Big vs little OER - advantages and disadvantages

[Activity 11]

Weller gave a very clear definition of what ‘big’ and ‘little’ OER are. He defined big OER as the large, institution-led and funded project often leading to a very polished output that may be used (viewed) by millions. In contrast, little OER is making available the smaller materials that we often create anyway to deliver our courses – perhaps with a little more polish as we are making them available outside our own inner circle, but not necessarily so.

The advantages of ‘big’ OER are primarily that of resources. Whole teams of people will work on a project, resulting in very high quality both of the presentation and of the content. Reputable experts in a field may be involved, either fronting the project or behind the scenes. The resources expended on the project also lead to several disadvantages: topic, content and longevity. The topic has to be one in which many people will be interested, or the resource being invested cannot be justified. The content may have to be modified, perhaps minimising or eliminating some of the more specialist aspects to appeal to the breadth of audience. Finally, having expended significant resources on producing a piece of big OER, it is unlikely to be updated frequently – meaning that in some cases content may become obsolete.

‘Little’ OER has almost exactly the opposite problems and advantages. Resources are usually quite limited, so the level of polish – even when the work is undertaken freely – is likely to be lower. This may be due to a combination of lack of time, and lack of expertise in the tools being used. The quality of the content in the first instance relies on the subject matter knowledge of the original author of the work. This may improve over time if the materials are repurposed, in the same way that a page on Wikipedia is modified as others read the content. There is no requirement to consider audiences beyond that required for the original use of the material – if other educators choose to use a resource, they must decide on its level of suitability or otherwise, and must make any necessary changes.

‘Big’ OER does not rely on the motivation and commitment of individuals; rather, the motivation and commitment of the organisation is the driving force. The creators of ‘little’ OER may have support from the organisation for which they work, or from the wider community in which they practice – but for the most part, the motivation has to come from them. Although theoretically ‘little’ OER is more easily updated, when time is short people are more likely to do the minimum, without thought for how others may want to use the materials later. The very fact that ‘little’ OER can be thought of as collateral damage – a by-product of normal activities – means that people may be less likely to consider the availability of a tool (a software application or a platform) or the skills required if the prime purpose is to meet their own needs.

Reference

Weller, M. (2011a) Academic Output as Collateral Damage [online], slidecast. Available at http://www.slideshare.net/mweller/academic-output-as-collateral-damage (last accessed 17 April 2014).