1

Open Course Design and Development: A Case Study in the Open Educational Resource university Irwin DeVries, PhD This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 4.0 International License1

Screenshot, OERu website. Licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 BY-SA Unported.

2

What is the OERu?2

Global partnership of like-minded postsecondary institutions – not university per se

Committed to free courses and programs based on OERs

Optional support, assessment and credible credentials through partner institutions

Sponsored by a not-for-profit foundation in New Zealand (OERu Foundation)

Virtual presence in WikiEducator wiki

33Screenshot, WikiEducator. Licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 BY-SA Unported.

4

How does it work?“Parallel learning universe” (Taylor, 2007)

4

OERu logic high level. Wayne Mackintosh. Licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 BY-SA Unported.

5

The “unbundling” concept5

Model showing OER or OCW reuse (“any content”). Friesen & Murray (2011). Licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 BY-SA Unported.

6

OERu collaborations6

Diagram showing high-level logic model for OERu. By Wayne Macintosh. Licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 BY-SA Unported.

7

Open design and development

7

The generic design process, for instance, the ADDIE Model incorporating the five processes of Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation as a dynamic system.

Open collaborative design and development models associated with the open source software development model to facilitate rapid prototyping and continuous feedback and improvement loops

“Dynamic processes for collaborative development” (WikiEducator, 2013)

8

Prototype development Focus on small number of prototype

courses for OERu Our first contribution: ART100 Art

Appeciation and Techniques Redesigned from existing OERs

Course from Saylor.com via WA State Board of Community Colleges Open Course Library

Added own content, activities, assessments, etc.

Is the focus of my research

9

Screenshot, WikiEducator. Licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 BY-SA Unported.

10

Research questions10

1. How has open design and development been conceptualized and realized in the Open Educational Resource university (OERu)?

2. What are the currently visible features of open design and development as indicated by practices and products in the OERu prototype course projects:• As compared with traditional

instructional design and development; and,

• As compared with open source software development?

11

Open / traditional instructional designAspect Open Design and Development Traditional Instructional Design

•    Participants •    Volunteer – either individual or institutional

•    Paid, institutionally based

•    Makeup of design team •    Volunteers from global WikiEducator community –individuals or institutions

•    From within one organization

•    Roles of design team members

•    Varied, overlapping •    More clearly circumscribed

•    Content copyright •    Open licensing with some rights reserved

•    Mostly rights reserved

•    Content versions •    Multiple simultaneous •    Single official version

•    Intended learners •    Multiple constituencies, many unknown in advance

•    Predefined

•    Design processes •    Informal design processes •    Formal design processes

•    Authoring environment •    Generally open source software – e.g. WikiMedia, OpenOffice

•    Generally proprietary; e.g. Word, Photoshop

•    Delivery environment •    Multiple options, based on those used by member institutions

•    Usually a single dedicated platform – e.g. BlackBoard, Moodle 11

12

“Traditional instructional design” working description

12

Three elements Higher education online or distance education

course development Scientific / planned process (Richey et al.,

2011) “Messiness” (Conole, 2009), iterative cycles of

knowledge building and adaptations to situational contexts and events (Rowland, 1992)

Ceramic Bowl, Mexico. Photo by Alejandro Linares Garcia. Licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 BY-SA Unported.

Public Mural, Liverpool. Photo by Keith Edkins. Licensed under Creative Commons 2.0 BY-SA Unported.

13

Open design and development

Open educational resources (OERs)Learning objectsSharing of learning design knowledgeOpen source software development

13

Related concepts & historical context

Pastels. Clementina. Licensed under Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0 Unported.

14

Open educational resources14

“Teaching, learning, and research resources that reside in the public domain or have been released under an intellectual property license that permits their free use or re-purposing by others.

Open educational resources include full courses, course materials, modules, textbooks, streaming videos, tests, software, and any other tools, materials, or techniques used to support access to knowledge”

Atkins, Brown and Hammond (2007)

The Golden Arches. Photo by Kenny Louie. Lcensed under Creative Commons 2.0 BY.

15

Open educational resources 15

The 4 R’s of reusability Reuse Redistribute Revise Remix(Hilton et al., 2010).

Stucco Gandhara figure. Photo by Michael Wai. Licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 BY-SA Unported.

16

Learning objectsLearning objects

Chunks of learning content that can be shared and reused

Concept was driven mainly by technological considerations

Concerns grew about “sequencing” and need for pedagogy – e.g.,

Activity centred – engage learners in reflection – allow for practice and production – personalized – feedback – different learning approaches (Watson, 2010)

16

Fränzi vor geschnitztem Stuhl, by Kirchner. Public Domain.

17

Sharing of learning design knowledge

17

Learning design - examples What is (are) learning design(s)?

Structuring learning sequences (Britain, 2004) Capturing learning design practice (Conole et

al., 2007) Representations of how to support learning

(Goodyear, 2005) Learning design patterns (Rohse & Anderson,

2006) Sharing “pedagogical know-how”

From only content design knowledge Tools and collaboration

18

Sharing learning design knowledge

18

Conole (2008). Used with permission.

19

Sharing learning design knowledge

“Traditionally design has been an implicit process, how do we shift to a process of design that is more explicit and hence shareable?”

(Conole, 2008)

Quietly listening to the wind in the pines, 1246. Ma Lin. Public Domain.

20

Screenshot, WikiEducator. Licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 BY-SA Unported.

21

Screenshot, WikiEducator. Licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 BY-SA Unported.

22

Sharing learning design knowledge Rationalistic tradition of

instructional design models (Richey et al., 2011)

Situated, iterative nature of practice / instructional design (e.g. Rowland, 1992; Suchman, 2007)

Reusability: conduit and encapsulation metaphors (Griffiths and Garcia, 2003)

“In order to achieve a convergence of meaning, knowledge has to be acquired by doing and experiencing: becoming a reflective practitioner” (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1991)

22

Sioux quilled tobacco bag. Photo by Pierre Fabre. Public Domain.

23

Collaborative design in other fields

23

Architecture, expert systems, telecommunications, engineering Multiple points of negotiation and

evaluation (Kvan, 2000) Explicit sharing of design information using

communication tools (Chiu, 2002) Design teams need to explore and

integrate differences (Sonnenwald, 1996) Intentional communication processes are

essential (Hixon, 2008)

24

OSS design and development

Based on collaboration and communities of volunteers Commitment to philosophy of

sharing Personal and professional

benefits Induction processes for

newbies Communication and

versioning systems Decentralized but with some

leadership Visible design rules

24

Masque aux lépreux Bwa. Village de Boni. By Ji-Ell . Licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 BY-SA Unported.

25

Research design25

Comparative case study Scope: one course developed over a fixed

period of time in OERu Similar case study in OSS used for

comparison: Freenet (von Krogh et al., 2003)

Highlight “relationships, contrasts and similarities

Extend learning from one case to the other (Khan & VanWynsberghe, 2008)

26

Research methods26

In-depth, semi-structured interviews with OERu developers (Creswell, 2007) Selected as “key informants” (Marshall, 1996,

Yin, 2009) – ART100 developers in OERu project Public email conversations and archives History of wiki contributions and “talk

pages” by developers Meeting records Publicly available sources (contextual)

27

Data analysis27

Collection of content in ATLAS.ti QDA Initial coding of content (Soldaña, 2009) Secondary grouping, multiple iterations

generating themes Qualitative, narrative portrait (Auerbach

and Silverstein, 2003) Frequent cross-checks back and forth Trustworthiness: Triangulation,

overlapping, member checks, audit trail (Guba,1981; Guba & Lincoln, 1982; Yin, 2009)

28

Findings28

Two over-arching themes Designing for openness A community of

volunteers

Street Musicians. Eugène_Atget. PD-US-1923.

29

Designing for openness Influence of assessment and credit on design Need to share core expectations about learners

Digital and learning literacies Tool use – LMS, wiki, blog, ePortfolio,Twitter etc. Independent and cohort models

Pedagogical design and the challenge of scale Institutional autonomy over pedagogical designs of

contributed courses learning design design community within OERu

Scope of learner control Obtaining local or other support resources Feedback

30

Designing for openness Institutional flexibility – assessment and credit,

curricular oversight Designing with OERs

E.g., source files – marking regimes – LMS – multiple versions – timetables – assumptions re groupwork – copyright issues – cultural biases – developing as OERs

Wiki environment Wiki challenges – text conversions, formatting, flat

file structure, wiki syntax, templates Need for mediating artifacts - There but hard to find

Communication habits, use of appropriate channels and protocols is essential Decision histories for later joiners Shared understandings and approaches

31

Screenshot, WikiEducator. Licensed by Creative Commons 3.0 BY-SA Unported.

32

Screenshot, WikiEducator. Licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 BY-SA Unported.

33

34

35

A community of volunteers35

Comparison with OSS: Importance of community Developer motivations (want to make a contribution) A community of volunteers (attrition) – needs to grow Division of labor - developer specializations (multiple

roles) Shared and standardized communication habits

(essential for shared understanding of project) – mediating artifacts

Mentoring Visible design rules/agreements and history for late

joiners Patterns of persistence

“When code and community do not develop in parallel, the learning curve can be steep” (O’Mahoney, 2007)

36

Developer contributions36

37

Conclusions Turn “unknowns” of designing for

openness into “knowns” But maintain as much design flexibility as

possible Develop core of instructional design

expertise in OERu beyond institutional preferences Awareness of mediating artifacts, visible

design rules Use OERu as catalyst for institutional

innovation Non-traditional assessment, credit Grow disaggregation concept

38

Conclusions Learn from OSS development experience Attention to community, recruitment,

induction Appropriate division of labor and

specialization Developer motivations

Incorporate work into regular responsibilities

Communication systems and protocols Value of system-wide views and visible

design rules/mediating artifacts

39

Limitations Differences between

Freenet comparator and OERu cases

Bracketing of other developments both within and outside OERu

Limited timespan of study

Small developer sample

39

Sagami Temple detail. Photo by 663highland. Licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 BY-SA Unported.

40

Recommendations for further research

40

Partner institutions’ attitudes toward acceptance of differently structured courses for credit

Recruitment and retention of volunteer developers outside institutional volunteers

Developer roles and responsibilities Further integration/use of Web 2.0 tools Alternative collaborations – e.g. sjprints,

hackathons Design research specific to course design

41

References Atkins, D., Brown, J., & Hammond, A. (2007). A Review of the Open

Educational Resources (OER) Movement: Achievements, Challenges, and New Opportunities. Report to the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation

Britain, S. (2004). A Review of Learning Design: Concept, Specification and Tools. Retrieved from www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/ACF1ABB.doc

Brown, J., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.

Conole, Gráinne, Thorpe, M., Weller, M., Wilson, P., Nixon, S., & Grace, P. (2007). Capturing Practice and Scaffolding Learning Design. Retrieved March 17, 2011, from http://www.open.ac.uk/openlearn/home.php

Conole, Gráinne. (2008). Using Compendium as a tool to support the design of learning activities 1, 1–19. Retrieved from http://e4innovation.com/Papers/Conole_knowledge_cartography.pdf

Conole, Gráinne, & Culver, J. (2009). Cloudworks: Social networking for learning design. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(5), 763–782.

Chiu, M. (2002). An organizational view of design communication in design collaboration. Design Studies, 23, 187–210.

Cresswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative research design: Choosing among five traditions (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Friesen, N., & Murray, J. (2011). “ Open learning 2.0?” Aligning student, teacher and content for openness in education. Retrieved February 2, 2012, from http://learningspaces.org/papers/OpenLearning2.0.pdf.

Friesen, N., & Murray, J. (2011). “ Open learning 2.0?” Aligning student, teacher and content for openness in education. Retrieved February 2, 2012, from http://learningspaces.org/papers/OpenLearning2.0.pdf.

Goodyear, P., & Retalis, S. (2010). Learning, Technology and Design. In P. Goodyear & S. Retalis (Eds.), Technology enhanced leanring: Design patterns and pattern languages (pp. 1–27). Rotterdam: Sense Publisher

Guba, E. G. (1981). ERIC / ECTJ Annual Review Paper: Criteria for Assessing the Trustworthiness of Naturalistic Inquiries. ECTJ, 29(2), 75–91.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1982). Epistemological and Methodological Bases of Naturalistic Inquiry. Educational Communication and Technology, 30(4), 233–252.

Hilton, J. I., Wiley, D., Stein, J., & Johnson, A. (2010). The four “R”s of openness and ALMS analysis: Frameworks for open educational resources. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e‑Learning, 25(1), 37–44

Hixon, E. (2008). Team-based Online Course Development : A Case Study of Collaboration Models. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 11(4), 1–8. Retrieved from http://www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/ winter114/hixon114.html

Kvan, T. (2000). Collaborative design: what is it? Automation in Construction, 9(4), 409–415. doi:10.1016/S0926-5805(99)00025-4

Khan, S., & Samuel VanWysberghe. (2008). Cultivating the Under-Mined: Cross-Case Analysis as Knowledge Mobilization. Qualitative Social Research, 9(1). Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/ article/view/334/729

Marshall, M. N. (1996). The key informant technique. Family practice, 13(1), 92–7. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8671109

O’Mahony, S. (2007). The governance of open source initiatives: what does it mean to be community managed? Journal of Management & Governance, 11, 139–150.

Rohse, S., & Anderson, T. (2006). Design patterns for complex learning. Journal of Learning Design, 1(3), 82–91.

Sonnenwald, D. H. (1996). Communication roles that support collaboration during the design process. Design Studies, 17(3), 277–301.

Soldaña, J. (2011). Fundamentals of Qualitative Research: Understanding Qualitative Research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Suchman, L. (2007). Human-machine configurations: Plans and situated actions. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

von Krogh, G., Spaeth, S., & Lakhani, K. R. (2003). Community, joining, and specialization in open source software innovation: a case study. Research Policy, 32, 1217–1241. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(03)00050-7

Watson, J. (2010). A Case Study: Developing Learning Objects with an Explicit Learning Design. Electronic Journal of e‑Learning, 8(1), 41–50. Retrieved from http://www.ejel.org/issue/download.html?idArticle=159

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

4242

Thank you

Irwin DeVries, PhDDirector, Curriculum DevelopmentThompson Rivers University, Open Learning

idevries@tru.ca

Demonstration of Reification in Perception. S. Lahar. Public Domain.