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.

Begins by showing course project which requires students to write/revise an actual article on Wikipedia. Many questions about how the process worked. Good comment/question about opportunities, and leveraging this opportunity in foreign languages.

Brian discusses AP photo of Obama which describes an audience using cameras, phones, and even a laptop(!) to capture their participation in the moment (photo-taking as a social [or personal/individual] act). Flickr was able to track incoming camera phone uploads from this moment.

(JMS: If openness permeates professional fields like we want it to, will this defeat the so-called rise of the amateur? Does this diminish the evolution of a “participatory culture”? If so, do we care?)

Brian telling us how awful OCW has been for MIT: reputation is in the gutter, enrollments have plummeted, content has been sucked into fly-by-night engineering degree mills, faculty have revolted. It takes a while for the audience to get it and start to laugh.

Faculty using simple HTML flat files. Posts everything online. Has been doing it for years. This is DIY openness. “The most important thing is he didn’t need support to do this. He didn’t need a project. He didn’t need a process.”

Evangelizing the benefits of openness. “[Openness] is a show of respect to the students… and a show of respect to the public.”

Creative Commons short explanation. Surprisingly, about half the room didn’t know what CC is.

“I took that AP photo without asking. Poor AP! Poor AP… I’ll buy a copy of USA Today later to make up for it.” Brian can deliver strong opinions with humor, which really works on this audience.

Openness and Creative Commons means “you don’t have to steal intellectual property anymore”. Shows Creative Commons license search on Flickr.

Wikeducator uses an open format for its open content, bypassing the inherent restriction of “open” media but closed technology. MIT uses a lot of PDFs, Berkeley uses live Real Media, which requires an internet connection (sounds familiar!)

Gardner Campbell mentioned with respect to his downloadable MP3 podcasts (thanks for mentioning my MP3 legality blog post). Nancy White being recorded, Creative Commons licensed, and she benefits through reputation, distribution of her “voice”.

SELF-DEFINED.

“I am a recovering Learning Object developer.” Martin Weller referenced.

Brian laments not doing a Twitter shout-out since Bryan didn’t do it yesterday.

Sharing doesn’t cost much any more.

Jim Groom referenced. Fake web garbage. Let’s use this spam blog tool and use it to aggregate student blogs. Turn evil into good. UMW is the best WordPress instance Brian has ever seen. (JMS: I love it too.Documentation is incredible. On an loosely related note, this example demonstrates to me the importance of the individual, of individual genius, focus, and dedication over lethargia of [some] communities.)

Findability of open resources is important. Brian shows Zaid in Malasia’s web page cataloging all open resource sites. You can make a Google custom search engine. Scott Leslie puts list into a wiki page, uses a Google custom search engine to ref wiki page links. Freelearning.ca. To bring a project like this into being so quickly “The secret ingredient is openness.” Brian mentions “a guy from England” but I miss the name. It’s gotta be Tony Hirst.

“I want to see if I can teach and interact with students on mobile devices.” Case study: accessing WebCT on phone. 5 minutes of pain results in finally getting to discussion screen, but still unusable.

(JMS: Brian may be cutting WebCT too much slack. I would rip their dessicated zombie heads off.)
Brian concedes that WebCT’s product was not developed for mobile devices. (JMS: True, but WebCT customers have been asking for mobile support for years, and the CE 4.1 example he is using actually functions in a mobile device, but all newer versions of WebCT/Blackboard do not.)

Everyday a newspaper goes under. “There’s a crisis in every cultural industry.” PirateBay, bittorrent site, has a section for textbooks.

Universities are not popular with the public. Perception of overpaid, underworked, radicals. Quoting a (neighbor?), “Taxpayers are only willing to substitute universities to the extent that they contribute to the national wealth.” Openness might alleviate that intercultural tension.

Nice job, Brian. Hope I captured some of the coherence and insight that you delivered this morning.

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.

• Reuse – verbatim (easy)
• Redistribute – share (fairly easy)
• Revise – derivatives (harder)
• Remix – combinations

Open is a continuum; “Things can be more or less open, like a door.” Watch for 2R vs 4R OER. 2R is waaay better than nothing, but 4R (should be) far superior still. E.g. open Access movement (free access to peer-reviewed articles). Paraphrasing Wayne Mackintosh: “I’d rather have an #@$!? open resource over a great proprietary resource because I can fix the #@$!? resource.”

Media issues outside of licenses (SLAM):

1. Meaningfully editable? (e.g. HTML vs. JPG/PDF of notes or printed text)
2. Self-sourced? Ready-to-edit and ready-to-use? (e.g. HTML –> HTML vs. fla –> swf )
3. Access to editing tools? (e.g. HTML vs. MS OneNote)
4. Level of expertise? (e.g. DOC/ODT doc vs. 3D model, Flash quiz)

If you’re not paying attention, an open-licensed OER may still be “closed” for all intents and purposes, because of the 4 Rs.

OCW Examples:

• MIT Simplicity Theory. Clearly handwriting on lined binder notes, scanned in.
• MIT Mathematics. Powerpoint and LaTeX source files are available upon permission.
• MIT Linear algebra. Video, transcripts, downloads in different formats, YouTube.
• OLI Predicting college success. Course has Flash-based quizzes and diagrams.

Context suggests meaning. E.g. Airplane: Q. “Surely you’re joking.” A. “I’m not, and don’t call me Shirley.” and Police Squad: Q. “Cigarette?” A. “Yes, I know.”

Putting things in time or place suggests more meanings. (e.g. Obama, Obama by Lincoln, Obama by bin Laden, Obama flanked by two black athletes). The more things are put together, the more we specify intended meaning.

We can usually tell when things don’t fit the context.

Size of a resource is a function of the context inside the OER.

David’s reusability paradox. An OER/LO teaches effectively vs easy to reuse. (JMS: this plays into what I recall of George Siemens’s work, especially re. connectivity. Will teaching invest in helping students make connections, creating or finding context. Does the (immediate) future of networked information culture require that users be able if not deft at finding connections and making context or meaningful connections between disparate pieces of information? Will technology soon be able to facilitate connecting or providing context for an individual resource? Would “new” ideas of information fluency allow students to adapt to the deficits of high reusability? For instance, scanning and ignoring non-critical information?)

MIT structured content like course so context is apparent, but you can take the context apart. The structure is an aid for helping you find and use individual components. Course as (full of) disposable content. (JMS: Another good perspective on my recent conflicts with textbook publisher e-packs.)

Collections — a collection of marbles doesn’t exist in a strict sequence, but a string of pearls does.

Referenced today’s article in Chronicle on “courseocentrism”. What can we do with “courses” that we have been too limited to do? 2R “open” resources have been accused of being a “Trojan horse”, as evidence of hedgemony of the West, of cultural imperialism. (JMS: Whatever.)

Dr. Wiley introduced this segment with a quote from T.S. Eliot’s play Murder in the Cathedral:

The last temptation is the greatest treason
To do the right deed for the wrong reason.

Motivations are fluid (Important to admit). (JMS: How are they tied to benefits and incentives? I think this is how motivations change, especially as sustainability rears its head.)

(JMS: I spotted a copy of “The Social Life of Information” on John Hilton’s desk. Bumping it up on my “to read” list.)

Four Case Studies for Motivations in Open Education

1. Learning Objects

   LOs are “any digital resources that can mediate learning” described by “scope and sequence” (size and ordering/structure) and analogized by pearls on a string. Problem of mashing up or changing LOs; reuse : if (c) this means “as is”. But adaptability is critical — (c) is the culprit(?) in restricting adapt/remix. In the world of universal (c) gaining permission to use product is too hard/too expensive. So folks give up, or break the law, (JMS: or make your own).

   Ted Nelson as the “godfather of learning objects” — “how about … micropayment system”? (since mid 60s) e.g. Xanadu
   DRM is too hard and too expensive (JMS: and unpopular re. changing culture of medium consumption/participation). based on the (inhibitive idea), “If you can’t protect you can’t collect” (i.e. $ is the only incentive[?])

   LO + “freely adaptable” = OERs

   (JMS: Why is Hippocampus sometimes referred to in the same breath as open educational resources?)

   (JMS: this revisits the classic Web conceptualization of content vs. presentation vs. behavior.

2. MIT OCW

   Q: “How do we remain ‘MIT’?” (i.e. preserve reputation and advanced [brand] placement in the world).

   A: “Give it away!” — but “giving” is not the same as “lending”, just as McGill et al note that “sharing” is not the same as “exchanging”.

   “…knowledge as a public good for the benefit of all … [MIT] can make a difference” (? MIT President ? someone help me out here)

3. Missing Title

   72M kids don’t attend school. “Today [2007] there are over 30M who are fully qualified to enter a university.” Sir John Daniel.

   (JMS: Beware Article 26.1’s “education should be compulsory” for it may easily trample on the rights and liberty of the individual. In the USA I don’t think that “opportunites” as opposed to “obligations” to obtain an education in the first half of our nations’ history has been detrimental to our society. It is clear that contemporary government education programs view it’s obligation as that of socializing students as a part of education. But top-down socializing may not fit the beliefs or ideals of the family, and the family, not the federal government, is the critical social unit in society. Fortunately Article 26.3 “Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.”)

4. LDS Church

   “Come unto me all ye ends of the earth, buy milk and honey, without money and without price.” (Isa. 55:1). Motivation 4 is to lift up (and prepare to receive the gospel).

   “Gospel methodologies, concepts…”

   Hope for motivations of charity and love.

Discussion

Brand as a proxy for quality. (JMS: Also, increasing brand visibility shores up conversion rates, especially for “unknown” institutions. Also, brand is a way of maintaining attribution–a way of maintaining ego.)

Seth (basically) asks, how is OCW valuable to the institution by itself, especially in competition with Bb hosting?

Short answer: get rid of Bb. Longer answer (adapted from list collaboratively authored on the whiteboard):</P

• Transparency (e.g. world can see some of class content out.
• Accessibility (e.g. Blackboard is not accessible on mobile devices, and is cumbersome, and is slow to load)
• Academic advising becomes more accurate (may lower drop rate), cheaper (self-service).
• Provides landing points for post course review.
• If wiki-ish, collaborative authoring of content (amongst faculty peers, or amongst instructor and students).
• Better course materials built more efficiently when based upon past curriculum.
• Reusability at a more modular level within the institution: Blackboard templates still don’t work. But OCW as a template does
• Cognitive apprenticeship possible when faculty collaborate in view.

The course is IPT 692R: Intro to Open Education, and Dave has structured the activities in homage to World of Warcraft; for example, each student will be required to select a class to identify the direction of their coursework, and our guild will embark on a series of quests both individually and collaboratively as we seek to level-up.

As I work through the course requirements (er, quests) I’ll be posting my outcomes and reflections here on Flexknowlogy–for the convenience of Dr. Wiley and my classmates I’ll be categorizing them under “IPT692R”. And for the benefit of everyone else, I will aim my writing at providing a context and message in line with my regular postings.

I’m not the only person who will be sitting in on this course: numerous attendees from around the world will be joining in at a distance.

Some notes from the first session:

1. Several students said they “want to change the world”. Dave suggested that one goal for the course is to “be able to say that with a straight face“.
2. I asked myself if there is a CC license post plug-in for WP. Looks like WPLicense may be the best. I’ll try it out tonight. Matthew Tabor just informed me that Per Post CC License is more in line with my needs.
3. GNU is a recursive acronym, like PHP and LAME. I note this only because now I have the right vocabulary for a long-standing geek naming tradition.
4. The “magic” of the Internet is resources are nonrivalrous: Make one and any number of people can access it.
5. Dave used a photo of one of my geek heros web standards guru Tantek Çelik. Is he involved in the open content movement?
6. Sure, we know all about Creative Commons licenses, but I hadn’t heard of CC0 (“C-C zero”) or CC+ (“C-C plus”) before. CC0 will allow for creators to give up as many rights as they can. CC+ sounds like the opposite–a Creative Commons license plus additional custom restrictions.
7. NC is predictably popular amongst producers.
8. Do we have any data as to how substantively useful SA is to users/consumers? Are there measurements of the demand for reusability?
9. While CC By is the least restrictive, some copyleft folk argue that CC By-SA is the most “free” license for philosophical reasons (i.e. it preserves “freeness” in perpetuity; restrictions aren’t mutually exclusive from freedom.)
10. I enjoyed a good lecture.
11. Three greatest challenges to OER/OCW in near future: Sustainability, Incentives, Licenses
12. Re. sustainability , universities have to say, “Look how much we can save money. Look how much we can improve on-campus education.”
13. I’ve talked about potential sustainability of the UVU OER model, but I had some more ideas:
    • We can make the tools part of the system. (e.g. use technology that can be opened up)
    • We can make publishing part of the process. (e.g. convince Distance Education or campus IT to adopt OER/OCW as part of it’s mission)
    • First encourage translucent education among faculty so it’s easy to encourage open education later (e.g. real blogs, real wikis).
14. Dave suggested that people still make money even after they’ve published an “open” version of a work because some consumers will still choose to buy the work. My question is how much of that is due to consumer ignorance vs. consumer preference?
15. My note: Copyright is the de facto license for any work in the USA. There is no legal question about it. Open licenses modify or replace the default copyright.