Exploring the process of using OER to build transnationally accredited courses – an activity theory perspective Marc P. Singer, Vice-Provo st Centre for.

Exploring the process of using OER to build transnationally accredited

courses – an activity theory perspective

Marc P. Singer, Vice-Provost

Centre for the Assess-ment of Learning

Thomas Edison State College

Trenton, NJ, [email protected]

David A. Porter, Project Manager

Task Force on Flexible Education

Simon Fraser Univer-sity

Burnaby, BC, [email protected]

Open studies leading to credentials

“For me, the whole issue around open education is at two levels. One, it's a values commitment by an

organization, or by an education institution at the level of the primary purpose of … sharing knowledge.“

“The second is purely an economic perspective around improving efficiencies of tertiary education.”

“In the original paper called Creating a Parallel Universe, because I knew that you can't take on the complexity of the Higher Ed system as a whole, so …

my concept was that you could run this in parallel with the main stream, in a small number of courses, in a

large number of institutions…”– OERu Founda-tion Members

Looking at the components of OERu• All partners agree

on the inputs and desired outputs, outcomes, and their impact

• Variation tends to localized through the initiatives in which partners have special capacity or interest

• We decided to do a short and nimble exploratory study on one case to try to surface successes or issues for further focus by the OERu partners

The beginning• Thomas Edison State College joined OERu

2012

• Reviewed prototype courses contributed by partners

• Identified Critical Reasoning (Unisa) and Why Sustainable Practice? (Otago Polytechnic) as possible projects

• Aligned with our curriculum

• Seemed like it would be easy to develop assessments

• Develop a stand-alone assessment for the course

• Portfolio—already an option

• Credit-by-exam (TECEP)—more convenient and accessible

• Adapt course for open distribution using our portal

• Adapt course for for-credit, mentored version

The goals

The processStaff reviewed course materials on

WikiEducator site

The exam• Developed TECEP test description with outcomes based on Unisa’s outcomes

• We needed to make adjustments:

• Microblogging, journaling not possible in this format

• Unisa’s Outcome 1: Learners actively participate in the opportunities set out in the study material

• Course determined by School to be at 100-level (Introductory/first-year)

• TESC began development with our students and US accreditation requirements in mind:

• Self-directed adults

• Come to us with skills and knowledge already acquired

• Online course delivery

Longue durée

Progress on course development slowed—

Unisa had course designers and faculty expertise, but not clear direction of how to fit its course to a format that would work for OERu partner institutions

• October 2013: TESC staff met with Unisa to figure out how to proceed

• Goals of course

• How assessment would work

• Credit transfer

• Questions about prior learning

Alignment of course and exam

• CO1 Identify assumptions, reasons, claims and their interaction

• CO2 Make informed logical decisions that are based on facts and substantiated claims

• CO3 Critically evaluate your own personal biases, misconceptions and preconceived ideas

• CO4 Identify and critically evaluate the ideas and beliefs of others

• CO5 Analyze and evaluate information and knowledge claims critically

• CO6 Apply the key concepts of critical reasoning to constructing one’s own arguments and writing critical essays

What do we assess at TESC?

• Developed pools of TECEP test content to address outcomes of Unisa and TESC courses, using item types that are most effective given the constraints of a timed, proctored online testing environment

• Multiple choice and matching items assess key concepts (what critical thinking is, types of arguments, structure of arguments, obstacles to clear thinking, kinds of writing)

• Essay prompts assess ability to

• Construct an argument

• Evaluate an argument

Links

• Open Course: http://sites.google.com/a/courses.tesc.edu/phi-130-critical-reasoning/

• TECEP exam: http://www2.tesc.edu/listalltecep.php

An exploratory study

We decided to explore the strategy and process considerations that must be examined when an institution chooses to adopt an available openly licensed course from another institution and offer it for credit within their own institution - the idealized OER situation

Activity theory• The subject of an activity system

is the individual or group whose viewpoint is adopted

• Object “refers to the ‘raw material’ or ‘problem space’ at which the activity is directed

• Tools mediate the object of activity

• Community refers to the participants of an activity system, who share the same object

• The division of labour involves the division of tasks and roles among members of the community and the divisions of power and status.

• Rules are explicit and implicit norms that regulate actions and interactions within the activity system

Role of contradictions in AT• A key principle within activity theory is the

role of contradictions. Contradictions commonly develop as a system develops over time.

• When a new activity is introduced into the system internal ‘primary contradictions’ result in “aggravated secondary contradictions where some old element collides with a new one...” (Engeström 2001, p.137).

• Contradictions are present and are crucial driving forces of transformation according to Engeström and Sannino (2010).

OERu activity system

Interview guide

• We used a semi-structured interview guide in our conversations with OERu, TESC and Unisa participants in the exploratory study

Interview guide

Points of agreement

Activity system dynamics

Contradictions

ConclusionsUsing the experiences both of the Unisa and TESC teams, the researchers believe that the contradictions that emerged, when accounted for as part of the OERu adoption and adaptation process, can be identified and effectively navigated and harnessed as part of a new and stronger process, as additional courses and institutions move through the process.

Ultimately, the researchers believe that identifying the opportunities inherent in this exploratory case study can illuminate ways in which a network of like-minded institutions can work together to expand and build upon the strengths of each member, as OERu.org broadens its reach to include the development of entire programs of study.

RecommendationsUse institutional action plans (IPAs) to provide additional structure to the OERu network, and to the distributed organization

Refine the OERu network structure to better reflect partner capabilities and interests

Use the strengths of the partners to better describe a unified structure with clearly defined OERu offerings

Refine the OERu technical systems to lower overhead for creation and editing of course materials, or better match partner infrastructure

Intentionality and experimentation – use OERu as a sandbox to experiment with new solutions that partners seek