Openness at Utah Valley University

Nov 10, 2008 at 3:40 pm, Jared Stein

Today we received the official word that UVU is willing to support and approve publishing faculty-authored content as opencourseware or open educational resources through our well-planned UVU Open project. This decision is limited by an administrative final approval process, but at least the process is there, and the President is willing to let us join this international experiment of sharing.

I can’t make this post without reflecting on a myriad of others who have written on (and, more importantly, engaged in) openness, but most prominent on my mind today is Scott Leslie’s recent post, Planning to Share Versus Just Sharing, in which he pulls the curtain on institutional decisions to share. While Scott notes his intention was not to address OER projects, the points he hits on resonated strongly with our open project. In the comments Jim Groom calls out “the inanity and paralysis that pervades the whole conversation around sharing at an institutional level”, and I must concede the past three years of slowing and intermittently petitioning administration to let us license stuff under Creative Commons has been paralyzing and inane indeed. Chris Lott notes, “It’s easy to overlook how much easier planning and getting read and getting ready to get ready are than actually doing anything.” So true. And now there should be no more excuses for UVU.

The most important part of this announcement is not that UVU will be engaging in opencourseware, nor even that we can officially join the OpenCourseWare Consortium (though we intended to do so, and soon!)—the key for me is having the chance to explore and articulate a vision for openness at UVU, and how we might proceed in a way that contributes uniquely and with impact.

Scott argues that a problem with institutionally-guided sharing is “they [the planners/sharers] didn’t actually know what the compelling need was, it just sounded like a good idea at the time.” In our case the “need” has driven me from the beginning. Instead of just saying, “Hey, OCW is cool and the OCWC has a lot of big names (not to mention the press coverage!)” I had to understand why anyone in the world would care that Utah Valley University, a former trade college, would be sharing it’s course content, activities, and educational materials.

Really, with so many bigger, better funded, and more reputable institutions out there doing this, what’s the point?

The answer: Because we are a trade college. Because we have a vocational history. Because we have dozens of expert faculty in vocations and trades, and skilled students preparing to excel in their fields.

Because learning materials in the vocations and trades have the greatest potential for impacting in a positive way the opencourseware audience that everyone talks about but very few reach: the people who can’t afford to go to college, but desperately need the education to survive. The people who need to kick-start a new career to improve their lives. The people who have intrinsic motivation to learn something new from the ground up. Am I being idealistic? Perhaps, but I maintain my idealism is better than PR/marketing-oriented cynicism. UVU Open may encourage students to attend, but hopefully by sparking enthusiasm with our materials, not through bylines in The Chronicle.

So to me it is of critical importance that UVU Open encourage sharing and opening of learning materials from the trades and vocational departments as a priority. If we put any money into content development or publishing it should be focused there, and it should aim at complete learning content published in sequence.

Now UVU is not just a vocational/trade school (though I daresay there is more than one administrator who would like to de-emphasize that fact now that we are a university); most of our programs are in the liberal arts and sciences, and I know faculty in those areas will be interested in sharing what they are doing, too. Because we have only recently become a university, I know we have a lot of faculty who are seasoned and enthusiastic teachers, not researchers, and that may make them more likely to share what they do best. So our approach has to facilitate these folks as well, and keep the process as unencumbered as possible. To this end, the process we have proposed neglects the OCW/OER labels, and focuses on re-licensing of UVU-owned (“work-for-hire”) content under a Creative Commons license. At this point it’s a single form, and once it’s been signed by UVU administration the faculty member will be free to publish the content under any medium available.

Speaking of publishing media, because we’ve never solicited grant dollars for endeavor, we’ve always known we would have to do openness on the cheap. In fact we have a designated budget of zero. This is not a drawback; rather, this fit perfectly with our intention of putting the power of openness into the hands of the authoring faculty, not in the workflows of a committee or team. Openness and sharing should be an integral part of the authoring/publishing process, not an ancillary process. In order to do this our technical solutions would have to be inexpensive to implement, inexpensive to maintain, and easy to use. Some options:

  • The technical publishing plan has included using Moodle as an OER/OCW-publishing platform. If you teach on Moodle, you can publish your stuff on Moodle. Simple as that.
  • We now have a (pilot-phase) campus wiki, called WikiLearn. It’s open to faculty and the students they teach, and is organized by department or academic discipline. This will be a place faculty can go to author content, and, surprise! it’s open to the public, too.
  • For a number of years campus IT has hosted a basic Web server on research.uvu.edu, and folks using that will simply want to indicate the CC-status of any open content published there.
  • I plan to work toward the implementation of a campus blog service as well, inspired in part by my own joy in blogging and Jim Groom’s work on UMW’s WordPress MU system. This platform is importantly different from a wiki but still naturally open and conducive to sharing, and will give faculty (and students?) a place that they feel they have ownership of.

So that’s the news. There’s still a lot of work to be done before UVU Open is worth checking out; not all of the dominoes that we’ve set in place are still standing, but with the power to tip the first one we are in an exciting place.

13 Responses to “Openness at Utah Valley University”

  1. Mark Crane Says:

    This is such great news. I’m impresssed that you’ve slogged away at this for three years–that’s pretty inspiring.

  2. Chris Lott Says:

    Good on ya! The most important point for us has also been figuring out and articulating our reason for entering the fray and what we can contribute. Not in the sense of planning the technical details, but in defining what our strengths and desires are. That’s a valuable process!

  3. Jim Groom Says:

    Hey Jared,

    There are a few things I love about your approach at UVU, first that you see the discussion as a way to fine-tune your vision and the university’s mission for the 21st century. Something, even if painstakingly developed, I overlooked a bit when I wrote the work folks do in meetings off to a degree. You say it beautifully here:

    The most important part of this announcement is not that UVU will be engaging in opencourseware, nor even that we can officially join the OpenCourseWare Consortium—the key for me is having the chance to explore and articulate a vision for openness at UVU, and how we might proceed in a way that contributes uniquely and with impact.

    The next thing I love is that, unlike the high profile and insanely wealthy research 1 schools, you all are in the financial position that many, many universities will find themselves in. What you do over the next months and years, and how you document the process of building this open culture will be just as valuable as the content you make available. There is the special relationship, the very process of doing this is as important to share as the ultimate courses that get packaged out on the other side. How does a university do this on a budget of $0? Well, it can be done, and working together we can show many folks how.

    Thirdly, your reflections on where UVU sits in the OCW sphere of schools is a very good one. Often it is, once again, the high profile schools like MIT, Yale and Stanford that become the banner schools, and that is all well and good. However, the space for a vocational studies or liberal arts college (like UMW) often seems like an after thought given that much of what these colleges and universities deal with is the actual teaching and learning process in the classroom, rather than a more neatly packaged series of resources and publications. That is why the tracing of classroom experience, interaction, and the student’s reflection on their learning is so key in my mind when it comes to the web-based open content movement. In many ways, for me it is far more important to trace a moment than to preserve and reproduce a skeletal structure of resources that risk being de-contextualized and rendered meaningless for any given course. That negotiation and process needs to be captured and discovered by others in its messiness.

    OK, now I’ll leave you alone, great stuff and congratulations to UVU!

  4. Tran|script, by Mike Caulfield » Blog Archive » UVU and the OCWC Says:

    [...] Stein writes on his blog that UVU has decided to go open, using a very simple mechanism: Now UVU is not just a vocational/trade school (though I daresay [...]

  5. Chris Lott Says:

    Whether we like it or not, the institutional situation does matter and it varies by institution. Your approach to sharing wouldn’t work for us– the problem we face isn’t in the process of making materials free (we already own all of our own course materials and have plenty of faculty who would add to that pool), but in extending the concept of openness. So our OER site (which is in no way affiliated, at this point, with any official organization known as OER, of which I have no knowledge whatsoever) includes OCW membership because it allows us to leverage more easily the resources the consortium provides and adds to the understanding and presence of the concept in the institution. I don’t see any downside to the membership.

    As for Reverend Jim’s last point– the only problem I have with it (and his point really sits aside from anything else being discussed here) is that NO ONE is yet articulating that vision of openness and to my knowledge no one has proposed any action that takes even a single step in that direction… sharing a bunch o’ blogs (as valuable as that is) certainly isn’t it.

  6. Chris Lott Says:

    Oh, and doing it with a “budget of 0″ is really an untruth. Again, no one is doing it. Everything ends up costing something, even if it’s hidden in the form of people’s time. It might be very low– and I guess one could argue that “not much” is the same as “0 dollars” but I’m not buying that spin. There’s no zero-cost way to shift to an open stance in even the simplest ways… I think it’s a bit misleading for anyone to pretend otherwise.

  7. Chris Lott Says:

    In fact, and this is my last post because I am already late (you need to add comment editing here!), isn’t it precisely the fact that we, as small institutions with very little funding, have thought through the reasons for adopting modes of sharing and have a coherent philosophy about what we are doing and why the best reason to join good organizations that demand very little of the members? How else will those good-hearted groups be understood as more than huge info dumps from well-funded institutions.

    I guess one of the things I am reacting to is the tone in this post and some it links to that the approach we have taken is somehow not really open or open enough, not cool enough for Jim and too planned for Scott and too cognizant that we are an institution for you. I find the whole thing rather strange, in fact.

  8. Terri Bays Says:

    Congratulations, Jared!

    So, maybe I’m reading with rose-colored glasses here, but I read Jared not as saying that there’s any problem with OCW membership, but that it isn’t *the most important part of this announcement.* I quite agree: the UVU folks have been hanging around with the OCWC so long that I was quite surprised that they”ve just now gotten word of official UVU support. They’ve been official members of the OCWC since before UVSC became UVU (BTW, you need to change your name in your OCWC member profile), so their membership isn’t news.

    What *is* news is their idenitification of their importance as:

    a trade college. Because we have a vocational
    history. Because we have dozens of expert faculty
    in vocations and trades, and skilled students
    preparing to excel in their fields.

    Those of us in the OCWC are delighted to hear this news and to share with Jared and his colleagues their vision of openness. Again, congratulations for getting your administration on board!

  9. Mr. Jared Stein Says:

    @Terri – You’re right; I’m not at all trying to discount (let alone disparage) OCWC. I’m merely saying that while being an “official member” may be an artificial attraction to some institutions, it’s not so much for us, though I do intend to put in our OCWC application as soon as we have official sign-off on all 10 courses (right now we still have just 6).

    @Chris I accept your criticisms as they apply to the “tone” of my post and intend to read through it again, as it does seem I’ve struck a nerve. Having said that, I suspect you may be reading too much into this. My intent was to state frankly why this milestone is important to me regardless (not in spite) of how it impacts our involvement with OCWC. I have benefited from the OCWC, particularly in terms of the support the members have given me (Dave Wiley, Marion Jensen, Steve Carson, John Dehlin, Terri Bays, and Jenny Gray in particular have been tremendously important in pushing this forward) and hope to continue to benefit from the organization.

    Re. budgets my actual statement was “a designated budget of zero” which was only meant to indicate we haven’t had any institutional or outside funding allocated for this, and thus any process we have will have to be sustainable. In terms of how much it costs, sure it has cost me time to put together ideas and processes, and it has cost the institution money to send me to Open Ed conferences, and we have allocated some of my staff time to developing the Moodle mod, but my point is that we want to do this as part of our everyday jobs; we want openess to happen as naturally and efficiently as possible. I’m not saying this is the best scenario for all institutions; I’m saying it’s the only scenario that seems to be plausible for our institution at this point in time.

  10. Chris Lott Says:

    @Jared: My “zero budget” comment was actually directed toward Jim’s comment and had nothing whatsoever to do with your post. I should have made that clearer.

    I’m not *particularly* irritated by this specific post, though once the comments get going and Jim appears seemingly denigrating the not-radical-enough then Scott’s post gets misconstrued and then Brian Lamb appears to pile on in his blog with Leigh Blackall’s enthusiastic support– well, it seems easy to see where those of us who fit into that overlapping set of OCW supporters/members who aren’t clueless might feel a bit aggrieved with the atmosphere in our neck of the blogosphere.

    @Terry I agree with the spirit of your statement. I said the same thing in our recent announcement about “going open,” specificallyl that membership in the OCW official movement wasn’t the most important thing in and of itself, but as a signifier that we have managed to start a small fire in our institution.

    That being said, there is a tone in the air in various places (and I’m not the only one that’s noticing it) that seems to swirl about ideas like: there’s enough open content and/or joining the OCWC or being part of it is addressing an already solved question if not a sign that you aren’t doing enough and/or that content doesn’t matter, just artifacts of process and “contextualized information” etc.

    Jared’s post by itself didn’t bug me– as you can see looking at my first comment– but in conjunction with Jim Groom (I’m a mad fan of the Reverend, so I’m assuming he’ll take my comments the way I intend them) it assumed a very different light.

  11. Reflections on Openess - Week 10 | All The Young (Edu)Punks Says:

    [...] up. When I have to write about openess, and my thoughts about the week, I find this blog post about UVU goes open. Well, the article was posted last week – but much like my life, I’m about a week [...]

  12. Open Content is So, Like, Yesterday : Ruminate Says:

    [...] a place for that lighter, shorter, smaller content… one place among many. Our own goals, like others, may be to do something different, but that’s not to diminish the importance of other [...]

  13. Reflections on Open Content « Open Education News Says:

    [...] a place for that lighter, shorter, smaller content… one place among many. Our own goals, like others, may be to do something different, but that’s not to diminish the importance of other approaches, [...]