Identifying priorities for research

[Activity 4]

I have identified three priorities:

1. Continuity - there must be a clearly defined progression path, enabling people to take what they have (both in terms of knowledge and qualification and, assuming that we are looking at online education (although the question doesn't specify), and in terms of equipment. Too often the "new big thing" comes along, and there is the feeling that you have to start again.

   This pace of change - updating because we can, rather than because we should - flies in the face of economic good sense. How frequently do some businesses undertake a 'technology refresh'? Although some do so regularly, I know of several large and established organisations that are only just upgrading from Windows XP... because until now, that operating system has met their needs. Individuals and organisations undertaking Open Learning may be doing so because it is a more convenient or cheaper option than conventional campus-based education.

2. Accessibility - this ties in with continuity to some extent. All of the issues around accessibility for those with physical, mental or emotional difficulties must be addressed, but there are also accessibility issues for those with financial or infrastructure difficulties.

   Many people may choose to follow an open education route because they can work at the same time as they study, reducing the cost of obtaining an education further because they are not accruing a financial debt purely to survive. However, the total cost of studying (akin to the total cost of ownership) must be taken into account. It's great to say that open education may well be free at the point of access - sounds bit like the NHS, doesn't it? But in the same way as the NHS, everything isn't totally free - people may have to pay for prescriptions, there are the costs of visiting someone in hospital and - potentially - the cost of child care if the usual carer is the person who is ill. Add to this the cost of accessing open learning resources on a pay-as-you-go dial-up modem connection, and you start to see things aren't as "free" as first thought.

3. Recognition - for those studying while working, and who are perhaps even sponsored by their employers either in terms of money or time to study, this is less of an issue. In this situation, employers may see the change in their employees, perhaps in terms of skills or confidence, or in the quality of their work.

   The difficulty arises when you want to prove your capability and level of education to someone who does not know you. Rightly or wrongly, simply telling someone I have learnt something often isn't enough - there needs to be some way of proving it. This is true if - for example - you are applying for a job or a promotion, or you want previous study to be recognised when registering for courses in a more traditional environment.

My representation of open educational resources

[Activity 3]

As the title suggests, I've stuck more with the concept of "resources" than with open access to education as such... although I do believe strongly that there needs to be some way for an employer to be able to validate what people have learnt. Less of an issue for ongoing education for current employees, where existing capabilities are known and new knowledge can be demonstrated; more of an issue for those looking to hire or searching for a job.

One of my own "pet hates" is trainers who blame the tools... I've heard it said so many times that PowerPoint is "not interactive" that I've created my representation as an interactive PowerPoint presentation. Assuming all works as it should, those viewing it have to navigate through it themselves.

As I got this far before realising I couldn't insert the presentation in my blog post, I've put it on my website. It will be there for the foreseeable future, but I can't guarantee it will be there forever. It is a PowerPoint show - Open Educational Resources.

A review of 'Open education and the future'

[Activity 2]

Review of Wiley, D. (2010) ‘Open education and the future’, TEDxNYED 2010. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb0syrgsH6M (accessed 29 March 2014).

David Wiley talks about openness in education as primarily being thought of as sharing of resources but also sharing of knowledge. He states that our expertise can be given - freely - without being "given away" (in the sense that we still have it).

He talks about how we are using what we learn - and are effectively re-purposing it - as we go about our daily jobs.

Examples were given of attempts to restrict access to knowledge through the centuries - and of how these eventually failed, although they caused hardship in the short term.

My thoughts...

I recognise in myself the child throwing the tantrum and shouting, "Mine, mine!"

I wasn't sure why I feel like this... because it isn't how I act in practice (honest).

For example, I send potential clients to my competitors if I'm at capacity, or if I feel they will do a better job. I've spent hours on the phone with people wanting to become technical communicators, or who want to move into freelance work and want some tips. I publish the materials I develop for the course I teach to the regional tutors' area. I share tips for conveying concepts with other trainers who are working on behalf of the same company... although I developed them and use them in my own courses.

Having thought it through some more, I have had an epiphany... it came when David Wiley was talking about the professor who wanted to copyright his lectures, and therefore the student's notes as derivative works. That's not what I want to do - once someone has some of my resources, they can do with them what they want.

My problem is related, though. I've already said I'm happy to share... but I'm happy to share with people I know will make good use of what I'm sharing. People who are competent to teach what I teach. In a formal educational setting, for example, I'd be more than happy for good teachers (trainers) to take my writing skills materials and use them. What I'm worried about is not-so-good (in other words, bad) teachers taking my materials and not doing a good job.

Maybe I just need to let those signing up for the courses worry about how competent the trainer is...

Openness in education - article review

[Activity 2]

I read CNN-1333 Open Course (2012), The extended argument for openness in education.

The first thing that struck me was the different interpretation of "buy one, get one" (in the UK, normally "buy one, get one free" or "BOGOF"). An alternative interpretation is that as people (as taxpayers) have already paid for the research that has led to the publication of papers, access to those papers should be granted because effectively they've already been purchased. (You buy one, so you should get one...)

The main thrust of the article is that sharing knowledge is important, and it's what being an good educator is all about. I agree, and in general I'm more than happy to share my ideas and my materials with others when I'm working in Higher Education.

The article describes MOOCs and other open initiatives, and outlines various successes in this area. It concludes by acknowledging that the future of OER is still uncertain.

My thoughts...

The thing that is missing is a definition of learning and education. If I read the article with a definition in mind of current state-sponsored further education or higher education (in the UK, colleges or universities), it makes sense. But I do need to keep that context in mind. As soon as I deviate from it and think of "learning" in its wider sense (as in lifelong learning), I do start to come across the problem of "OK, so who is paying the wages of the people developing the materials?" or "Who is paying the wages of the person delivering the course?" In the corporate world, that is often the employer - either directly by employing people in a training and development role, or indirectly by sourcing external training.

We can't spend our whole lives acquiring one degree after another but instead continue to learn as we live our lives. "Education" (in my mind, at least) was traditionally linked to formal education resulting in an academic qualification. Potentially professional qualifications fall into this category too - others already in the profession subscribe to professional bodies that pay for research and materials, so effectively the "buy one, get one" philosophy works.

It does feel that the march is inexorable. So much is free on the internet that the assumption is often "well, it's online so we must be able to use it". Maybe. And maybe the concept of a professional being involved - creating the complex diagrams or editing and reviewing the text and being paid to do so - is outdated.

It's an interesting concept - that experts in the field are necessarily best placed to explain their findings to others. In my experience, that isn't always the case. They may be best placed to explain their findings to others who already know nearly a lot about the topic (doctors talking to doctors), but are woefully inadequate at trying to explain to novices (doctors talking to patients).

Finally, I'm all for learning what I feel I need to learn to do my job properly... but this is actually very rarely anything from the formal side of education. The problem is still: how can I convince a potential employer that I learnt sufficient of the 'right stuff' from an open course that someone had modified to be worth employing?

My experience with open learning

[Activity 1]

My own experience with open education and open learning has been primarily through the Open University.

• As a tutor, I have suggested various OU Open Learn materials to help my students with their study skills.
• As a student, I have used the materials to determine whether I would be able to cope with a particular course, or to assess my level of knowledge in a particular area. For example, I spent some time reviewing the materials for H817 that were provided as a MOOC before deciding to sign up for this course.

For me personally, I learn a lot in this way. The only issue I have is that it can be difficult – if not impossible – to validate that learning. Where it is used directly in my work, the very fact that I can demonstrate (and use) my new knowledge or skills practically is enough. I only need to prove my learning in the sense of qualifications when someone else puts that requirement in place.