Reach and Impact: Exploring Quality, Community and Accreditation
From OCWCWiki
at September 2008 OCWC Conference
Presenters: Christine Geith, Philipp Schmidt
Description: As OCW grows and commercial providers enter the arena, it's time we had an open discussion about these issues. Do we need to define quality? What do we mean by quality in the first place? What might it mean to offer credit for OCW? This panel will lead a discussion exploring these issues. We'll reflect on the norms we've already evolved as a community of practice. We'll also explore ways to bridge OCW publication quality and quality learning outcomes.
Feel free to add your notes and ideas on what you'd like to discuss in the session to this page!
Do we need to define quality?
for sure!
What do we mean by quality in the first place?
Perhaps in an analogous way to that in which it is defined in the context of quality control of manufactured products: namely, "fit for the purpose". Thus, the question raises a key subquestion: what is the purpose of an educational programme? - the answer will vary from one programme to the next, but it is a question that needs to be answered in each case before one can say anything meaningful about quality of courseware for that programme.
What might it mean to offer credit for OCW?
Everything.
Notes from the session
Open UK (Andy Lane): Lots of things we are thinking about - some of which we have already implemented. The big concepts we use in this context are "recognition of study based on OERs" and "labelling of OERs". In terms of quality we are so far relying on institutions putting up high-quality materials. However, that doesn't work for others getting involved and remixing content. We let users rate the materials as well (using a 5 star rating system). We are also considering things like post-publication peer review etc. So there are all these things about labelling the content. On the recognitions side, it could go as far as accreditation, but a lot of people might not actually seeking accreditation, but they are seeking recognition - then the questions becomes who are they seeking recognition from (a professional association, their peers, potential employers, etc.). We are only just starting to look at recognition, although we do have some mechanisms on recognition of prior learning and they could potentially be connected to learning done based on our OER.
Open NL (Robert Schuwer): Our project was aimed at non-formal learners, trying to persuade them to enter our formal programmes by offering short courses - to try out if they like it and find the time for it. For some of these short courses we also offered formal examinations at the end - Experience over 1.5 years: about 750.000 yearly visitors (1/2 stayed less than 2 minutes). 85 people applied for the examination - so very few. However we also did not push it, there was no mailing or invitation, it was simply offered as an option on the website. In our surveys we found that the majority of people did not need the examination - most people were interested in the subject. People who did ask for the examination mentioned the ability to show it to the boss. The course content needs to be accredited where our institution is able to recognised learning based on these materials.
University of Michigan (Gary Matkin): When we are taking about credit for OER we are really taking about informal education. There is a pyramid going up from open content, then oer, then ocw, then credit. The further you go up the more formalised you get. We probably need to develop partnership and relationships with organisations that do degree completion (Excelsior College and others have been doing this for a long time). When we speak about OCW a lot of this is not credit worty. What we need to do is select the content that is credit worthy. At my institution we created OCW, and offered the possibility for learners to choose additional services that lead to credits.
Virtual University Canada (Vicky): What we would like to develop is a full first year online, which would be open. We have started this with one course that we are working on right now. We are looking at the Carnegie Mellon courses as our benchmark. We are looking at 12 universities that would grant credit for this course. The students could then write a challenge exam at Athabasca university - and once it is recognised there, it is recognised by these other Canadian universities. We are currently looking for funders to build on this.
Christine: Are institutions concerned that others might be using their materials to offer credits and degrees.
Keith: In a way this is the whole point of this movement, no? So that others can learn and teach using these materials.
Terri: Concern that others might come in and offer a "Notre Dame" (for example) education only because they are using ND content. Might be different if people are claiming that they get the "whole" education, or it's just about an individual course credit that will feed into a more formal degree. However, as long as the branding is done right we are not concerned.
Sukon: We are not really concerned, because also our content is licensed for non-commercial use only. There are some models, like the Peoples Uni (peoplesuni.org) which involve no money and that is something we can live with.
Cecilia: As a school that has been the source of abuse by degree mills. Probably twice a year we notice someone who is mis-using the MIT name and claiming to be offering an online degree. So that is definitely a concern, but it might not relate directly to credible use of MIT content. Number one issue is misuse of name and brand. Also, all MIT materials are licensed under non commercial provision, so there are lots of things we cannot do with our content - like putting it up on youtube. On the other hand, if people are running a tutoring service and they are pointing to our content then that's cool. If they are offering a certificate, then it depends on what the certificate says - if it says it's MIT certified, then that's not possible.
Vicky: So what could happen is that we find high-quality MIT content and that students who went through the whole course there are likely to meet the learning objectives, then what is possible is that students take the entire course at MIT and write the exam at Athabasca, which would give them Athabasca credit.
Gary: What we are really talking about is a lower cost of education, especially in the developing world. It really begins to pull apart what the education process is. What you find out is that content is actually a relatively small part of the total cost. If we want to bring down the cost, then we really need to look at the others parts: teaching, verification in a cost effective way. All those elements have to come into play before we are really going to make a dent.
Ken: It would seem pretty obvious that if people write an exam at an institution - then of course it's that institution that would grant the degree. What I am kind of wondering is, are there circumstances where the content really is important. Economies in transition, where content is not available given the low income levels. So, there is still important work to be done on content.
Sukon: You mention tutoring services. I want to clarify if that is considered as commercial services. For example if a third party generates income by tutoring based on MIT content. Would that not be considered commercial use?
Cec: If it looks they are selling the content then that's not ok. However, if they are providing value add services, but they point to our resources - then that's not commercial use of our content. They are using stuff on the web.
Ken: What if someone - like Penn State - would teach the whole course (providing attribution etc.) and charge tuition for that.
Andy: That would be ok.
Ken: What if the University of Phoenix would do it.
Andy: Hmmmm ... so there a different interpretations of the non-commercial option in the license. The test that will most likely be in place is as follows: Is this particular activity a commercial activity, generating profits to shareholders?
Cec: If the University of Phoenix would use our courses, then our faculty would stop providing us with these courses. So even if it's legal it would have other effects and the supply of courses would dry up.
Philipp:U. Western Cape two processes: (a) recognition of informal learning for transfer credit on an individual basis; and (b) similar to open soure software, build up a reputation in a community - survey shows 70% of employers prefer demonstrated experience compared to having a degree, for example - his presentation on Friday at COSL will talk about how to formalize "peer to peer" recognition.
Terri: I think the peer2peer approach is interesting in the context of the OCWC. Then, I think we need some kind of resource that helps the members navigate the legal issues of the non-commercial option - what are others allowed to do with the content? Those would be two concrete steps.
Christine: And how do you feel about seeking out conversations with groups that want to add other services (tutoring, exames, etc.) to what we are doing.
Gary: There are all these lenses that exist for materials (identifying sub-sets of content, e.g. K-12). It would be possible to self-certify materials by the membership - to identify content that is suitable for credit work.
Cec: What would be useful would be to come back to the question on what is our goal. One goal could be that we want our materials used as widely as possible. Another goal could be a sustainability thing, for example by partnering with commercial companies to generate revenue. We need to be very clear on what our goals are.
