medium, digital or otherwise, that reside in the public domain or have been released under an open license that permits no-cost access, use, adaptation and redistribution by others with no or limited restrictions. The Wikieducator OER Handbook • “… educational resources (lesson plans, quizzes, syllabi, instructional modules, simulations, etc.) that are freely available for use, reuse, adaptation, and sharing." OER Defined
- 14. The Cape TownOpen Education Declaration (2007) • OER should be freely shared through open lisences which facilitate use, revision, translation, improvement and sharing by anyone. • Resources should be published in formats that facilitate both use and editing, and that accommodate a diversity of technical platforms. • Whenever possible, they should also be available in formats that are accessible to people with disabilities and people who do not yet have access to the Internet.“ Commitment of Educators
- 15. 2012 OER ParisDeclaration • Emphasizing that the term Open Educational Resources (OER) was coined at UNESCO’s 2002 Forum on Open Courseware • OER refers to “teaching, learning and research materials in any medium, digital or otherwise, that reside in the public domain or have been released under an open license that permits no-cost access, use, adaptation and redistribution by others with no or limited restrictions. • Open licensing is built within the existing framework of intellectual property rights as defined by relevant international conventions and respects the authorship of the work” Commitment of Educators
- 16. Lower costof education Higher quality of education Increased penetration of knowledge Stronger collaboration & network Increased mutual understanding among people Expected & Potential Benefits
- 17. Perceived Benefits Survey findingsfrom 9 Asian countries : • Gaining access to the best possible resources • Promoting scientific research and education as publicly open activities • Bringing down costs for students • Bringing down costs of course development for institutions • Providing outreach to disadvantaged communities • Assisting developing countries • Becoming independent of publishers • Creating more flexible materials • Conducting research and development • Building sustainable partnerships (Dhanarajan & Porters, 2013)
- 18. Perceived Benefits PANdora Surveyin 2011 N: 56
- 19. OER Use I haveused I will use Asia PANdora Survey in 2011 N: 420 in 9 Asian Countries
- 20.
- 21. OER Use PANdora Surveyin 2011
- 22. Barriers to Produceand Use Survey findings from 9 Asian countries : • Lack of awareness • Lack of skills • Lack of time • Lack of hardware and software • Lack of access to computers • Lack of ability to locate specific, relevant , and quality OER for their specific teachings • No reward system for staff members devoting time and energy • Lack of interest in pedagogical innovation amongst staff members • No support from management level (Dhanarajan & Porters, 2013)
- 23. Barriers to Produceand Use PANdora Survey in 2011
- 24. Barriers to Produceand Use PANdora Survey in 2011
- 25. • OpenLearn (http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/) •OER Commons (www.oercommons.org) • MIT Open Courseware (http://ocw.mit.edu/) • Curriki (www.curriki.org) • Merlot (www.merlot.org) • iTunesU (www.apple.com/apps/itunes-u/) • Khan Academy (www.khanacademy.org) • Open Courseware Consortium (www.ocwconsortium.org/) – now Open Education Consortium In Indonesia • Portal Garuda (http://garuda.kemdikbud.go.id/), SUAKA UT ( http://www.ut.ac.id/OER/index.html), ITS-OC (http://oc.its.ac.id/), UI OCW (http://ocw.ui.ac.id/), etc. • Rumah Belajar (http://belajar.kemdiknas.go.id/) Major Providers of OER
- 26. …beyond OER… • OERUniversity – All you need is an internet connection, and you can study with us – no matter where you live! Study online for free, using open educational resources. Get your study credited towards an academic qualification, while paying significantly reduced fees – All course materials are OERs using creative commons licensing.
- 27. • George Siemensdan Stephen Downes from then the University of Manitoba (Canada) were the first who initially had the idea of offering their lectures to a wider online audience for free --- cMOOC • Course title: • Connectivism and Connective Knowledge attended by 25 paying students and 2,200 free of charge students 2008 MOOCs
- 28. • The firstAmerican MOOC was offered by Stanford University for the course titled: Introduction to Artificial Intelligent, participated by 160,000 students from all over the world --- xMOOC 2011 MOOCs
- 29. Timeline of MOOCDevelopment
- 30. cMOOC vs xMOOC •cMOOC: based on connectivism, involving a networked and collaborative approach, emphasis is placed on distributed, self-led exploration of topics, rather than on the expertise of authorities • xMOOC: highly structured, content-driven, guided by pre- recorded lectures, assessed by automated or peer- marked assignments.
- 31. • There arenew MOOCs everyday from around the world • New York Times: 2012 is the year of the MOOC MOOCs
- 32.
- 33. Derivation of MOOC(Hollands and Thirthali, 2014) • MOOC-Ed : course for professional development of teachers • SPOC: Small Private Online Course, • “Wrapped” MOOC : courses as the results of re-designed MOOC from other institution, • “White label” MOOC: staff training using MOOC platform • Mini-MOOC: MOOC attended by a few people • SMOC: Synchronous Massive Online Course • POOC: Personalized Open Online Course offer adaptive learning (are still more of an idea than a reality)
- 34. Financial and Accreditationof MOOC • The emerging business model of MOOCs is free- tuition with an option of certification with some fee -may incur some cost for assessment and certification • Mostly non-credit, but there are some universities started to or intend to acknowledge and grant credits
- 35. • Based ona study of 39 colleges and universities in the US (Hollands & Tirthali, 2014): – extending reach and access (65%) – building and maintaining brand (41%) – improving economics (38%) – improving educational outcomes (38%) – innovation (38%) – research on teaching and learning (28%) Reason for Offering MOOC
- 36. Evaluation of thefirst 17 MIT’s MOOCs on edX (Ho, 2014): • 66% of 841,687 participants, and 74% of the 43,196 participants who obtained a certificate have already had a bachelor’s degree or above • only 20,745 (3%) of all participants were from the UN listed least developed countries A survey of participants in Coursera's MOOCs (McKenzie, 2014): • In the US, are employed and degree-holding people (83% of the 34,700 respondents held 2- or 4-year degrees and 44% held advanced degrees. • In Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, nearly 80% are college graduates and from the wealthiest echelons of society MOOC for extending the reach?
- 37. • Business model •Credetialing/accreditation/badging • Completion rates • Student authentication Remaining Issues
- 38.
Editor's Notes
- #9 Practical Differences between Free Software and Open Source (Richard Stallman) In practice, open source stands for criteria a little weaker than those of free software. As far as we know, all existing free software would qualify as open source. Nearly all open source software is free software, but there are exceptions. First, some open source licenses are too restrictive, so they do not qualify as free licenses. Fortunately, few programs use those licenses. Second, and more important, many products containing computers (including many Android devices) come with executable programs that correspond to free software source code, but the devices do not allow the user to install modified versions of those executables; only one special company has the power to modify them. We call these devices “tyrants”, and the practice is called “tivoization” after the product where we first saw it. These executables are not free software even though their source code is free software. The criteria for open source do not recognize this issue; they are concerned solely with the licensing of the source code. The two terms describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally d: Fifferent values. Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement. For the free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative, essential respect for the users' freedom. By contrast, the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make software “better”—in a practical sense only. It says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the practical problem at hand. For the free software movement, however, nonfree software is a social problem, and the solution is to stop using it and move to free software. Free software.” “Open source.” If it's the same software (or nearly so), does it matter which name you use? Yes, because different words convey different ideas. While a free program by any other name would give you the same freedom today, establishing freedom in a lasting way depends above all on teaching people to value freedom. If you want to help do this, it is essential to speak of “free software.” We in the free software movement don't think of the open source camp as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software. But we want people to know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being mislabeled as open source supporters. With open-source software, generally anyone is allowed to create modifications of it, port it to new operating systems and processor architectures, share it with others or, in some cases, market it. Scholars Casson and Ryan have pointed out several policy-based reasons for adoption of open source – in particular, the heightened value proposition from open source (when compared to most proprietary formats) in the following categories: Security Affordability Transparency Perpetuity Interoperability Flexibility Localization—particularly in the context of local governments (who make software decisions). Casson and Ryan argue that "governments have an inherent responsibility and fiduciary duty to taxpayers" which includes the careful analysis of these factors when deciding to purchase proprietary software or implement an open-source option.[5] The Open Source Definition, notably, presents an open-source philosophy, and further defines the terms of usage, modification and redistribution of open-source software. Software licenses grant rights to users which would otherwise be reserved by copyright law to the copyright holder. Several open-source software licenses have qualified within the boundaries of the Open Source Definition. The most prominent and popular example is the GNU General Public License (GPL), which "allows free distribution under the condition that further developments and applications are put under the same licence", thus also free.[6] While open-source distribution presents a way to make the source code of a product publicly accessible, the open-source licenses allow the authors to fine tune such access.
- #20 65% of respondents of that survey also claimed that they have used OER in their instructions and when asked whether or not they will use in the future, 80% said yes. This shows that OERs have gained popularity and momentum. The fact that many OER repositories are being built and enriched every day also suggest that the enthusiasm around the promise of OER is being bought by many stakeholders.
- #32 Coursera offers more than 641 courses, and claimed to have served more than 7.4 million Courserians through its 108 university partners (per 25 April 2014). Coursera has been very aggressive in inviting partners from the non-English speaking countries and it has now also offered MOOCs in French, Spanich, Italian, and Chinese. Interesting to note, some of the courses are offered with an option for a “signature track”, which is fee-based, and awards a certificate. Coursera claimed to have raised USD43 million in venture capital, on top of the USD22 million it raised in 2012 (Economist, 20/07/2013 in Gaebel, 2013). The edX consortium currently offers 176 courses from its 45 partner universities including the founders and owners of edX, Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Seventeen edX partners are from outside of the US (Switzerland, the Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium, Germany, India, China, Hong Kong, South Korea, Japan and Canada). In addition, starting 2014 edX will also offer policy-oriented economics courses for government officials of IMF member countries. Students who successfully complete the courses can earn certificates at no cost, but it does not offer course credits. To recover the operation cost, edX is charging institutions that use the platform and services. It was claimed that more than 100 thousands certificates has been earned by edX students. Udacity was founded based on the famous Stanford University’s first MOOCs “Introduction to Artificial Intelligence” that has attracted 16,000 enrollments form more than 190 countries. Udacity has further sharpened its “applied” approach (“learn–think–do”), and in autumn 2013 also announced a shift towards fee-based courses for companies. There are currently 28 courses on offer by its individual lecturer partners. Unlike Coursera or edX, its advisory board brings together expertise from business, politics and education.
- #33 FutureLearn is a private company wholly owned by The Open University, with the benefit of over 40 years of their experience in distance learning and online education. Its partners include over 20 of the best UK and international universities, as well as institutions with a huge archive of cultural and educational material, including the British Council, the British Library, and the British Museum. The OpenupEd initiative was launched on April 25th 2013. It is the portal of a pan-European initiative OpenupEd around so-called MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses). The Japanese OCW began in 2005 with 6 universities, and this movement has grown intoJapan Open Courseware Consortium (JOCW) with current membership of 41 organizations including 21 universities and offering more than 3,000 courses online. JMOOC was established on 11 October 2013. JMOOC is Japanese MOOC, not American style MOOC, and we are anticipating nation-wide collaboration between the industry and academia on this project. Edraak is an initiative of and launched by Queen Rania Al Abdullah of Jordan, the first non-profit MOOC platform for the Arab speaking world. Edraak is powered by Open edX. The project was announced by edX and the Queen Rania Foundation in November 2013.
- #36 So why are institutions going into MOOCs? A study of 39 colleges and universities in the US (Hollands & Tirthali, 2014) identified a variety of institutional goals for engaging with MOOCs including extending reach and access (65%), building and maintaining brand (41%), improving economics (38%), improving educational outcomes (38%), innovation (38%), and research on teaching and learning (28%). Although the goal to extend the reach of the institution to a wider audience and improving access to education seem to be dominated by those who are already being educated from the developed world. As an illustration, data of participants of the first 17 MIT’s MOOCs on edX show that 66% of 841,687 participants, and 74% of the 43,196 participants who obtained a certificate have already had a bachelor’s degree or above; and only 20,745 (3%) of all participants were from the UN listed least developed countries (HO, 2014). Another survey by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania reveals that the participants in Coursera's MOOCs are employed, degree-holding men (83% of the 34,700 respondents held 2- or 4-year degrees and 44% held advanced degrees. Similarly, respondents in Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, where only 6 percent of the population has earned a college degree, nearly 80% of Coursera students are college graduates and from the wealthiest echelons of society (McKenzie, 2014). In relation to this, because MOOCs are offered through online platform and mostly are in English, there are also some growing concerns about the possibility of MOOCs widening the digital divide between the haves and the haves not, and about the potential unwanted cultural effects that MOOC might cause.