Excerpts from "Opening Up Education"

MIT Opening Education



But if we can entertain the semantic web, perhaps we could entertain a vast

and recursively interconnected web of simulations. No one group can

build it all, but many could contribute, including students themselves. (xiii).



A common observation made by those skeptical of the open educational

technology movement is, “you get what you pay for.” The implication

is that products developed without the benefi t of sustained commercial

investment, and lacking the control structures and accountability

identified with centralized, for-profi t incentives, will be certain to

disappoint… Rather than “you get what you pay for,” the sentiment “you get what you design

for” may be a better characterization of open educational technology’s

potential to positively affect teaching and learning. Simply put, design

matters. Designers have a greater infl uence on outcomes to a much

greater extent than is often recognized. (27).



I propose fi ve principles of design that I believe to be critical to the

success of open educational technology. While not exclusive to open

technology design, these qualities refl ect some of open education’s highest

values:

1. Design for access.

2. Design for agency.

3. Design for ownership.

4. Design for participation.

5. Design for experience.



Open educational resources and technology have long been high on

substance and low on appeal. However, it is this affective dimension of

a tool, its attraction, that when combined with thoughtful instructional

content and design motivates learners, capturing their attention and

engaging the mind. One need only observe the considerable draw of

video games and online social networking and role-playing environments

to understand the potential of technology to engage an audience. Designing

for experience recognizes the instructional benefi t of creating open

technology and resources that are at once substantive and attractive,

compelling and a pleasure to use. (43)



chapter on “The gates are shut” could relate to disaggregation article—LMS



The Internet and the Web along with a host of

available educational resources are making “open” the necessary default.

Overnight, “open” is on steroids and has taken on new meanings:

• Teachers are becoming facilitators in a charged, multivocal, online, and

onsite learning discussion that is multicentered and which they no longer

control.

• Publishing is freed of many traditional gate-keepers and therefore disciplinary

content is revised constantly.

• All educational design principles are giving way to the mandate: “be

open to multiple possible users and uses.” (89)



Vision of disagg learning:



Community for Student: P2PU

Let us imagine a vibrant Web community of learners at something called

Peer-To-Peer University, or “P2PU.” P2PU would not be a “real” university,

but rather, a group of self-learners and tutors who work together

to emulate some of the functions an academic institution would carry

out, in a peer-to-peer fashion. Providing degree tracks would help selflearners

navigate the vast terrain of OER resources in a goal-oriented

way. P2PU would defi ne “degrees” by assembling OER materials from

different repositories that, together, would suffi ce as a “degree” in that

subject. For example, P2PU might specify 15 physics courses, available

across the various OER project sites, which one would have to complete

in order to get a P2PU physics degree. Since many OER resources contain

components that are not free and open, such as textbooks and academic

papers, P2PU would only use courses that either have all the components

available, or will fi nd alternatives. Thus students might take Physics 101

from MIT OCW, and Physics 202 from Tufts OCW.

Beyond specifying degree tracks, P2PU would organize scheduled

“courses” where groups of learners would come together and learn the

material for a course. Participants could also have profi le pages that

detail their interests, occupations, and show which courses they have

completed. Posting the names of students and the OER courses somewhere

on the site could provide an additional incentive for having students

complete classes at P2PU. It may be that one day an employer

would recognize a “Net Degree” from P2PU to be as valuable, or even

more valuable, than a traditional university degree. Inherent in the

system, P2PU students—who are comfortable with their “network

selves”—would be recognized as resourceful self-starters and group

learners. A “Net Degree” from P2PU would be valuable in its own right,

and soon begin to take on its own meaning of accreditation. (100)



“So, whether in a library or on the Internet, it can be hard going for

the learner, particularly if he or she is studying in isolation. For educational

opportunities are more than just learning opportunities: There is

some implication of responsibility by a teacher or educational institution

for enabling effective, responsive, appropriate learning opportunities that

are personalized to the learner. There is a sense of agency on the part of

the educator. And, as I discuss later, some educational opportunities, of

course, offer additional expectations, such as certifi cation of learning.

Textbooks or videos of lectures represent a sort of halfway point:

There is clearly an intention on the part of the author or lecturer to

provide an educational opportunity but without the interaction, adaptation,

evaluation, and personalization that characterizes full-fl edged

delivery of quality education. So, one way to frame the open education

challenge is to ask how far beyond textbooks and instructional videos

we can affordably go by intelligent use of technology and appropriate

educational content; when these techniques are likely to be fruitful (for

what educational needs and in what disciplines); and how closely their

outcomes compare to those of traditional human teacher-intensive educational

approaches. It is also worth asking the question in reverse: How

much better does a traditional higher education institution do when it

offers a lecture course to 500 undergraduates?” (107).



Open University has no entry qualifi cations

to its modules or programs, is only limited in the number of students on

a module by the availability of suffi cient tutors (to date, the greatest

number on any single presentation of a module has been 14,000), and

allows students to register for one module at a time rather than requiring

commitment to a complete degree program. (151)



“The OU has an open access policy: No prior qualifi cations are needed

to register for the courses, and there is no age restriction (generally

students must be at least 18, but the OU does have special schemes

allowing those under 18 to study modules alongside their school

level qualifi cations). Over one third of those who enroll in the OU annually

do not have the educational qualifi cations that would normally

ensure their entry to other UK universities. Many of these “underqualifi

ed” people successfully complete all or part of a program; their success

demonstrates the effi cacy of the levels of support provided and suggests

that good exit achievement is readily attainable without any entry

selection.

Lastly, the OU recognizes and gives credit for certifi ed study at other

institutions. The OU also assesses prior experiential and work-based

learning, enabling learners to access more learning opportunities. These

services acknowledge and support the mobility of the learners: They can

learn where they want, when they want, unrestricted by rigid schedules

and specifi c locations.”



As the design of OU’s OpenLearn suggests, open educational resources

are but a small part of open education. They truly are just resources for

teachers and learners to use as suits their needs. Their fi tness for that

purpose will vary, dependent on the pedagogic nature of the resources

and the learning styles of the users. Just producing or using OERs does

not greatly open up a university. To do that requires attention to the

teaching, learning, and support methods and systems that draw upon

those resources. I have indicated above many of the factors that need to

be addressed by universities, but a major signifi cance of OERs is what

it does for the role of learners within education—changing relationships

between teachers and learners. (158)



Learners generally like being part of a peer group

that they can interact with, whether as an active participant or as a

passive onlooker. That is why in OpenLearn the OU has added tools

and technologies that encourage and enable sharing, collaboration, and

knowledge generation between educators and educators, educators

and learners, and learners and learners—as much as its own content

and to have much of that interaction recorded for others to look at and

review. (160)



the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education have

initiated a project to help state residents complete a bachelor’s degree

through an innovative statewide approach involving public universities.

Tens of thousands of Oklahomans have completed more than two years

of college but have not fi nished a degree (P. Moss, personal communication,

May 19, 2006). Collaborative curriculum development, learning

materials, faculty development, and technology will be important components

in this effort to help working adults complete a degree. The

system offi ce will be institutionalizing use of MERLOT as a key tool in

advancing this project.(191)



Finally, the development of user communities around open digital

resources, along the Wikipedia model, is much discussed, with many

suggesting that sustainability and high quality can be approached when

communities contribute to and organize content, primarily through new

social software tools and associated practices. In the current “Web 2.0”

climate, it might be a little too easy to dismiss valid questions about

whether a “wisdom of crowds” vision can be realized while still ensuring

high quality (see, for example, Duguid, 2006, among others). The costs

to creating and sustaining high quality curricular resources are high.

When coupled with the potential for rampant propagation of misinformation

and poor quality educational materials on the Internet, tensions

can be created for some developers of OER. (208)



Currently, about 150 colleges and universities

are operating or planning OCW Websites. (213)



“We are seeing about 2 million visits per month to MIT content (total for

MIT OCW and translation affi liate sites). Since inception, over 25 million

unique visitors have accessed MIT OCW, representing more than 1.5

billion hits on the Web site. In addition, there are over 100 mirror sites

in Africa and Asia that deliver MIT content to users who have limited [216]

Internet access. And users have downloaded complete course packages

for off-line use over several million times.

From OCW’s extensive, ongoing evaluation process, we have learned

that about 16 percent of OCW visitors are educators, 32 percent students,

and 49 percent self learners.2 Some 96 percent of educators say

OCW has helped them (or will) improve their teaching or their courses.

Among all visitors, 98 percent say OCW has a positive impact. Thousands

of users have expressed their appreciation for OCW and told us

anecdotal stories about the impact it has had on their lives.” (215-216).



“About 60 percent of MIT faculty use OCW materials in their teaching

or advising at MIT. A third say publishing on OCW improves their

materials. And OCW enables faculty to gain more detailed insight

into what is taught in other courses.” (221).



Over 70 percent of current graduate and undergraduate students

use OCW, and this percentage shows steady increase from year to year.

As a student in electrical engineering/computer science explained, “OCW

has given me countless materials that have inspired me for projects,

helped me complete related projects, and helped me understand course

material. My 6.111 report was posted on the OCW site. Since then, a [223]

student in Chile contacted me about it and we’ve been able to communicate

across countries.” (222-223).



The important fi rst step has been to gain a deep understanding of who

Connexions’ users are (and should be) and what constitutes value for

them. Utpal Dholakia of the Rice University Jesse H. Jones Graduate

School of Management has been studying the diverse Connexions users

through formal marketing research, by attending to user feedback, and

via informal observation and interactions. He has found, for example,

that the primary motive for a majority of academic textbook authors

who contribute their original content to Connexions is not to earn royalties;

rather, it is to have the greatest possible impact on scholars, practitioners,

and students within their disciplines through the widespread

dissemination and use of their educational and scholarly materials. As a

result, while authors may agree to forgo revenues from their contributions,

it is important that they receive full credit for them; not surprisingly,

this is often a prerequisite for them to participate. This points to

the criticality of the “attribution” clause in the Creative Commons

license and the noncriticality of the “noncommercial” clause.(238).



Today, there are over 30 million people qualifi ed

to enter university but denied access due to the restricted seat numbers

and restricted fi nances. In the next 10 years, the number of potential

students who will be denied access will grow to 100 million (Daniels,

2007). A major university would have to be created each week, starting

now, to meet this overwhelming demand.

We need to rethink the traditional notions of where, when, and how

people learn. Learning will continue within traditional structures, but it

could also be more widely available through new emerging models. (261).



the Monterey Institute for Technology and Education

(MITE; See http://www.montereyinstitute.org/nroc/nrocdemos

.html). The MITE courses cover much of the subject matter of the early

years of college (and for secondary school Advanced Placement courses)

and use rich, engaging, media-based content. All three open learning

initiatives allow students to pace their learning as appropriate and review

conceptually diffi cult material as needed.



In California, the textbooks for a community

college student ordinarily cost more than the student’s tuition and fees.

Imagine instead that there were a set of high quality text books open

and reusable on the Web. Each open textbook has the conventional pages

and fi gures as other textbooks but also has embedded laboratories,

interactive simulations, video, and other supporting material. One powerful

component of making this textbook freely available on the Web is

that it could be continuously updated for new knowledge. A version of

the textbook could also be available on a hand-held device. A low-cost,

printable, on demand version of the textbook would be available. Though

in the print form the book would lose its interactive characteristics, it

would still be as useful as current textbooks. (269).



In the long run, the possibilities for self-directed learning of this sort

are wide open. There is, however, an important implication. If someone

learns the material independently, why not get some credit or certifi cation

for the effort? Figuring this out might require that rigorous course

fi nal examinations be developed to determine if the person has actually

achieved an adequate level of understanding of the material. Then an

organization or organizations would have to be established to administer

such an exam, and certify that the person has learned the material. The

Western Governor’s University, located in Utah, provides a service something

like this.

Finally, the existence of a body of complete, free online courses suggests

that it might be possible to populate courses that satisfy a full

college major. (272).



(AAC&U, 2002).

Worldwide, the demand for postsecondary education will be nothing

short of staggering. At the beginning of the new millennium, over 90

million students were already enrolled in some form of higher education

worldwide. By 2025, estimates are that the number of enrolled students

is likely to reach 160 million (Perkinson, 2005). At this point, the lessdeveloped

countries manage to provide postsecondary education for only

4 percent of their young people, yet they hold the vast majority of the

world’s prospective students. Nearly half the world’s population (almost

3 billion people) is under the age of 25, and 85 percent of the world’s

youth live in developing countries (World Population Foundation, n.d.).

The possibility of fi nancing enough buildings, books, technologies,

and educators to serve millions of additional learners is close to

unthinkable in less-developed countries where qualifi ed instructors and

critical resources are often lacking altogether (Larson, 2001, viii). (395).



But how does the community judge the

quality of its collective output? Here, too, the burden can be distributed

across the community by providing support for user reviews and recommendations.

To confront the implications of such a strategy, the open

education movement will have to come to grips with the nature of valuation

itself. Is the quality of a course something inherent within the

learning resource itself or is it something that emerges only in use, judged

by how it affects its users in a specifi c learning context (Hylén, 2006,

p. 8)? If so, will we blend peer review with rating systems like Digg to

determine the quality of a resource? (397).