It was a gorgeously sweet-smelling rainy day, but I managed to bring
myself into the confines of a BYU classroom to attend David
Wiley's IPT 692R: Intro to Open Education. Today we're looking
at how an institution, BYU in particular, might approach institutional
policy and practice supportive of open licensing of teaching materials
and research publications. The conversation was shaped by
the context of MIT's model for both OCW and
open access.

Besides institutional pressure, what are incentives for faculty to opt
in (open licensing of teaching materials)?

• For BYU, incentive may be scriptural/doctrinal imperative to share
• Tap into the motivation to Do Good (Is it true that BYU fac/staff
  make _less_ than other institutions? To me, BYU seems so
  well-funded, and in some instances over-funded.)
• dissemination, reputation

Technology and Support Issues

Technology

• what system
• who pays
• who manages/hosts?

Support

• Who trains faculty, staff?
• Depositing where?
• Who pays?

• Source
  

• Who?

Concluding Thoughts and Questions

Justin: We need a raison d'etre. we do this as an
institutional community because…

Aaron: Do we anticipate a change in structure to facilitate and
support openness?

Dr. Wiley: We need to fully consider existing systems and see how they
might pipe in. Syllabus Builder, Learning Outcomes wiki

Dr. W: Should we require open syllabi? Institutional IP policy says
faculty own it; but institution would step in and claim nonexclusive
right to redistribute.

John: Sounds harsh. If you require me to, that strips away my agency.

JMS: That's agreed, but from a student-centered focus argument for
it wins.

Dr. W: We should argue that open is good because of pragmatic reasons,
not openness for the sake of openness. We'll have recommendations
for teaching practice (e.g. cost of textbooks, availability of open
resources)

Aaron: What are conflicts of interest?

Dr. W: Can't require students to adopt your textbook unless
you're selling more copies off-campus than on-campus.

Justin: For pragmatic reasons it makes sense to model our policies on
the successful approaches of other institutions, for example, MIT. No
need to be different just to be different.

Dr. W: Use our repository OR go your own way.

I mean, of course, with respect to appropriately licensed (Creative Commons, Gnu Free Document License, etc) open educational resources specifically.

And though the question is not staggering, it may be taken for granted, even at the cost of the long-term success of the web project.

Linking

The link approach typically uses hyperlinks to the target source document, but may use iframes to embed the element within a locally-hosted web page.

Linking…

1. preserves integrity of the original source by maintaining all original qualities
2. respects original source by trajecting traffic to the host site
3. saves local hosting resources (storage & bandwith)
4. ensures that source updates are reflected in the current version
5. is, therefore, particularly well-suited for frequently updated or improved sources, like wikis
6. is much easier, particularly when numerous multimedia files are embedded, or multiple files are referenced
7. may provide learners with context and hyperlinks that lead to further, relevant exploration of the source site and the web
8. avoids problems with licenses or terms of use that restrict copying

Many of these arguments for linking presume that there is more to the information than the information itself, and that the source has some inherent value that may be passed on to the learners or should be maintained for its own sake.

Copying

The copy approach is similarly self-evident: a digital copy of the source file(s) is downloaded, then hosted on the local server.

Copying…

1. provides for adaptation or modification (if the license allows) of:
   • content (cut, insert, remix, extend)
   • presentation (e.g. surface design)
   • interactions
2. supports localization
3. captures and preserves a version that may be discarded or replaced in the future
4. allows designers to produce seamless learning experiences that support learner focus
5. respects original source host’s resources (storage & bandwith)
6. ensures technical availability of the resource is within local control (no dead links)
7. allows contextual indexing for site (or public) search engines
8. may improve reach and increase circulation of source information
9. may thereby enlarge original author’s prominence and visibility
10. avoids problems with licenses or terms of use that restrict leech-linking

A couple notable obstacles to copying:

• Server-generated content, markup, interactions, or hyperlinks may be difficult to acquire or reuse (e.g.
• While CC By-ND allows reproduction of works, it may restrict modification of presentation or interactions in addition to the more clear prohibition on modification of content

Dynamic Scraping and Importing

There are other approaches that fall somewhere in between. For instance, web scraping of the source file(s) on the fly, followed by parsing and processing of the data on the local host. This sounds complex, but it’s not too bad; Google Docs & Spreadsheets has implemented this functionality into it’s data importing spreadsheet formulae:

• =importHTML grabs the content of a TABLE or list (OL / UL [/DL?])
• =importXML uses xPath expressions to target XML/XHTML elements
• =importData takes structured data files, such as comma separated values (CSV)
• =GoogleReader intakes the RSS or Atom of a target URL, such as a blog post

Often used for mash-ups, this approach can also be useful for replicating and formatting data. And, though Tony Hirst has found numerous exemplary applications for this feature using Google Spreadsheets, a Google Spreadsheet is not required; anyone with some significant Javascript experience could tackle this task, and there are a number of web scraping software apps that deliver varying results.

I have been critical about aspects of LMSs in the past. I’ve been critical of Blackboard in particular–primarily because of my complaints about the functionality of the Vista LMS, the “must use standard LMS for everything” attitude of some university CIOs, and Blackboard’s past behavior with respect to patent claims. And while one professor encouraged me to wear my “Supporting Innovation, Not Suing It” t-shirt to class, and while I at some point last night woke up saying, “If we tell you all our ideas, will you patent them and sell them to us later?”, I wanted to open my mind to the potentials of the discussion and not be obtuse as a matter of course.

(The following notes identify ideas by speaker, but please note that the words are only verbatim if I use quotes.)

Dr. Wiley began by directing us to consider the history of the LMS, it’s purpose as manifest through functionality and initial usage experiences. A common conclusion was the LMS attempted to replicate what happens in the classroom online: requiring little faculty tech expertise, providing quizzes, assigns, grades, content delivery (paper reduct), discussions [JMS: yes and no. online discussions are both similar and dramatically dissimilar], admin and teaching functions, and integration with campus academic and student information systems.

In response to our growing list, Russ responded, “This is just a collection of things… but there is new capability, and by tying the corporation together we enable new processes. Technology enabled a transformation.”

(JMS: Agreed as a potential. Technology is nothing without appropriate training and inspiration on proper educational application. Through the LMS we quickly accomplished teaching with technology, but not technology-enhanced teaching. But if we ask, how can we leverage technology to make teaching and learning better and easier? We must examine our educational goals, audience, and environment. We must problem-solve, creatively using applications of the available tools.

(Also, there are some ways in which the technology itself has changed the way we teach, albeit slowly:)

1. Quizzes become more reasonable as self-assessments and formative learning activities when done online
2. Discussions become fully participatory, time-liberated dialogs that allow participants to branch and focus on strands that are personally relevant.
3. Digital content is searchable – discussions, texts, etc. This provides different, easier, faster access to materials and ideas that support a participant’s focused interest

We began speaking of the cultural shift associated with (or accompanied by) Web 2.0, and how that may impact education.

Justin makes the good point, if LMs is adaptation of teaching, it also seems this idea of PLE/PLN is just a 2nd generation adaptation of the LMS, i.e., teachers consider, How can I do X, Y, Z — which I did in the LMS easily — without the LMS?

JMS: Some who look at the PLE see it as something constructed by new media, connectivism, not as a substitute for the LMS. Those folks admit they don’t know what a PLE looks like and are uncertain if learning outcomes are similarly measurable. Those most comfortable with the idea of a PLE have some confidence in the organic conditions of it as a learning environment, despite it’s fuzziness.

Granted, some do see the PLE simply as an escape from the LMS, and even though they might be trying to simply recreate what they did in the LMS, they can gain some advantages just by being open: Openness, adaptable, personalized, ownership, persistence, authenticity.

I caught something of Justin saying that the open source (OSS) community is ignoring hard problems… OSS technology fails to provide sophisticated learning features like adaptive release, adaptive testing… The OSS community not taking it on…

(JMS: I accept that specific example as an inadequacy of available open PLE/PLN or Web 2.0 tools. There aren’t currently automatic gatekeeping (pre-programmed or “smart”) tools for PLE/PLN tools and media. Siemens and others might say teachers are naturally the gatekeepers. Users are the gatekeepers (though perhaps this is inadequate). Or maybe we don’t need those gatekeepers at all, that is, we can encourage the fundamentals of information fluency by directing students to assess and re-direct themselves.)

JMS: OS community is not taking on education in general. Why would they? Education is still a niche. Adaptive release is a very education-centered feature. OSS e-learning, like Moodle, include or plan to include it.

David Wiley: “Data. Through the LMS I can capture and use data in a way I never could before.” Also, liberty of users to control consumption of content. E.g. playing course media at 2x speed.

Justin Johansen: Teachers can teach to a style, users can adapt to their preferences (disruptive).

Sara Joy challenges, suggested/asked if LMS can be a “disruptive technology”.

David: At USU an instructor with no budget for “clickers” went to the dollar store and bought $1 laser pointers to accomplish the same thing. Throw up a slide, students with laser pointers indicate choices anonymously on screen. It’s personalized (and probably more fun).

Russ: “Isn’t one of the fundamental issues also location independence?”

Justin: “Definitely, esp. when gas prices were $4/gallon.”

Dr. Wiley whips out slides of 6 changes:

• analog –> digital
• tethered –> mobile
• consume –> create
• generic –> personalized
• isolated –> connected
• closed –> open

Jon Mott: There’s a book about organizations being like spiders, which can regrow a leg, or starfish, which have legs that, if severed, can grow into a new starfish. Are we like spiders or starfish? Best organizations are hybrids. Starfish-like activities. eBay features of a spider.

JMS: Some in education want that severed starfish leg to turn into a bird. But education’s history doesn’t show that we’re evolutionary–there’s no dramatic mutation between generations that changes the species. Education is certainly not, historically, subject to revolution either! It’s adaptation at best. It’s incremental change.

Aaron Johnson: Web 2.0 can be transformative in, for instance, using a blog publishes homework online, for the world to see–maximal exposure.

Dr. Wiley points out that several class blog posts have been picked up by Stephen Downes, which impacts the community, impacts the class, impacts the writer.

Justin: In the old system publishing homework was your mom putting your assignment on the fridge with a magnet.

Aaron: It’s also transformative in a way that democratizes access. But how are things changing in how people behave and interact? Do I get more out of that?

(JMS: We’ve seen that young people’s sense of privacy may be changing, and also that online exposure can bite us in the rear.)

Justin: I haven’t had a transformative e-learning experience in the classroom discussion forum. It’s usually, “do this boring thing for class or else”.

JMS: I have. (That’s what put me in e-learning over a decade ago, and I have them with some regularity now)

Jon: I learn something everyday on Twitter. I follow about 150 people, all of the ed tech related. My network has expanded, and for the better.

JMS: And learn to filter junk out, hopefully!

Russ: Yes, adding people, one by one… “adding diversity, accumulating collected knowledge… but at some point you reach a threshold.”

JMS: At first there’s a lot of noise, but you learn to filter that out, or cut it out. I follow around 60 people, but that changes from week to week. I’ll follow a lot of people who I will later un-follow, not because I don’t like them, but because their use of Twitter may not contribute to or match my own personal way of valuing Twitter. (JMS: I’ve talked too much. Time to listen more.)

Aaron: A lot of us still use the web for adaptations of normal life. Despite my tech-savvy nature, I hear about Web 2.0 stuff and I think do I really need that? Is the real transformation in the things that we do, or in helping people understand what they can do now, with this ability to use technoloy?

Jon: Novelty of technology is not enough. You have to be evaluative. How is using this going to help me? I user twitter not to be social, but to be professional.

JMS: The beauty of these tools is the personalization. The beauty of the PLE is the personalization.

Jon: I’ve used delicious for my own purposes, but have finally found a use for it in collaborative environment.

Justin: (To his group) Why aren’t we using delicious on our OER project?

(JMS: Note to self, we might put our group’s open ed project links list on a wiki instead of a Google Spreadsheet. Then reach out to community and get additional links for free.)

We somehow manage to move the conversation back to the future of the LMS.

JMS: I see the future of the LMS being not a replication of these open, existing tools, but a way to structure, organize, and adaptively control or smart-sequence these. As Justin pointed it, adaptive releasing, setting and resetting paths, etc.

Justin: Would we, by using the LMS as a place to integrate Web 2.0, personalized tools, push folks away from using those tools?

(JMS: Is Justin talking about the creepy treehouse-ness? I don’t get a chance to ask…)

Russ: “Is it not a false choice to give proprietary vs open source? … Is it not a distinction without a difference?”

(JMS: There are potential advantages in both that we should not lightly dismiss, e.g. proprietary may have quality advances, resource advantages, corporate attention, collaborative integration and first-choice with publishers; openness may have adaptability, customization, lower cost, ownership. [To me the subscription model is so painful, I personally want the ability to keep and maintain code perpetually, for example, stay at WebCT CE 4.1 for a decade if we wished.])

Russ: For a while technology was pulling the practice, but now (as we talk about web 2.0 tools) but now it seems we’ve flipped that.

Wiley: “Forget open code source for a minute. Forget APIs. Look at YouTube, Flickr, GoogleMaps. They all have a common language: RSS. APIs are great if you like that. But these tools are bleeding syndication, and they don’t punish you for mashing it up.”

John Hilton: Free access vs. open source vs. paid license.

Jon: “Once upon a time there was a Blackboard.com where you could create your own course for free.”

Russ: “It’s back.”

So we are talking about interoperability of the learning object (LTI)?

Wiley: “But LTI is so complex. RSS is sooo easy. Some clever folks, like Tony Hirst, will use Pipes or APIs. There’s technical accessibility, then there’s an expertise-less accessibility.

Jon: Having APIs and web services is critical. Maybe we need more than single sign-on.

Russ: “To Dave’s point about the data, if you want to use the data you have to have that captured in an environment.”

(JMS: Data can be made accessible through APIs, no?)

Jon: Livetext does program assessment and portfolios. You can build and expose your portfolio. Creators can easily export.

Dave: Yes, let’s just get data out of the end. Because even with standards everyone speaks their own dialect.

Aaron: Searchable.

John: By Google?

Aaron: Internally? Or… What do we mean by LMS for open ed?

Wiley: “Simplest example–and OCW is 1.0 simple–I built my course in Bb. How do I publish as OER? I probably need 30hrs to do it.” (JMS: Push-button public publishing?) Content publishing, content importing.

Justin: A lot of our Bb courses are full of PDFs, PPTs, DOCs, maybe HTML…

Aaron: What does Bb add in terms of content ability? It sounds like you’re talking about the same thing, replicating a course structure. Or how do you get the content out without having it trapped in the LMS’s structure?

JMS: You could do it both ways:

JMS: You have a “repository”, though I dislike that word. It’s a plain web server, or a wiki, or WP, or even an LMS repository. It contains the content–PDFs, PPTs, DOCs, HTML. You can share those straight off of the repository as disagreggated pieces. OR you can link to them directly from your individual LMS course structure. This eliminates course-to-course redundancy. OR you can link to them directly from your opencourseware platform. AND/OR your LMS has a way to select which pieces of the individual course to “open”, and then publishes an open version of your course with some parts hidden.

Wiley mentions OpenShare mod.

JMS: OpenShare does part of this for Moodle: lets you incrementally tag license metadata for resources and activities, and then mark those resources and activities as open or closed. Public can view those open items; registered students can view all the items.

Process

In order to notify faculty of open publishing, during the CTL design process faculty will be asked to sign the BYU OER Participation form. This form will:

• Describe the BYU OER project and the mission of CTL
• Acknowledge BYU ownership of IP produced by or in conjunction with CTL
• Explain CC By-NC-SA license
• Describe possible OER usage

Faculty who sign the BYU OER Participation form acknowledge the aforementioned and may choose to have their name (along with BYU and CTL) attributed to the OER. Faculty may opt out of attribution or not sign the form, however such refusal will not alter BYU’s ownership of CTL-produced IP or CTL’s ability to publish and share the CTL product as OER.

Technology

(The following is hypothesis only at this stage)

CTL OER products will be stored on a publicly accessible BYU OER web site (powered by Equella). The web site will:

• provide search features based on title, description, and other metadata
• list OER by topic or academic department
• attribute OER to BYU, CTL, and faculty contributor(s)
• demonstrate OER
• ? support direct linking to instances of OER
• support downloading of OER as modular packages
• ? provide source code or raw data of OER where applicable
• ? support community interaction by allowing user
• ? allow registered user commenting on OER
• ? allow registered user keyword tagging of OER

SPARC provides a form that faculty can sign and send with manuscript publishing agreement we need a NSF mandate to automatically

This Week’s Challenge

Figure out how to put Center for Teaching and Learning resources into a library for open sharing.

1. Faculty disclosure in CTL process
2. License recommendation / “default” IP policy with override for third party publishing
3. Figure out Equella thing for publishing

Jon Mott recommends Equella for publishing platform. Equella is a CMS built by post-Bb guys, The Learning Edge International (JMS: Is it CMS or LMS? Sounds like the latter). An experimental Equella environment is available at BYU. “Activity assembler” available for sequencing LOs. Bill Lundt can talk about it.

(JMS: All these LMS innovators [GoCourse, eInstructure, Equella] had better consider what their “moat” will be to beat out Bb, D2L, Angel, Moodle, etc.)

IP Licensing

In context of CTL “walk-in” center, What license do we recommend? (JMS: Is CTL able to license materials? Does BYU have/need a process for approving CC licensing? I suppose we will find out…)

Perhaps CC By-NC (I am currently anti-SA, but that might change).

Dr. Wiley suggests SA may not be terribly meaningful. John Hilton gave a good case study, paraphrased:

If I publish By-NC then someone takes and remixes the content, s/he is not obligated to release under By-NC because of lack of the SA, so could a derivative version be licensed as By and then commercialized? Seems like the answer is yes.

(JMS: This sounds like a good thing to me as a creator. I only want to disallow commercialization of copies, but not necessarily of significantly altered works, remixed works, or derivatives.)

Justin: If NC then Creative Works Office doesn’t have to get involved(?)

(JMS: When in flow workers seem exceedingly efficient. How do we foster a work environment that inhibits interruption of workers’ flow?)

Documentary Filmmaker’s Guide to Fair Use

Here’s what we’re going to claim as Fair Use. If anyone has a problem with it, they can deal with us as a whole.

Movement amongst higher ed institutions in the works to apply Fair Use to media held within an OER (without altering the license of the © work).

Fair Use

1. Purpose (educational non-profit)
2. Nature of copyrighted (e.g. factual vs creative works)
3. Amount and significance
4. Impact of the use on potential market

BYU Center for Teaching and Learning Walk-In Center

• Anything within scope of employment belongs to creator.
• Anything created with any additional BYU resources, such as CTL staff, belongs to BYU.

CTL OER as default: we will share, but faculty may opt-out. Would such a form hurt the culture of BYU? Justin suggests a one-time form to opt-in.

CTL has 40-50 new projects a month, e.g. scanned images, PPT backgrounds, Flash animations, video, et c.

What about intentionality? Capture directions for use? Do we preserve teaching info as metadata? CTL Tracker tracks information. What about forum/discussion area for teacher-contributed suggestions for use? Could be. I’m seeing this like a Podcast on a blog platform.

(JMS: The CTL Tracker sounds like a great way to start and track a new project. Sounds like my original course design mapping app, but better. I wonder what software they use? Something home-grown? We need one of these, similar to our dP but more expansive, updating everthing such as Google Spreadsheet. How could dP be mod’ed to facilitate this?)

Independent Study might be able to contribute 10hrs a week to uploading OER to platform.

We could/should also go back in time to get permission on existing materials because there are so many great materials. Also, we could get MBA students working on case studies, Engineering students working on problem-based learning scenarios. (JMS: I’m feeling overwhelmed by the availability of resources her.)

(JMS: At UVU could we get a temporary blanket approval for OER from the President’s office, e.g. to say, From May 2009 – April 2010 we authorize all UVU-owned, DE-developed learning materials to be licensed under a CC license for use as OER. Renewable with signatory.)

(JMS: Seems like the first hurdle that we are skipping is getting BYU approval for CC licensing of CTL materials. Will this be done from CTL up?)

Seth: wants to go back to Equella and the importance of metadata. I agree, but the technical aspects of this seem far more easily manageable than the licensing process, which frightens me.

Tracker creates a new folder for each project. When project is completed it creates an archive folder. Completed product is moved physically and project folder is deleted. Is there a readme? No, you find data through the Tracker. Tracker stores faculty information. (JMS: How would we do this with dP? Is it built-in?) JMS: Could tracker take stored info and spit out a readme? Why not?

Could we provide both final file and source file(s)? 4 Rs. These would be uploaded/handed off to (OER) librarian for archiving and indexing. (JMS: Does DE need to get UVU librarians involved? Who is the institutional librarian at UVU? Jean D’emall might be or might know.

(ClassTop’s plugin uses Facebook to reuse OER and create self-organizing learning communities.)

Do we need to actually ask faculty to opt-in, or does this wrongly imply that faculty own the materials (in conflict with BYU IP policy)?

In an opt-in form we articulate that the materials are BYU owned under IP policy and that faculty acknowledge this when opting-in. We would do so as a professional courtesy, for even though faculty do not own this, they think they do. We are at the early stage of nurturing a cultural shift towards openness. Baby steps.

Is that Tracker software open source? (JMS: I might be able to mod it as suggested if UVU can have a license to the software. Will follow up at CTL afterwards)

Clarified that we will draft the document for CTL to request upper administrative permission to license ALL CTL-products as OER.

Spend Thursday as a group writing proposal document.

Class has moved from Know and Understand to Analyze and Apply.

<!–

I undertook this task as Rogue Quest 1 for David Wiley’s Intro to Open Ed course. The Rogue character class that I’ve adopted focuses on content production with an emphasis on finding and releasing or untrapping “open” content to allow for reuse and remix. I have only theoretical experience with remixing OER, and so it is fitting that I begin at experience level 1.

–>

Reuse/Remix Estimates

As I purview each of seven different OER projects I will give each collection a reuse/remix value rating based on my initial impressions and observations. These estimates may change as I move forward to release, reuse, or remix some of these OER.

My reuse/remix rating is a scale of 1 – 5, where “1″ is extremely difficult or low value, and “5″ is extremely easy or high value, referring to the act of taking CC content and reusing or remixing it on a separate server. To produce these ratings I consider:

• technical openness of media (e.g. Java applet vs Javascript)
• quality of source
• variety of media sources
• semantic/standard structure (e.g. HTML tables vs semantically-correct XHTML; IMS)
• CC license compatibility
• hosted tools and support for remix

I expect to address the why of reuse and remix of OER in another post and catalogue some of the key benefits.

UK Open University’s OpenLearn

Though constructed in Moodle LMS, the UK Open University’s OpenLearn is less like a “walled garden” for OER and more like a playground. It takes advatange of some of Moodle’s learning tools and features and customizability, and content is of immediate to use to anyone else using Moodle.

The project’s LabSpace site is specifically design to encourage educators to “collaborate with others and publish new versions of [UK Open University] learning materials to share with the world.” I was nearly distracted by the ability to “join this unit”–identifying myself as willing to engage in a self-organizing learning community.

I began by checking out Start Writing Fiction. I’ve had the bad fortune of reading some particularly bad fiction this holiday season, and recognized how freeing this OER might benefit all mankind. In each OER the “Versions” block includes “Upload this unit” and “Make a copy for revising”–presumably on the LabSpace web site. Is this custom block’s source code available?

Another useful custom block is “Alternative Formats”, which provides versions of the entier OER including print (HTML), XML, RSS, OU XML, IMS, Common Cartridge, Plain Zip, Moodle Backup. I looked at Print and saw the whole unit in one file. I grabbed the URL (http://labspace.open.ac.uk/file.php/2861/formats/print.htm) so I could test this with Send To Wiki later. I also grabbed an IMS package so I could to try fitting it into other “IMS-compatible” systems, such as the the foppish Bb Vista.

Carnegie Mellon Open Learning Initiative

OLI is like a museum: you can get in and see some fabulous artifacts, but don’t plan on taking any out as a souvenir … without some serious pre-planning.

I recently reviewed OLI’s project on this web site, so let’s cut to the chase:

OLI’s OER content is a mix of non-semantic HTML and media, usually SWFs. The HTML pages are all generated from what looks to be a Java Servlet using Javascript to set cookies and carry the “context”, or unique identifier. This will prevent any normal “spider” software from loading all the pages automatically (they would ignore the passed variables and just re-download the same “page” over and over), inhibiting the download of an entire “course” as a single collection. The passed context appears to be arbitrary; at any rate, it’s not predictive, so if we want to automatically download the content we will have to do so based on spidered links, and will have to rename links and files as we go (Nate Snapp suggested I just use a PERL script in cURL. It seems obvious to me to use the [non-semantic] context IDs as the file name, so page?context=b487c83c80020c69016e6ce63813c727 simply becomes page_b487c83c80020c69016e6ce63813c727.html)

Because there are currently no ways to download an entire package for remix, I intend to ask the OLI warden when the OERs are up for parole, if ever. Of course I’ll phrase it more nicely.

MIT OpenCourseWare

I knew I was not the first to traverse this part of town, so I needed to make sure my target was something of a challenge. Thanks to a list of audio/video-enhanced MIT ocw I was able to find a worthy mark. Linear Algebra contains video lectures and interactive Java applets, presumably already of the lowest usable granularity. Anytime I see the TM Java I want to call it a day. But it will be worth investigating how these applets might be found and extracted for localized reuse, if at all.

Looking a little deeper into the course I found several paths to other course media, and was pleased that videos were available as MP4–most of the early MIT OCW media I’ve seen is in RM format.

Though the media and formats in MIT OCW may vary from course to course, the OCW structure of each is reliable and learnable, making traversing the resources as potential remix “maps” feasible.

As far as extracting the OER from the host, this should be no problem: the course provides a zip file which contains all the course except audio and video files. If I recall, this is even in an IMS package of some flavor. The question will be, once the ZIP is free, what will it contain? And how can it be reused?

webcast.berkeley

Webcast.berkeley is UC Berkeley’s multimedia forray into OER. Strangely, at the bottom of the page I saw Copyright 2002-2009, Regents of the University of California. All Rights Reserved but maybe that’s just for the web page design, which I admit is striking.

Courses are navigated through semester; I chose History 4A – The Ancient Mediterranean World, which contained MP3s of nearly all Isabelle Pafford’s lectures from Fall 2007. I noticed a podcast RSS feed, which I grabbed: http://webcast.berkeley.edu/rss/course-archive.php?seriesid=1906978476 — opening this in a podcast-ready media player, like iTunes, is one rapid method of extracting all the media files for reuse.

There is some video on the site (e.g. ASTRO C10), some of it SWF, some of it streaming RealMedia, which I still haven’t found a suitable codec for on Ubuntu (comment if YOU have). As far as the streaming video goes it is possible, of course, to capture this onto your hard drive with desktop software. However…

I was nagged by the fact that the only licensing info directly on this page was still © All Rights Reserved, so I took a detour and go to the bottom of things. A quarter of a way down the page under Policies we find the actual licensing details:

Beginning in 2007, the default license attached to media recordings for distribution is Creative Commons – non-commercial, attribution, no derivatives (CC2.5 license).

This showed that the Ancient Mediterranean course that I had begun looking at was still ©. Also, the ND was unexpected and puts an entirely different spin on things, eliminating the option of remixing altogether, and thereby reducing my Reuse/Remix rating by a full point. Ben Hubbard of the webcast.berkeley project noted in the comments that the CC license info on all OER published after 2007 is featured prominently at the top of the page, and h.264 video is available via RSS feeds.

Stanford Engineering Everywhere

Stanford School of Engineering’s CC By license was the first thing I noticed, and offers just a bit more freedom for remix/reuse.

I’d never been to the SEE site before, and I chose from a list of SEE’s more “popular” courses: Oussama Khatib’s Artificial Intelligence | Introduction to Robotics. Scrolling through the first page I found a link to “Download Zipped Course Materials”. The ZIP file did not have an IMS manifest, which is a minor disappointment, but it was a self-contained web site with hyperlinks back to media files served only on the SEE web site.

I took a look at the media files found under Lectures, provided as streaming video as well as the following formats: YouTube, iTunes, Vyew (which actually facilitates compiling and downloading the videos), WMV Torrent, and MP4 Torrent.

Note that many of these videos aren’t actually stored on the SEE web site, and yet they haven’t sacrificed reuse/remix by not making MP4/WMV formats available. Instead they made a brilliant choice: Torrent to facilitate and distribute the server load of these videos. (Based on the speed of delivery of the YouTube version I highly recommend downloading the files, which facilitates localized reuse and remix.)

Open Yale Courses

Reuse/Remix Estimate: 3.5 – Easy. Fair captured content, delivered for reuse, easy to extract as a package, but some remix limitations from license.
License: CC By-NC-SA
Media Types: HTML, XML, MP3, FLV, MOV, PDF, (IMS ZIP)
Though I’d visited Open Yale Courses before I hadn’t deeply investigated the media or packages. My impression was that this project’s results are very much like MIT OCW–a “Polaroid” version of the on-ground class. I checked out a couple of courses before settling on the featured course and favorite author ENGL 220 Milton.

Milton, like the other Open Yale Courses I checked out, is primarily a collection of media files with some PDF notes. Though no feeds are available, all media files are listed under Downloads, making it simple to grab all the MP3s or MOVs at once with a Firefox add-on like FlashGot or Down Them All. The rest of the course is available as a downloadable ZIP files featuring HTML and media structured by an IMS manifest. Hyperlinks to audio files point to the Yale server, but I expect some search and replace can link them to the local copy I just finished downloading.

Rice Connexions

This OER project’s site is similar in many ways to the UK Open University’s LabSpace, providing not only packaged content but also resources and tools to facilitate reuse, remixing, and republishing of OER. “Feel free,” the candy store clerk says, “to help yourself. Take some for your friends. Do you want to help me make taffy?”

I first stumbled on Places in Egypt, but became moderately uneasy when I was whisked away to a separate, domained web site called Travelers in the Middle East Archive. This was not quite what I’d expected, but I explored and discovered CC-licensed photos, illustrations, and enhanced images, as well as several e-texts, for instance The Nile : notes for travellers in Egypt in both HTML and XML. Connexions is far deeper than I had fathomed.

Going back to Connexions I next browsed by subjects, into Arts, and found Musical Travels for Children, which used an e-text with images of sheet music and MIDIs(!) within the Connexions standard framework. Musical Travels also presented the text as a PDF and as a ZIP “multimedia” package–very useful for local reuse/remix.

I took a moment to learn about Connexion’s homegrown XML schema, CNXML, a semantic markup language “for education” parsed (probably on the backend) to produce content, similar, I’m hypothesizing, to the way the UK Open University’s OpenLearn project is stored and generated. Connexions provides several tutorials on writing and using CNXML, though it’s not immediately clear how this is useful to the general-use public. (is CNXML usage required for user contributed uploads?)

As I headed back to check a third OER on Connexions, I noticed a hyperlink to the metadata for each resource, which cued me into their unique search system. I used that search system this time, and came across a number of interesting “modules”–short, tutorial- or lecture-like OERs that are typically HTML or PDF with hyperlinks to other subjects on connexions. In some instances I could not immediately determine where one module began and another ended. One can add modules to a “lens”, but it’s not apparent whether or not one can then download a “package” based on lenses.

Intrigued by the Connexions search engine’s options, I next searched based on popularity, and found music OER at the top of the list, though I could not immediately determine how that metadata was stored, or if there was public access to any of it.

Though the media use may vary from OER to OER, and the diverse organizational structures and interfaces may inhibit reuse for novices, the markup and accessibility of the content allow for great potential reuses, and the Connexions system is bolstered by the potential impact of the fostered user input and folksonomies that may result.

I proposed to Dr. Wiley that we’d benefit from a rogue,

…a versatile character, capable of sneaky combat and nimble tricks. The rogue is stealthy and dextrous … capable of finding and disarming traps and picking locks. The rogue also has the ability to “sneak attack”enemies who are caught off-guard or taken by surprise…

Wikipedia: The Rogue (Dungeons and Dragons)

The nimbleness and ability to pick locks to “open” treasure fit my objectives. For example, when I was looking at the OLI I was annoyed at how the OER was locked-up by the technology, and asked myself, “How would I break this free?”

Rogue

The Rogue utilizes digital material production and web dev skills to obtain, reuse, and remix OER, using stealth and cunning to unlock and re-release OER materials that may be guarded or trapped by publishing technology.

To illustrate how this would fit, I took a stab at rewriting the rogue’s Quest 1 (based on the same artisan quest):

Employ espionage and reconnaissance on the following OER projects, noting the types of media predominantly used by each site. Evaluate the reuse/remix potential of the media, looking at openness of structure, code, security, source availability, semantics, license compatibility, etc. Review a sufficient sample of courses per site to gain accurate insight into their habits and routines. Write a substantive blog post that puts forth strategic directions for the re-release and reuse of the sites’ media with special attention to unlocking those OER that may be imprisoned by CMS or final format software.
…

On Twitter the idea quickly showed that other possible OER character classes might be beneficial, including the barbarian (I already know a few of these)!

]]> http://flexknowlogy.learningfield.org/2009/02/03/oer-rogue/feed/ 1 http://flexknowlogy.learningfield.org/2009/01/29/ipt-692r-notes-thurs-jan-29-2009/ http://flexknowlogy.learningfield.org/2009/01/29/ipt-692r-notes-thurs-jan-29-2009/#comments Thu, 29 Jan 2009 21:41:09 +0000 Jared Stein http://flexknowlogy.learningfield.org/?p=444 I was dizzy with excitement and inspiration from today’s live class meeting of Intro to Open Ed course, and so with lots to mull over I chose to walk back the University Mall in Orem where my car was parked. The weather has begun to warm here in central Utah, and I had music (The National) and a book (Kaku’s Hyperspace) to ease the trip, but half-way there I wimped out and grabbed the next bus.

Discussion with Russ Osguthorpe of BYU’s Center for Teaching and Learning

Russ to class: Why and how should BYU CTL open the many digital learning objects and materials created over the years?

Dr. Wiley notes we will tackle this as the guild Challenge 1. (JMS: Initial thoughts: if it’s open licensed and open sourced the increasing momentum of the open ed movement might drive usage if the task or cost of structuring and organizing the mass of learning objects is too high, consider flat, unstructured with folksonomic metadata [e.g. anyone can search; registered users can tag].)

Scale of higher cost of development. Royalty pay-off of quality content through publisher, e.g. Virtual ChemLab is high-quality, in-demand, and proprietary. Pearson carries and distributes, pays royalties to BYU.

(JMS: Could we, should we balance commercialization and openness? It’s not necessarily an either-or proposition–an open resource could be commercialized by the CC-license holder. But, anecdotes aside, does that approach damage or impact revenues? See RIAA–regardless of the validity of RIAA’s inflexible, exploitative posturing for copyright holders, the fact remains that illegal sharing [undocumented migratory openness?] has critically injured recording industry revenue stream.

(But does the thrivancy of illegal sharing of RIAA IP bolster arguments against the commercial model, and even prophecy the demise of commercial viability of digitizable materials?)

Some projects merit commercialization by providing significant benefit to creator. Reach is farther. Millions of dollars, millions of users.

Other projects may have an audience-impact potential that outweights commercial benefits, e.g. the philanthropic effects of providing introductory vocational.

Need this to be part of every new project process, e.g. starts with the faculty member to opt-in opt-out.

(JMS: Excited by commercialization. Should I try to sell, partnering with UVU, before giving it up for free? It would good to have authentic, first-hand experience on both sides of the argument.)

CTL Show and Tell

Preview of BYU’s Syllabus Builder

Syllabus Builder is similar to an LMS syllabus creator, but far more robust, extensive, and reusable. Draws information re. instructor, classes from campus information system (at BYU this is “AIM”). Some of the pages and prompts:

• Would you like to load in your syllabus from last semester?
• Choose course (from AIM load assignment)
• Choose section
• Import which instructor details and then edit details
• Text & materials (same as before?) ISBNs. (JMS: Link to somewhere, maybe hook in using existing API, eg. Amazon.com, Netflix, choosing from drop-down)
• Grading Scale
• Grading policies
• Participation requirements & policies
• Assignment descriptions
• Learning outcomes
• Plans to pull in program outcomes from wiki (JMS: With UVU wikilearn we too could create a program outcomes page for each program)
• Prereqs (JMS: is this stored in UVU Banner?)
• what days/weeks does it meet?
• Drag and drop calendar/schedule of assignments. (JMS: This could be a Moodle add-on to update assignments etc.)
• Bring in service entities contact info from campus (e.g. Writing Lab, Library) (JMS: could UVU bring this in from Banner? Or the CMS? Or the phonebook?)
• Bring in standard, required policies etc. (JMS: We already do this in our template. Recall the failed Yoshi syllabus template project)

When complete, exports to a separate live server (JMS: e.g. desource.uvu.edu). Can save as HTML or link to “live” page.
(DW: Faculty need to add hyperlinks. Also, Copyright/CC/PD status of the syllabus should be a drop-down. Warn that anyone can see it.)

(JMS: Notes for Ken: SYLLABI are stored as generated PHP files. Default must be “latest” with archives of old based on dates. Brought into course by hardlink. Updated by the professor or course managers.
And what about a LESSON BUILDER?)

Questions

Q: Is this going to be open source?
A: Yes.
Q: If so, when can I get my hands on source code?
A: Don’t know. (But I have e-mail of Tonya Tripp who may put me on a mailing list)
Q: Is AIM homegrown?

Preview of Mid-Semester Student Survey

CTL has gathered evidence that a mid-semester student survey helps improve teaching. Two most important questions: What was most helpful to your learning? What one thing could improve teaching? Open-ended and scaled questions. E-mail goes out to students (drawing, presumably, from SIS–AIM). Sends when the red button is clicked.

(JMS: Could be scheduled with cron)

Preview of iFlipper

Downloads AIM class roll with pictures to make flashcards of students, with algorithm to calculate which are missed the most. Flashcards for everything and anything! (JMS: If Ken wants an iTouch he can earn one by corrabolating with BYU…)

Mentioned a BYU campus-wide content management.

(JMS: All amazing stuff. But most amazing because it may well be open source. Note: invite someone from CTL to present Syllabus Builder et al. at TTIX.)

Looking Ahead toChallenge 1

Propose a solution for CTL (JMS: UVU) to go open with produced digital learning materials and objects.

Challenge 1 is bumped up and begins after next week.

Problem of Sustainability

The success of early OER projects such as MIT OCW rely in part on funding, some of it massive. For example, MIT OCW began with grants totaling $11 million, contributed in equal amounts by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, and committed $1 million of its own funds during the first two years of the project. Yet such grants may be drying up (ref needed), regardless increasing interest and participation in OER projects will heighten competition for and further limit availability of such funds. On their own few public institutions could be expected to come up with that money, and currently many US institutions, particularly state institutions, are facing budget cuts that threaten to limit, decrease, or prevent local OER projects.

The OER Handbook describes the problem of sustainability in context of successful open source software projects:

In open source software projects, money is raised by soliciting donations, selling manuals, training, software development and providing technical support. While some of these methods can be applied to OER, some can not, and some funding methods remain largely untested. Few of the well-known OER projects exhibit the same vibrant communities of contributors that well-known open source software projects have. This issue is one of the most serious the OER community faces.

Though others have found fault with it I was encouraged by the Cape Town Declaration’s suggestion that the open education movement “[has] the opportunity to engage entrepreneurs and publishers who are developing innovative open business models.” Further, some may disagree and even convulse with the idea of linking OER projects with commercial ventures, even as a means of providing sustainability. As a strong-minded capitalist, I do not. Rather, I look forward to working examples of such innovative business models (e.g. Flat World Knowledge), and anticipate innovative adaptation to what I believe is a fundamental shifting of the (sometimes conflicting, often confusing) relationship between creator/consumer/copyright holder.
However, as the OER Handbook describes, such approaches remain largely untested.

Mainstreaming Openness

At UVU I’ve maintained the mindset that long-term success of OER will depend upon mainstreaming it, integrating the mentality of authoring for OER and the activity of publishing as OER into the normal course development and teaching processes. In taking this position I merely echo what others have said, e.g. David Wiley, as in On the Sustainability of Open Educational Resources (2006), Stephen Downes, as in Models for Sustainable Open Educational Resources (2007), and Andy Lane, as in Sustaining OERs: a brief and provocative road map (2008), albeit from my own perspective of being in an institution interested in OER projects, but with no explicit funding for it.

For distance learning programs the goal of integrating OER activities is most feasible. Quality digital content production is part of the practice, and distance learning programs should already be auditing third-party copyright materials. Another approach could be to set a goal of zero third-party copyright content from the course design phase onward, ensuring that no new course includes copyright content. UVU we have played with hosting course content on a public server (called “Shadow Files”) and “mixing” it with copyright content and “private” course activities via the learning management system (LMS). Further, the LMS may be used as the OER publishing platform itself, technology provided (as I’ve prototyped on Moodle with the OpenShare block). However, in such a case the ability to release just parts of the course as OER is necessary, and most LMSs are void of such features.

OER investments may interweave with distance learning initiatives in other ways as well. Terri Bays, Dan Charchidi, Sunnie Kim in presentation Open Sharing, Local Payoff note, “OCW can complement a distance learning initiative, taking content from and directing learners toward an … e-learning curriculum”. It’s a two-way street: developing OER can result in distance learning; developing distance learnign can result in OER.

Additionally, many of the same justifications for distance learning as a cost-reducing and education-enhancing vehicle apply to OER. Mark Pesce notes, “Recording is cheap, lecturers are expensive, and students are forgetful.” Capturing teaching materials in a digital form has perhaps the highest potential for institutional ROI. Reuse reduces redundancy: capturing allows reuse, and access to reusable materials has the potential to dramatically reduce redundancy, diminish the cost of lecturing both in the expenditure of dollars and time, and improve student learning. Stephen Downes argues that “non-economic definitions of ’sustainable’ should not be dismissed lightly”. He mentions that different organizations will have different objectives for practicing distance learning, and some are not cost-saving. Indeed, OER provide a potential means of relieving faculty lecture time for other teaching activities, such as actually interacting with students and providing more feedback.

Brainstorming Institutional Changes Towards Openness

I’ve collected the following ideas on how to successfully mainstream and integrate OER across the institution. Many of these are based on the practices of other institutions, and conversations with colleagues and the OER community. These ideas are based on the need to grow positive attitudes toward OER support across the institution, and the fact that different institutional staff may require different arguments to catalyze support (here especially I welcome feedback, altertions, or additional ideas from the community).

• IT should be encouraged to work with OER advocates to find streamlined technology solutions for publishing OER, and then budget for maintenance of these solutions.
• IT may need proof that OER will either not overload hardware, or be worth the increased load. Also, discussions on whether or not OER may increase susceptibility to malicious attacks.
• Administration may need evidence that OER does not diminish profitability or marketability of institutionally-own content, and in fact may provide satisfactory ROI through PR, student retention, quality improvement, international competitiveness, adaptation to changing cultural and educational paradigms, etc.
• Student services and advisement may need education and training on the potential value to students of OER, and how to access and utilize OER in a manner similar to that in which they access and utilize course catalogs and descriptions
• PR should be educated on the goals, scope, and potential impact of institutional OER efforts that they might better.
  Faculty may need reassurance that the value of opening and sharing is competitive with the value of locking down and isolating learning materials.
• Faculty and technology support staff may need workflows and technology training to facilitate publication of OER.
• Finding, reusing, and remixing of OER should become just another faculty skill set, and trainings should be provided–similar to (now commonplace) trainings on use of word processors, e-mail, and the web.
• Everyone should be involved in discussions of the potential value and responsibility of using non-rivalrous resources to provide access to educational content to a new, broad international audience.

I believe OER can be mainstreamed and integrated into existing processes for course development and publishing, but the needs identified in this list above require organizing, supervising, supporting, and proselytizing. Institutions serious about engaging in open education would be well served by funding at least one full-time position, such as “OER Coordinator”, if not a small team. Such a position may be situated in context of campus IT, faculty development and training, or distance learning. Investment in such a position could cohere OER efforts and reduce waste, redundancy, poor planning, and, perhaps most significantly, mis- or failed communication. At the very least, an existing staff member should be appointed as OER coordinator, and responsibilities shifted or condensed to allow for these needs.

My experience with the OER community has shown me that the passion, reasoning, and ideas of individuals will fuel and maintain the global effort regardless–Andy Lane states that “the success of OERs is also dependent on a thriving and healthy OER movement”. But to foster the movement in the long-term it behooves us to focus on the immediate needs of local sustainability. Unlike purchasing computers or licensing an LMS, with OER we are not buying a solution, we are building a solution. In doing so we are investing in the people of the institution, and can obtain a new kind of ownership: a grassroots, shared ownership of the learning materials cultivated by access to and encouragement of open and shared learning resources.

Having some experience examining both projects prior to this review, I brought in the following generalized opinions:

• MIT: broad, but shallow -many courses with marginal amount of content and activities
• OLI: deep, but narrow – few courses with significant content and activities constructed for learning

The motivation for these directions seems clear: MIT OCW seeks to reinforce itself by providing semi-useful, translucent access to content from each and every existing course. OLI seeks to define itself as a provider of in-depth, quality, online learning experiences. UNESCO’s OER Wiki describes the two projects as follows:

• OLI “adds instructional design grounded in cognitive theory, formative evaluation for students and faculty, and iterative course improvement based on empirical evidence”
• MIT’s OCWs “convey the parameters of the course’s subject matter and pedagogy, ideally representing a substantially complete set of all the materials used in the course”

MIT’s French 1

French 1 from MIT OCW is comprised primarily of a syllabus, calendar, readings list, and assignments list based on the textbook Parallèles–a textbook that the syllabus almost fails to mention. the navigation is find and click, but simple enough to learn and use.

The syllabus reflects the fact that this is an existing course that has been “photocopied” for the MIT OCW project–instructions and expectations are restricted to registered students. For instance, it references the MIT Language Learning and Resource Center — a resource unavailable to distance students.

The course site provides PDFs of instructions for in-class activities. Otherwise assignments simply walk learner through textbook activities. Online resources are tacked on to the end almost decontextualized from real learning patterns.

As I opened separate pages for the materials, I wondered, why not combine assignments with readings into calendar as one big course guide? There seems to be no usability rationale for current architecture, except that it fits a single MIT OCW template.

You can download (presumably all) course materials; each index page of PDFs or other content features the CC By-NC-SA license.

OLI’s Elementary French 1 Online

OLI’s French 1 course’s subtitle, “Open and Free: Jan – Jun 09″, immediately reinforces OLI’s assertion that these are full courses to be taught by instructors, or taken by students. The content confirms that this is a complete online learning experience: the structure provides enhanced linear navigation using a combination of tabs and in-page hyperlinks. I found the navigation is somewhat similar to Moodle’s and I wondered if it may have been based on this LMS originally. Aside from a couple broken links, the content itself seems to be fully-fleshed out learning materials, richly media-enhanced with no textbook needed. The content pages include text, images, and video with inline Flash-based q&a activities for self-learning.

Like the MIT course, OLI’s French 1 included a number of external online learning resources, however these came in context at the beginning of the course, and thus I was more inclined to click on several to investigate how they might enhance what was to come.

There does not seem to be a way to easily download all course materials at once, though they are clearly marked CC By-NC-SA on each page. This brought me to a question re. the Flash files: if I download the SWFs and crack them, essentially converting them to FLAs, is that acceptable use under the applied CC By-NC-SA license? Presumably yes, as the source code is inseparable from the finished product.

MIT’s Logic 1

MIT OCW’s Logic 1 course utilizes a web site architecture that is very similar to French 1, ensuring that user learnability of the web system is high. In addition to the basics of syllabus, calendar, and readings this course provides PDFs of lecture notes, which provide surprisingly good, text-book like information and examples. Indeed, I read through several of these and got at least the “feel” for the course.

OLI’s Logic and Proofs

As a user trained to recognize shifts in my scent of information, the first thing I noticed in Logic and Proofs is that this course site’s navigation system was inconsistent with the French 1 navigation system. This is not to say that the alternative navigation is illogical, only that the change hurts my head.

This course features introductory movies that orient the learners to the subject, with a media-enhanced transcript for alternate learning styles. A note on my personal preference: for a subject like this, I prefer text with images over video.

The main content of the course is primarily text, but notably enhanced with relevant learning comprehension and self-assessment questions that open in new window (they didn’t in French) with a separate look. Because of this, Logic seems to be quilted together from 2 different systems.

I have to say that symbolic logic has always captivated me, and while the MIT OCW Logic course intrigued me, the completeness and linearity of the content in the OLI course kept me interested and engaged. As I was indulging in one activity I thought, “I should be getting college credit for this!” Upon investigating this impulse I found that not only does OLI provide instructions for instructors and learners, it provides a means by which students can use the OLI web site to receive credit through their home institution. Talk about mashing up your education. Brilliant!

MIT’s Paradox and Infinity

Similar structure to previous MIT OCW courses–enough so that I see a very predictable pattern here. Readings refer to a standard textbook and (usually “closed”–few available online) articles, as well as problem sets — PDF available for self-challenge (however, notably absent is any electronically mediated method of receiving feedback–automated, community-based, or otherwise).

Interestingly, the course site provides hyperlinks to (discounted) purchase via Amazon.com; does MIT get a cut as a way to offset production costs?

OLI’s Physics With the Andes Workbench

OLI Physics features similar navigation and structure to Logic 1, which is unfortunate as I believe OLI’s French 1 had the most modern and intuitive nav system so far. This OLI course is highly activity-based; lesson information (primarily text, but some video) is immediately taken up into “Learn by Doing” activities use Andes tutor software, available for download and installation on Windows (I couldn’t get it running on Ubuntu through WINE).

Again, I found elements of other OLI courses: complete content, linear construction, self-learning activities and assessments. I am not overstating my impression when for a fleeting moment I thought about quitting my job and returning to student life; I am envious of this and future generation of students who can make their own schedules with flexibility provided by the Internet, and I regret to admit I probably got away with a lot simply by exchanging seat time for credit. If personal responsibility is adhered to, the accountability and outcomes of online learning may be higher, and achieved more efficiently.

Aircraft Systems Engineering

MIT OCW’s Aircraft Systems Engineering course site follows the structural pattern of the other MIT OCW courses (syllabus, calendar, readings, etc), with one notable enhancement: video of class lectures. Listed under lecture notes, the video components make this the most compelling MIT OCW course reviewed so far. Fairly rough Real Media video of in-class guest lectures by experts in the field are provided with PDFs of lecture slides, and MP3s. On Ubuntu I couldn’t locate the RM codec I needed to view the video, but did give the audio files a listen, and these were high enough quality to download and bring on bus rides or road trips. Combined with the slides this makes an interesting, remixable OER.

Prior to embarking on this particular task I had generalized these two OCW projects as being about shallow breadth (MIT OCW) or narrow depth (OLI). My reviews supported this earlier generalization if the primary quality objective is prêt-à-porter OER. With respect to learner value I considered an additional analogy: these 3 MIT OCW are like Polaroid snapshots of authentic MIT courses, scanned in and uploaded to bear the MIT brand; these 3 Carnegie Mellon OLI are more akin to planned, staged, shot, enhanced, and sequenced for online learning, and specifically created to define the OLI project (not the other way around).