Going Open: Lessons Learned from the Open Course Library

Going Open - Lessons Learned from the Open Course Library

NW eLearn 2011 – Vancouver, WAOctober 13, 2011

Tom Caswell & Scott DennisWA State Board for Community & Technical Colleges

“Open” Terminology:Open = free/flexible/sharable Open License = sharable license (example: Creative Commons’ most open license: CC-BY)Open CourseWare (OCW) = sharable course materialsOpen Educational Resources (OER) = sharable learning materials (broader than OCW)

Open?

Why is “Open” Important in Education?1. Efficiency & Affordability2. Quality3. Self-interest4. Collaborative Serendipity

Making the Case for “Open”

What is this madness??(How do we do open?)

Making the Case for “Open”

A simple, standardizedway to grant copyright

permissions to your creative work.

What is Creative Commons?

7

Attribution

Non-CommercialNo Derivative Works

Share Alike

http://creativecommons.org/choose

Step 1: Choose License Conditions

8

Step 2: Receive License

Each CC license comes in 3 formats:

500 million open resources so far

Higher Ed

• Goals– Design and share 81 high enrollment,

gatekeeper courses– Improve course completion rates– Lower textbook costs for students (<$30)– Provide new resources for faculty to use

in their courses– Fully engage our colleges in the global

open educational resources discussion.

Open Course Library

• Phase 1: 42 courses– Available October 31, 2011 at

http://opencourselibrary.org• Phase 2 : 39 courses

– Available Spring 2013

Timeline

81 courses built by our own faculty1. Define learning objectives2. Use existing, quality Open

Educational Resources (OER)3. Fill in gaps with their own content

Design Process

How does OER help teach more students and teach them better?

1. Non-rivalrous, scalable, searchable2. Allows students to preview and

review• Paves the way for lifelong learning

3. Can be customized, translated, improved

• Data feedback loops are useless without the ability to change the content

More? Better? Faster?

• 81 courses = 411,133 enrollments / year• Textbook savings up to $41M+ in / year • At 25% adoption (faculty decision), savings

to students will be $7.2M / year. • Completions rates may also increase when

all students can afford course materials

Potential Savings

Lessons Learned

Phase 1 Faculty Concerns:• Many were unfamiliar with ANGEL LMS• No way to compare work between course

teams• Too many websites to keep track of

Phase 2 Adjustments:• Using Google Docs to collaborate & share as

we go• All project information in one Google Site

Lessons Learned

Pros:• Collaborative, consistent, simple tool

– Similar to Microsoft Word• Broader adoption base – not limited to

specific LMS communities (LMS-neutral)• Allows for easier viewing, sharing, saving

copies

Cons:• No automated quizzed & assessments

– Designers can link to other tools or type up questions

• LMS adopters : move OCL resources into LMS

Why Google Docs?

• Measuring adoptions– How to count adoptions in the open

• Institutional concerns over copyright– Is the YouTube “take down” policy

adequate?• Technical challenges with current

technology– Need better support for versioning

content– Need “push-button” open publishing

feature

Other Challenges

Tom CaswellScott Dennis

State Board for Community & Technical Colleges

http://opencourselibrary.org

Slides at: http://slideshare.net/tom4cam