Part of Phase2 Cascade strand synthesis
Jump to the appropriate section of this page
|
Cultural issues are covered in some detail in the sections on institutional issues and on practice change, and also in the Cascade findings on the differences between HE and FE institutions with respect to OER release. The section on impacts and benefits also covers impact of OERs on the curriculum and on pedagogy, which are clearly aspects of academic culture. The specific question on cultural issues, highlighted in the synthesis framework, has not yielded much evidence.
How are existing academic/subject discipline cultures being challenged, strengthened, contested, changed etc through the availability of OERs?
The Cascade strand did not focus strongly on disciplinary cultures, as these were richly researched by the Subject strand of the UK OER pilot programme. Reflections on existing academic (institutional) cultures are recorded in the section on institutional issues. Here, we report some findings on how cultural change was supported through the specific relationship afforded by the terms of Cascade funding, i.e. by one institution actively intervening to influence the culture of another towards more strategic release of open educational content.
The Ripple project found that engaging senior staff in partner institutions was often difficult, at least in terms of attendance at workshops with an explicit OER focus. However, they found that by reaching key people in different roles within the institution, interest in OER was spread in all directions, upwards as well as downwards. A CAMEL approach whereby ideas are shared/cascaded between people in parallel roles, seems to have worked well in this instance.
OSTRICH followed a rather different model based on detailed workflows and guidance, which were designed to take some of the effort out of stepping up to a more strategic approach. The original CORRE model from the pilot phase Otter project was adapted for use at Bath to reflect (a) a more devolved approach support within the institution and (b) a desire to develop and release original content rather than focus on repurposing. Support materials were created to guide staff in aspects of the OER process, such as copyright clearance, that were not being directly supported as they were at Leicester.
As this demonstrates, OER involves a diverse range of expertise and this is rarely mapped to established professional roles. At some partner colleges, a small project team contained the sum of OER know-how for that institution, while at institutions that had been early advocates, OER expertise was being developed among librarians, legal advisers, knowledge transfer teams, technical developers, content management teams, quality teams, marketing departments, etc as appropriate to their roles. What we can say across the board is that new professional responsibilities are emerging, demanding new kinds of expertise, and that collaboration across professional boundaries is critical if sharing and release of educational content is to become embedded into academic practice.
The C-SAP and ADM projects, as discussed, focused on change within a community of pedagogic practice by creating opportunities for open sharing, critical reflection, and discussion. They note that this takes time and commitment, and is easier to achieve if the scholarship of teaching as reflected in OER production is institutionally recognised.
For some tutors, OERs present an opportunity to rethink the teaching and learning process. (ADM Final report)
This approach led to more general reflections on how learning and teaching cultures are changing, and what role (if any) OERs play within those trends. In ADM, discussion focused on the use of web 2.0 sites to share creative practice openly - 'the availability of materials, through Flickr, YouTube and Vimeo both as student and staff-created resources as well as objects of study is significant across the subjects.' CSAP subjects are also being changed in radical ways by the availability of public social and research data online as well as the rise of new social/digital practices. Considerations of OER use cannot be divorced from these wider changes to disciplinary knowledge practices.
Focus groups with staff also explored the idea that OER puts students in the driving seat:
'In some respects, students are leading staff, departments and institutions, to the wealth of online resources'
'We are driven by the students, they lead and we follow … to Google and YouTube for example. Digital resources are superseding staff’s lecture structure.' (ADM focus groups)
The C-SAP project was able to produce modest evidence of student engagement with OERs as content, but less direct evidence of students actually creating their own learning resources. Anecdotally, however, staff feel that students are taking more ownership of their learning process:
'There is evidence of students developing their own processes that could impact on the development of teaching and learning resources. Staff noted a recent change with students using hand-held technology to record lectures and other aspects of their learning experience.' (CSAP)
'In design we want to mark the process rather than the outcome so blogs are becoming an important resource for other students... It is collaborative learning, not static outputs.' (ADM)
Disciplinary cultures
The two subject-based projects in the Cascade strand were particularly sensitive to how disciplinary cutures impact on OER readiness and approach. Rich findings on this issue were collected by the UK OER pilot phase Subject strand projects: however, some additional reflections from the ADM focus groups are recorded here.
Open educational practices in art and design are influenced by:
- 'the underlying characteristics of ‘creative’ disciplines', especially the focus on audience and consequent 'culture of exhibiting, critiquing and sharing';
- 'the significance of collaborative spaces, particularly the studio'
both of which make openness seem a natural approach. Indeed, in some subjects allied to ADM, e,g. film and media courses, both teaching content/examples and student learning outcomes are openly shared on platforms such as youtube, vimeo etc and this public visibility is essential to the creative process. No special development is required to make such content 'open'. On the other hand, the practice-based pedagogies of art and design make it less obvious what 'educational' content looks like, other than various artefacts of the creative process itself. And because many lecturers and indeed students have a parallel professional practice, they may be sensitive to the commercial value of these productions. In subject areas where the skills and knowledge are considered more important than the ‘validation’ of these through qualifications, making the learning/teaching process too accessible can be seen as problematic:
'In animation the qualification is not a requirement [employers value the skills over the qualification].'
'By sharing we may risk people not coming here to the university.'
In the ADM survey, there were examples of staff members who had nevertheless released open educational content through a personal/professional website in order to enhance their profile. One expressed the competing definitions of 'open' practice thus:
'There are competing philosophies – one of sharing, it is our instinct [as teachers] to share and one of the market and competing – it seems to be offering a confused notion of knowledge' (Focus Group participant)
These issues and the sheer diversity of subjects embraced by art and design both show that even with a single disciplinary field : 'there cannot be a ‘one size fits all’ approach to developing open educational practise'.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.