Exploring the process of using OER to
build transnationally accredited
courses – an activity theory
perspective
Marc P. Singer, Vice-Provo
st
Centre for the Assessment
of Learning
Thomas Edison State Colle
ge
Trenton, NJ, USA
msinger@tesc.edu
David A. Porter, Project
Manager
Task Force on Flexible E
ducation
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, BC, Canada
davidp@sfu.ca
Open studies leading to
credentials
“For me, the whole issue around open education is at two
levels. One, it's a values commitment by an organization,
or by an education institution at the level of the primary
purpose of … sharing knowledge.“
“The second is purely an economic perspective around
improving efficiencies of tertiary education.”
“In the original paper called Creating a Parallel Universe,
because I knew that you can't take on the complexity of
the Higher Ed system as a whole, so … my concept was
that you could run this in parallel with the main stream, in
a small number of courses, in a large number of
institutions…”
– OERu Foundation
Members
•
Looking at the components
of OERu
All partners agree on
the inputs and
desired outputs,
outcomes, and their
impact
•
Variation tends to
localized through the
initiatives in which
partners have
special capacity or
interest
•
We decided to do a
short and nimble
exploratory study on
one case to try to
surface successes or
issues for further
focus by the OERu
partners
The beginning
•
Thomas Edison State College joined OERu 2012
•
Reviewed prototype courses contributed by partners
•
Identified Critical Reasoning (Unisa) and Why
Sustainable Practice? (Otago Polytechnic) as
possible projects
•
Aligned with our curriculum
•
Seemed like it would be easy to develop assessments
•
The
goals
Develop a stand-alone
assessment for the
course
•
Portfolio—already an option
•
Credit-by-exam (TECEP)—
more convenient and
accessible
•
Adapt course for open
distribution using our
portal
•
Adapt course for forcredit, mentored version
The process
Staff reviewed course materials on WikiEduc
ator site
•
•
The exam
Developed TECEP test
description with outcomes
based on Unisa’s outcomes
•
TESC began development with
our students and US
accreditation requirements in
mind:
•
Self-directed adults
•
Come to us with skills and
knowledge already acquired
•
Online course delivery
We needed to make
adjustments:
•
•
•
Microblogging, journaling not
possible in this format
Unisa’s Outcome 1: Learners
actively participate in the
opportunities set out in the
study material
Course determined by
School to be at 100-level
(Introductory/first-year)
Longue durée
•
Progress on course
development slowed—
Unisa had course designers
and faculty expertise, but not
clear direction of how to fit its
course to a format that would
work for OERu partner
institutions
October 2013: TESC staff met
with Unisa to figure out how to
proceed
•
Goals of course
•
How assessment would work
•
Credit transfer
•
Questions about prior
learning
Alignment of course and
exam
•
•
•
CO1 Identify assumptions,
reasons, claims and their
interaction
CO2 Make informed logical
decisions that are based on
facts and substantiated claims
CO3 Critically evaluate your
own personal biases,
misconceptions and
preconceived ideas
•
CO4 Identify and critically
evaluate the ideas and beliefs
of others
•
CO5 Analyze and evaluate
information and knowledge
claims critically
•
CO6 Apply the key concepts of
critical reasoning to
constructing one’s own
arguments and writing critical
essays
•
•
What do we assess at
TESC?
Developed pools of TECEP
test content to address
outcomes of Unisa and TESC
courses, using item types that
are most effective given the
constraints of a timed,
proctored online testing
environment
Multiple choice and matching
items assess key concepts
(what critical thinking is, types
of arguments, structure of
arguments, obstacles to clear
thinking, kinds of writing)
•
Essay prompts assess ability to
•
Construct an argument
•
Evaluate an argument
Links
•
Open Course:
http://sites.google.com/a/courses.tesc.edu/phi130-critical-reasoning/
•
TECEP exam:
http://www2.tesc.edu/listalltecep.php
An exploratory study
We decided to explore the strategy and process
considerations that must be examined when an
institution chooses to adopt an available openly licensed
course from another institution and offer it for credit
within their own institution - the idealized OER situation
Activity theory
•
The subject of an activity system
is the individual or group whose
viewpoint is adopted
•
Object “refers to the ‘raw material’
or ‘problem space’ at which the
activity is directed
•
Tools mediate the object of
activity
•
Community refers to the
participants of an activity system,
who share the same object
•
The division of labour involves the
division of tasks and roles among
members of the community and
the divisions of power and status.
•
Rules are explicit and implicit
norms that regulate actions and
interactions within the activity
system
•
Role of contradictions in
AT theory is the role of
A key principle within activity
contradictions. Contradictions commonly develop as
a system develops over time.
•
•
When a new activity is introduced into the system
internal ‘primary contradictions’ result in
“aggravated secondary contradictions where
some old element collides with a new one...”
(Engeström 2001, p.137).
Contradictions are present and are crucial driving
forces of transformation according to Engeström and
Sannino (2010).
OERu activity system
Interview guide
•
We used a semistructured interview
guide in our
conversations with
OERu, TESC and
Unisa participants in
the exploratory study
Interview guide
Points of agreement
Activity system
dynamics
Contradictions
Conclusions
Using the experiences both of the
Unisa and TESC teams, the
researchers believe that the
contradictions that emerged,
when accounted for as part of the
OERu adoption and adaptation
process, can be identified and
effectively navigated and
harnessed as part of a new and
stronger process, as additional
courses and institutions move
through the process.
Ultimately, the researchers
believe that identifying the
opportunities inherent in this
exploratory case study can
illuminate ways in which a
network of like-minded
institutions can work together to
expand and build upon the
strengths of each member, as
OERu.org broadens its reach to
include the development of entire
programs of study.
Recommendations
Use institutional action plans
(IPAs) to provide additional
structure to the OERu network,
and to the distributed
organization
Refine the OERu technical
systems to lower overhead for
creation and editing of course
materials, or better match partner
infrastructure
Refine the OERu network
structure to better reflect partner
capabilities and interests
Intentionality and experimentation
– use OERu as a sandbox to
experiment with new solutions
that partners seek
Use the strengths of the partners
to better describe a unified
structure with clearly defined
OERu offerings