OPEN CONTENT
Audrey Anglin
Amy London
and
John Slaughter
What Is Open Content?

Any type of creative work

Open Content License

Allows free access and/or modifying by
anyone
(Wikipedia, Open Content, para. 1).
Purpose

Open Content makes learning more
efficient by getting children from A to B
faster because the materials are less
expensive, accessible, and modified to
meet teachers’ needs.

A (Ignoramus) = B (Knowledge) = C (Use)
Philosophy
The world’s knowledge is a public good.

Internet Archive (Open Content Alliance /
Yahoo!)

Google Book Search

Million Book Project
(Morgan & Carey, 2009; St. Clair, 2008)
Theoretical Framework

Vygotsky (1978)
 cognitive socialization theory wherein you
learn best from your community
 social development theory with intrinsic and
extrinsic rewards
○ Intrinsic relates to personal interest and
motivation
○ Extrinsic refers to the delight in receiving
external recognition
History

Open Content began in the software
industry in with Richard Stallman.

Xerox refused to give Stallman the
source code to fix a printer problem.

Inspired Stallman to offering his own
software for free.
(Wileya & Gurrell, 2009).
Movement toward Education

Wileya wanted to make his educational
materials available for everybody to use for
free.

Wileya networked with a software expert
(Raymond) and a publisher (O’Reilly) and
created an open content license for educators.

Organizations created platforms for educators
to publish their work (Connexions & Flat World
Knowledge).
(Wileya & Gurrell, 2009)
Curricular Community

Problem: High Textbook Costs

Problem: Lack of educational resources
in remote areas
(Horizon Report, 2010)
Liberty Education Costs

$ 1,350.57 (Books)

$ 16,042.93 (Liberty)

$ 17,393.50 (Total Cost)

About 7.76 percent (Books)
Community College Study

The rights of a statistics textbook were
purchased by a foundation.

The book was given an open content license.

The book was made available online for free
through Connexions ($31.98 for a hard copy).
(Baker et al. 2009, p. 4)
Results

Fall 2008 : 15 instructors & 5 colleges

Winter/Spring 2009: 43 course sections & 10 colleges

The book was also remixed by the community.
 Reorganized the modules
 Added lesson plans, videotaped lessons, practice
exercises, examples, quizzes, tests, and homework
problems were added.

The instructors (8 out of 21) reported that the students
were satisfied with the open textbook

Small sample / students not surveyed / satisfied not
defined
(Baker et al. 2009, p. 4)
Students Using Open Textbooks
Flat World Knowledge


Spring 2009 / 1,000 students
Fall 2009 / 40,000 students
(Horizon Report, 2010)
=====
Open High School of Utah (9th and 10th grade)
 2009-2010 / 125 students
 2010-2011 / 250 students in 9th and 10th grade
 Expanding to 11th and 12th grade in 2011
(Open High School of Utah)
Applications
Open High School in Utah
 Open Courses (e.g., MIT)
 Public Schools
 Home Schools
 Remote Areas
 Christian Organizations (e.g., Answers
in Genesis, Focus on the Family)

What the Literature Provides….
A sense of achievability
 A sense of ownership
 A sense of support

Windle, R. J., Wharrad, H., McCormick, D., Laverty, H., & Taylor, M.
(2010)
Achievability

Many professional development
practices focus on delivering content
rather than enhancing learning (WebsterWright, 2009).

“Online approach to professional
development focuses directly on the
learner and aims to provide strong
interactions with rich resources and
prolific discussions among members of
the learning community,” (Holmes, Signer, &
MacLeod, 2010, p. 76).
Ownership
Educators are encouraged to
manipulate, change, enhance, and
improve information (Trotter, 2008).
 Although the exact reasons are
unknown, the use of peers as facilitators
results in better learning outcomes than
the use of faculty (Walker & Leary, 2009).

Support

“These tools facilitate self-organization
among educators and learners,
providing a bottom-up [enhanced and
improved the more it is accessed and
used] option for collaborative learning to
complement existing centrally organized
and designed learning networks,” (Martinez,
2010, p. 75).
Application
Teachers Domain
www.teachersdomain.org evaluates and
accurately measures the relevance of the
open content against standards and
benchmarks
 Creative Commons (copyright)
 Professional Development
Moodle
Icohere www.login.icohere.com
BioQUEST Curriculum Consortium
YouTube/TeacherTube

Recognizing the Gaps
Most of our conversations are about dealing with
or learning about technology, when they
should be about the future of teaching
because technology has changed the ways in
which we communicate (Martinez, 2010).
No studies prove how open content is effective
for professional development purposes.
No control of quality for the “sharing of work in
progress, ongoing research, highly
collaborative projects, and a broad view of
what constitutes scholarly publication” (Horizons
Report, 2010).
Next Steps
Conduct studies on the effectiveness of
using open content for professional
development
 Conduct studies that attempt to examine
correlations between the frequency of
use and teacher effectiveness
 Conduct studies that quantify the
benefits of using open content for
professional development

Current Literature

Higher Education – open course ware is
delivered through modules

Universities from around the world have
pledged $350,000 to the OpenCourseWare
Consortium to ensure that these course
materials remain free.
Current Literature

High School – Open High School in Utah is a
full-service virtual charter high school that
uses open content. The school opened in
2009 with an enrollment of 125. The
enrollment in 2010-2011 doubled.

National Repository of Online Courses –
supported by The William and Flora Hewlett
Foundation
Current Literature

Middle and Elementary Schools –
studies related to middle and elementary
schools revolve around effectiveness of
using web tools such as Moodle and
Wikis.
Resources
OER Commons – Open Educational
Resources Commons
 HippoCampus – open courseware for math,
science, and history
 cK12 – open courseware (textbooks)
available for grades 6-12.
 Currikki – open courseware for K-12

Application

Higher Education – distance learning,
continuing education, personal goals

High School – homeschooling, virtual high
schools, tutoring

Middle School – homeschooling, virtual schools,
tutoring

Elementary School – homeschooling, tutoring
Application

FreeReading is an early literacy initiative
to help educators teach reading by
providing free high quality materials.

“We’re hoping lots of people will rip it off
and do what they want with it – it’s one
of the most basic needed resources,”
(Fasimpauer, 2009, p. 64).
Recognizing the gaps …

Higher Education – several studies
conducted in other countries; little research
in the US
High School
 Middle School
 Elementary School

There is little research
concerning the
effectiveness of open
content in these areas.
Next Steps

Higher Education – replicate the studies
already conducted in other countries

High School – Middle School – Elementary –
studies are needed to determine the
effectiveness of the courseware with these
age groups.
Advantages

Openness increases the quality of software

Less expensive for companies to have
somebody else fix their errors.

Equal access provided that the infrastructure
is available

Less cumbersome
Advantages
Advances lifelong learning
 Increases the range and types of
learning opportunities for non-traditional
students

 Those who travel extensively
 Employed
 Underrepresented groups
Advantages

Underrepresented groups continued:
 Those with disabilities
 House bound
 Those with family dependents
 Low SES or no income
 Refugees
 Elderly
 Prison inmates
Disadvantages

Districts have firewalls that prohibit
teachers’ access to open content (Martinez,
2010).
Impromptu marketplace has been
created due to the open access nature
(i.e., teachers want to sell their lesson
plans online)
 Funding (i.e., printing companies losing
business)
 Maintaining and recognizing quality

How We Contribute
 Instructional Videos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38EDoUYxV4w
Shared lesson plans
 WebQuests
www.zunal.com/webquest.php?w=108543
 Websites
 Class Wiki

http://tech730.wikispaces.com
How We Contribute
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCUdKAwP
t-Y
How We Contribute
A Final Thought…..

We should approach experiences with
the attitude of a “beginner's mind - a
state where possibilities spring eternal a place where there is actually pleasure
and excitement in not knowing
everything.” -- unknown
References
Baker, J., Thierstein, J., Fletcher, K., Kaur, M., & Emmons, J. (2009). Open
textbook proof-of-concept via Connexions. International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(5), 1-13.
Holmes, A., Signer, B. & MacLeod, A. (2011). Professional development at a
distance: A mixed-method study exploring inservice teachers' views on
presence online. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education 27(2),
76-85.
Johnson, L., Levine, A., Smith, R., & Stone, S. (2010). The 2010 Horizon Report.
Austin, Texas: The New Media Consortium.
Martinez, M. (2010). How a new generation of teachers will change schools.
Phi Delta Kappan, 91(7), 74-75.
References
Morgan, T. & Carey, S (2009). From open content to open course models:
Increasing access and enabling global participation in higher education.
International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(5), 116.
Open High School of Utah (2010). Annual Report 2010. Retrieved from
http://www.openhighschool.org
St. Clair, G. (2008). The million book project in relation to Google. Journal of
Library Administration, 47(1-2), 151-163.
Trotter, Andrew. "The Open-Content Movement." Digital Directions 2.02
(2008): 27. General OneFile. Retrieved from:
http://find.galegroup.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu
References
Walker, A., & Leary, H. (2009). A problem based learning meta
analysis: Differences across problem types, implementation types,
disciplines, and assessment levels. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Problem Based Learning, 3(1), 12-43.
Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development
through understanding authentic professional learning. Review of
Educational Research, 79(2), 702-739. doi:
10.3102/0034654308330970
Wileya, D. & Gurrell, S. (2009). Context and catalyst: A decade of
development. Open Learning, 24(1), 11-21. doi:
10.1080/02680510802627746
Windle, R. J., Wharrad, H., McCormick, D., Laverty, H., & Taylor, M.
(2010). Sharing and reuse in OER: Experiences gained from open
reusable learning objects in health. Journal of Interactive Media in
Education, 1-18. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Remember to post your group’s
presentation to the class
Wiki page.