Transcript Inside Out

Inside Out
The ALTO Project:
Linking OERs to Professional
Development and Knowledge
Management activities
John Casey, Hywell Davies, Chris Follows, Nancy Turner, Ed Webb-Ingall,
University of the Arts London, Centre for Learning & Teaching in Art & Design.
Inside Out - Content
• Problem – moving from subsistence to
sustainability
• Situational Analysis
• Approach – CoPs and Fieldworkers
• Rationale & Benefits
• Methodology
• Knowledge Management
• Social Layer
• System Design
Stating the Problem
• The need to move from a subsistence to a
sustainable model of HE & OERs – technology will be
involved
“To meet the staggering global demand for advanced education, a
major university needs to be created every week”
Sir John Daniels, ceo, COL
Situational Analysis – 1
• Staff development in HE has traditionally been
supplied by central units
• Adapting current teaching practices and
cultures to use new technologies presents this
centralized development model with critical
challenges:
– Capacity
– Skills
Situational Analysis – 2
• OER engagement adds a range of additional
needs: IPR, de-contextualization, presentational
and media design, and ‘learning design for
strangers’ etc.
• Ed Tech has not broken through - lack of attention
to systemic and soft issues is often cited as some
of the causes for this failure (Kumar @ MIT)
• But OER engagement ‘surfaces’ systemic and soft
issues – so a potentially powerful engine for
change
Situational Analysis – 3
• Design, development, sharing, reuse and adaption of
learning resources are poorly understood
• Growing awareness and policy agenda that now
privileges process over content and collaboration over
delivery – a move from OER to Open Practice (but still
needs/builds on OER)
• The value proposition of sharing and OER is becoming
much more explicit and forceful (Chow)
Situational Analysis – 4
• Sharing as a signifier of change
Approach
• ALTO has approached this challenge in a number
of ways:
– Tapped into existing communities of practice around a
variety of themes and contexts
– Employed and trained part-time staff to work with
front-line teaching staff across a number of different
areas (IPR, learning design etc) – they and the project
manager act as ‘Fieldworkers’
Rationale
•
The Fieldworker concept is an established practice in anthropology and
ethnographic studies - is used to understand and interact with a
culture
• Fieldworkers have an important role in the design of socio-technical
systems in the workplace - advocated by pioneers like Mumford and by
modern practitioners such as Sharples
• By mobilizing existing communities of practice and using fieldworkers OER engagement can potentially be a CPD tool to do more with limited
resources
• Provides the basis for an economically sustainable means of enhancing
educational development provision in a time austerity.
• Has implications for existing approaches to educational development,
organizational structures and cultures
Benefits
• Engagement with OER creation is a de facto reflective
exercise – designing resources and learning experiences for
‘strangers’ - this takes us out of our normal frame of
reference
• Everyone has an implicit model of learning and teaching
(Biggs, Ramsden) OER engagement brings these models to
the surface for discussion
• This puts us in the ‘right mind’ set for thinking about
designing for flexible and blended learning – tricky in A&D!
• Good foundation for introducing and embedding new
learning and teaching models
Methods
• Leverage OER engagement by deliberately introducing flexible and
blended learning concepts via the fieldworkers – strategic agenda
• Fieldworkers use OER resources as ‘mediating artefacts’ to help
practitioners articulate, share and reflect on mental models (Conole) and
design strategies
• OERs become ‘boundary objects’ that support communication and
understanding between CoPs (Wenger)
• Fieldworkers encourage and support ‘collaborative learning design’
activities between practitioners (internal and external) - benefits:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Mutual support
Reflection
P2P learning
Low threshold concepts
Shared authentic language
Embedding
CoP development & strengthening
Knowledge Management 1
• Early days still
• Previous tech-centric approaches have not worked well (Lambe,
Friesen, Hoel), some have a dubious rationale and ideological
agenda (Friesen)
• These are complex socio-technical systems and highly entropic
• It is not nearly enough to just provide a mechanism of storage or
retrieval – presentation and social layers are needed
• Do not use meaningless and rebarbative jargon with users – use
straightforward concrete language
• Allow/support users and communities to articulate their own
meanings (ontologies) and classifications (taxonomies) record these
for later elaboration and mediation
Knowledge Management 2
• By all means use a Repo - we use EdShare, it’s good
• But do not attempt to impose terminology, vocabularies and
taxonomies developed by experts – however well meaning or
authoritative
• This is not a well-defined domain:
– Mainstream public education is a messy and contingent enterprise and
is highly dependant on contextual factors – it’s not like military or
aviation training – where such tech approaches originated
• Introduce a ‘social layer’ for interaction, creation sharing,
collaboration and negotiation of content and meanings
(example - process arts)
The Social Layer – 1
EdShare Repository
The Social Layer – 2
http://process.
arts.ac.uk/
ALTO System Design
• A presentation & social layer enables the important human
factors of communication, collaboration, and participation
that are needed for sustainable resource creation, sharing
and sense making within community networks
• Solutions provided should help, not hinder, participants
needs and activities
• Guiding system design principle should be the concepts of
conviviality (Illich, 1973, Hardt & Negri 2009) and
stewardship (Wenger et al, 2009)
• Arrange for longer term storage and sense making to be
migrated from the social layer to a repository
Inside Out Summary
• Problem – moving from subsistence to
sustainability
• Situational Analysis
• Approach – CoPs and Fieldworkers
• Rationale & Benefits
• Methodology
• Knowledge Management
• Social Layer
• System Design
Referneces 1 (as they appear)
Vijay M. S. Kumar, Kim Thanos (2011), Systemic Planning for the Open Education Innovation, OCWC Conference
proceedings, http://conferences.ocwconsortium.org/index.php/2011/cambridge/paper/view/199
Daniels, J (2007) quoted in (p.32). Atkins, D, E, Brown, J., S. Hammond A., L. A Review of the Open Educational
Resources (OER) Movement: Achievements, Challenges, and New Opportunities, Hewlett Foundation
Chow, B. (2010) The Way Forward; OER’s Value Proposition,
http://oerworkshop.weebly.com/uploads/4/1/3/4/4134458/bchow.ppsx Presentation at: Taking the Open
Educational Resources (OER) Beyond the OER Community: Policy and Capacity. UNESCO Policy Forum,
Paris. http://oerworkshop.weebly.com/policy-forum.html accessed March 6 2011
Mumford, E. (1995). Effective Systems Design and Requirements Analysis: The ETHICS Approach. Basingstoke:
Macmillan.
Sharples, M. (2006). Socio-Cognitive Engineering. In Ghaoui, C. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Computer
Interaction. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference
Biggs, J. (2006). Teaching for quality learning at university: what the student does. Maidenhead, United
Kingdom: Open University Press.
Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to Teach in Higher Education, Abingdon: Routledge and Falmer
Conole, G. (2008). Capturing practice: the role of mediating artefacts in learning design. In Lockyer L., S.
Bennett, S., Agostinho, and B Harper (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Learning Design and Learning
Objects: Issues, Applications and Technologies. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Referneces 2 (as they appear)
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
Friesen, N. (2004a). Three Objections to Learning Objects and E-learning Standards. In: McGreal, R. (Ed.).
Online Education Using Learning Objects. London: Routledge. pp. 59- 70.
Friesen, Norm & Cressman, Darryl. (2007). “The Political Economy of Technical E-Learning Standards” In
Koolhang, A. & Harman, K. (eds.), Learning Objects: Theory, Praxis, Issues & Trends. Warsaw: Informing
Science Press. pp. 507-526.
Lambe, P. (2002), The Autism of Knowledge
Management,www.greenchameleon.com/thoughtpieces/autism.pdf
Hoel, T. (2010) http://hoel.nu/wordpress/?p=426 accessed March 6 2011
Hardt, M., Negri, A., (2010) Commonwealth, Harvard University Press
Illich, I. (2009), Tools for Conviviality, Marion Boyars Publishers Ltd, London
Wenger, E., White, N., Smith J.D., (2009) Digital Habitats: stewarding technology for communities Portland.