Upload
laura-czerniewicz
View
2.037
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Panel presentation from the University of Cape Town at Cambridge 2012: Innovation and Impact - Openly Collaborating to Enhance Education
Citation preview
From Project to Mainstream in a constrained environment:
Towards openness at the University of Cape Town
Laura CzerniewiczGregory Doyle
Glenda CoxCheryl Hodgkinson- Williams
Cambridge 2012, 16-18 April 2012
Structure of presentation
Institutional
Academic
TechnicalStudent tutor
Laura Czerniewicz
Glenda Cox
Cheryl Hodgkinson-Williams
Gregory Doyle
Institutional
Academic
TechnicalStudent tutor
Inculcating openness at UCT:An institutional perspective
Laura CzerniewiczDirector: OpenUCT Initiative
University of Cape [email protected]
Insti
tutio
nal p
ersp
ectiv
eSome premises
• OERs overlap with Open access and Elearning
• OER part of a broader open movement• Innovation usually starts with soft funding
(external & internal)• Institutional context and culture critical to how
OER and open agenda play out
Open access ElearningOER
Insti
tutio
nal p
ersp
ectiv
e
Policy definition:Tight
Policy definition:Loose
Control of implementation:
Loose
Control of implementation:
Tight
Institutional cultural types
Collegium
Enterprise Corporation
Bureaucracy
McNay, I. (1995). From collegial academy to corporate enterprise: The changing cultures of universities.
Insti
tutio
nal p
ersp
ectiv
e
Policy definition:Tight
Policy definition:Loose
Control of implementation:
Loose
Control of implementation:
Tight
Institutional cultural types
Collegium
Enterprise Corporation
Bureaucracy
Insti
tutio
nal p
ersp
ectiv
eThe collegium type
• Characterised by – loose institutional policy definition– informal networks and decision arenas– and innovation at the level of the individual or– department. (McNay 1995)
• The organisational response – ’laissez faire’, few targeted policies or processes
(Rossiter, 2007).– Core value of collegium is freedom
• Defines organizational expectations in terms of freedom from external controls (Yee-Tak 2006)
Insti
tutio
nal p
ersp
ectiv
eUniversity of Cape Town
• Oldest South African university – Top ranked African university– QS World University Rankings– The Times Higher Education World University
Rankings– Academic Ranking of World Universities
• Medium sized– +/- 25 000 students– 982 permanent academics (of 5 442 total staff)
Insti
tutio
nal p
ersp
ectiv
ePrestigious research university
• 5 Nobel Laureates• Booker Prize winner• Numerous internationally recognised research
initiatives– Africa Earth Observatory Network (AEON– The Department of Mathematics and Applied
Mathematics is an international centre for research in the fields of cosmology and topology.
– The Department of Physics is home to the UCT-CERN research centre,
– The Department of Electrical Engineering is involved in the development of technology for the Karoo Array Telescope (KAT), a precursor to the Square Kilometer Array
Insti
tutio
nal p
ersp
ectiv
eTeaching at UCT
• Residential• Face to face• Almost no distance ed• Not set up for “non-
traditional” courses
• Funding subsidy for headcount & throughput (not curriculum or content)
• Centre for Higher Educational Development active, strong academic development
2007
Open agenda at UCT: projects
2008
2010
2012
2013
2009
2011
Scholar
Scholar
Scholar
Community
Scholar
Student
2014
Opening Scholarship
Our approach to the openness agenda
in the light of UCT’s culture
Insti
tutio
nal p
ersp
ectiv
eStrategic approaches
• Individual agency/ control• Maximum flexibility • Network / community building• Enabling (not requiring)• Champions at different levels
Collegium culture:loose institutional policy definitioninformal networks and decision arenasand innovation at the level of the individual or department. (McNay 1995)
Insti
tutio
nal p
ersp
ectiv
eHistorically
• Opportunities for open agenda in the eLearning space (CHED)(rather than OA )– Contributed to change strategy
• No institutional repository
Insti
tutio
nal p
ersp
ectiv
eMultiplicity
• Multiple strategies• Many small sites of innovation and
activity, aiming for agglomeration across the institution, to achieve critical mass
• Change at all levels of the university• Develop networks and build community
Champions
• At senior level– DVC signs Cape Town Declaration (2008)– VC signs Berlin Declaration (2011)
Insti
tutio
nal p
ersp
ectiv
eChampions
• Senior & middle level• OER Health Sciences - Dean
Insti
tutio
nal p
ersp
ectiv
eChampions
• Bringing the work of “early adopters” above the radar
Insti
tutio
nal p
ersp
ectiv
eChampions & change
• In our experience of our cultural context– Senior level support symbolic– Vertical relationships do not cause change per
se, only when actual projects in place (eg HS)– Champions work best in horizontal networked
relationships, building communities of practice• New roles and reconfigurations
– The rise of the non-specialist “expert,” (or the “extended professional”)
Incentives: small grants • 9 small grants in
2011• £ 800 each• Health Science,
Engineering, Law, CHED, Science
• To create and/ or adapt OER
• From course level to smaller resources
Incentives: small grants
Insti
tutio
nal p
ersp
ectiv
eAcademic agency
• Decentralised uploading– Individual academics upload and maintain
their resources directly • Pride of authorship
– Quality assurance with the individual – Quality assurance part of broader teaching
and learning systems, not separate• Minimal moderation
– Copyright compliance
Insti
tutio
nal p
ersp
ectiv
eFlexibility
• Granularisation of resources important• Whole courses• Single resources
– Ebooks– Presentations– Podcasts– Lecture notes– Animations– Images
Insti
tutio
nal p
ersp
ectiv
eInstitutional Community
• IP Law Unit• Knowledge Co-op• Citizen Science projects in COL• Enterprise Content Management Project• Eresearch• Library• Communications Office• Faculties
Insti
tutio
nal p
ersp
ectiv
eNew IP policy
• Work enabled by new UCT IP Policy– Specifically addresses issues relating to the
creation of OER resources and the licensing processes to be followed
– Expressly states the support for publication of materials under Creative Commons licenses
How we are doing
in terms of institutional participation
Insti
tutio
nal p
ersp
ectiv
eGrowth to date
01-2010
01-2011
02-2010
02-2011
03-2010
03-2011
04-2010
05-2011
06-2010
06-2011
07-2010
07-2011
08-2010
08-2011
09-2010
09-2011
10-2010
10-2011
11-2010
12-2010
11-2011
1-2012
12-2011
2-2012
3-20120
50
100
150
200
250
Resources addedGrowth of total content
Insti
tutio
nal p
ersp
ectiv
eFaculty contributions
Faculty contributions February 2010- March 2012
24%
8%
4%
16%
34%
3%
11%
Centre for Higher Education DevelopmentCommerceEngineering and the Built EnvironmentHealth SciencesHumanitiesLawScience
Insti
tutio
nal p
ersp
ectiv
eTypes of resources
Audio28%
Downloadable Documents
39%Graph-
ics/Photos
1%
Other3%
Text/HTML Web-pages20%
Video10%
AudioDownloadable DocumentsGraphics/PhotosOtherText/HTML WebpagesVideo
Insti
tutio
nal p
ersp
ectiv
eConcluding comments
• A steady upswell rather than mainstream• Integration of resourcing requirements
into existing structures• Acceptance of non-linear organic process• Slow approach more likely to be
sustainable & effective• A research-based approach to inform
strategy
Insti
tutio
nal p
ersp
ectiv
eReferences
• Czerniewicz, L and Brown, C (2009) study of the relationship between institutional policy, organisational culture and e-learning use in four South African universities in Computers & Education 53 (2009) 121–131
• McNay, I (1995) From collegial academy to corporate enterprise: The changing cultures of universities. In T. Schuller (Ed.), The Changing University. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press
• Rossiter, D (2007) Whither e-learning? Conceptions of change and innovation in higher education. Journal of Organisational Transformation and Social Change. 4 (1), pp.93–107
• Yee-Tak , W (2006) Student Expectations in the New Millennium: An Explorative Study of Higher Education in Hong Kong, Dissertation, unpublished dissertation
Technological considerations when creating OER -
“the nuts and bolts”
Gregory DoyleFaculty of Health Sciences:
Education Development [email protected]
Institutional
Academic
TechnicalStudent tutor
Tech
nica
l per
spec
tive
Technical issues
OER team
Institution
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mandj98/3546292216/
Tech
nica
l per
spec
tive
UCT signs Cape Town Open Education Declaration 2008
http://www.capetowndeclaration.org/
http://www.slideshare.net/ShihaamD/finding-open-stuff
Tech
nica
l per
spec
tive
The ‘ordinary’ academic
• Enabling factors
• Division of Labour: Time and effort
http://teamdoubledouble.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/drivethruneon.jpg http://www.imageenvision.com/150/37952-clip-art-graphic-of-a-pink-guy-character-pushing-an-orange-orb-by-jester-arts.jpg
http://www.omnitechsupport.com/img/technical-support.gif
Tech
nica
l per
spec
tive
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
Tech
nica
l per
spec
tive
Raise OER awareness and
interest
Source content(volunteers)
Clear copyright (dScribe)
Package OER
Review OER (internal)
Publish OER(repository)Publicize OER
Production Process
Tech
nica
l per
spec
tive
Content creation
• Creating interactive modules – e.g., click and drag, simulations
• Lecture recording – Convert PPT to video– Automatically
• Video recording – Procedures / lectures– Converting videos – Camtasia or similar
Tech
nica
l per
spec
tive
Copyright clearance & packaging
• dScribe– Images – substitute / redraw / permission
• Packaging– Bandwidth (video, compressing,
annotating)• OER-tech mailing list
– Recommended Practices for Packaging and Distributing OER
Tech
nica
l per
spec
tive
Institutional issues
• How will resources be distributed
• What software platform to usehttp://www.marketingmo.com/common/files/distribution-channels.jpg?c34083
http://image.made-in-china.com/2f0j00FeaEfyuKANol/Stage-Platform-XF3-.jpg
Tech
nica
l per
spec
tive
How do people find UCT OER
http://www.slideshare.net/mpaskevi/365-days-of-openness
Tech
nica
l per
spec
tive
OER Support @ UCT
Tech
nica
l per
spec
tive
Conclusion
http://files.coloribus.com/files/adsarchive/part_213/2132805/file/motorcycle-courses-training-wheels-small-77878.jpg
http://scm-l3.technorati.com/10/07/19/15067/community-manager.jpg
Tech
nica
l per
spec
tive
Conclusion
http://files.coloribus.com/files/adsarchive/part_213/2132805/file/motorcycle-courses-training-wheels-small-77878.jpg
http://scm-l3.technorati.com/10/07/19/15067/community-manager.jpg
“Why would you do it, ... would a student actually be interested?” Understanding the
barriers and enablers to academic contribution to an OER directory
Glenda CoxCentre for Educational Technology
University of Cape [email protected]
Organisationalissues
Academic perspective
Technical issues
Student tutor
perspective
Acad
emic
per
spec
tive
About the research
6 interviewsScience. Engineering, Commerce and HumanitiesFrom Professors to LecturersPurposive sampling for range of faculty and rank
3 who have not contributed- to find out why notAnd 3 who have contributed, to find out why and
also why they feel their colleagues have not addedPilot study more to followTest Activity theory as a lens for understanding OER
contribution and non-contribution
Acad
emic
per
spec
tive Tools: OpenContent Directory, PDF’s, PPT< Video,
Podcasts
Object: Teaching materials for sharing
Division of Labour: Academic as teacher and as researcher, CET as facilitators (Power and status)
Community:academics, departments, the institution, OER team, students, users of Open Content
Subject: The academic
Rules: explicit and implicit norms that regulate the university (e.g. Promotion is based on research published)
Outcome: Open Education resources
The Activity system ( Engeström 1987)
Framing the interviewsTools: Are their aspects about the directory itself that prevent academics adding materials?
Object: Teaching materials for sharing
Division of Labour: Are you concerned about the time and effort it will take?
Community: Are their concerns around peers in the department not supporting OER? Are there concerns around poor quality materials?
Subject: The academic
Rules: Are concerns around the rules of promotion being based on research output and not teaching materials? Are there concerns about IP infringement or violation?
Outcome: Open Education resources
The Activity system (Interview questions)
FINDINGS
Barriers: purpose of OERsTools
Subject Object
Division of LabourCommunity
Rules
Pedagogical Concerns about the purpose and use of OER
Implicit rule:
Outcome: Open Education resources
“why would you do it;...would students actually be interested? And my materials “...may not make any sense to anybody else without lots of structure, and notes...” “Who cares?”“Not convinced it would make a big difference to someone”
Acad
emic
per
spec
tive
Barriers: concerns about qualityTools
SubjectObject
Division of LabourCommunity
Rules (implicit)Concerns about the quality of materials
“..it would take some time to get to the quality that I will be happy with to getting it online...”
Barriers: culture of sharingTools
Subject Object
Division of LabourCommunity
Rules
The influence of colleagues, no culture of sharing
“...It is not valued by my unit, so I wouldn’t worry about it”
Barriers: timeTools
Subject Object
Division of LabourCommunity
Rules
Time
Time
“there is a lot of extra work here...I do not have the time...”
Enablers: an obligation to shareTools
Subject Object
Division of LabourCommunity
Rules
Enablers
ValueOutcome: Open Education Resources
“ ... I think it's an obligation to share our knowledge with people who can’t afford these resources..." "...increase reachability of resources that were previously only available in a few places..."
Enablers: Content shareableTools
Subject Object
Division of LabourCommunity
Rules
Content shareable
Outcome: Open Education resources
“ Not all teaching materials are readily accessible in terms of structure and content...other courses we teach are not so full of such rich multimedia materials...”
Enablers: Technological abilityTools
Subject Object
Division of LabourCommunity
Rules
Outcome: Open Education Resources
Technological ability
“...I have set up a system over the years and it easy for me to record lectures and share them...it’s going to be hard to get everyone to buy into this sort of uniform model...”
Enablers: Small grantsTools
Subject Object
Division of LabourCommunity
Rules
Outcome: Open Education resources
Small grant
“...the grant bought student time to adapt the materials...”
Enablers: stage in careerTools
Subject Object
Division of LabourCommunity
Rules
Outcome: Open Education resourcesStage in
career
“...I am at the stage in my career where I am not worried about making money from text books...’...”
WHAT CAN BE DONE?In the light of these findings
Transforming academic practiceTools
Subject Object
Division of LabourCommunity
Rules
Outcome: Open Education resources
e.g. lecture recording, repository
Alt metrics, Citations and credit in University reward system
Cases of use and feedback
Part of academic practice, support and small grants
Transform the activity
Awareness of need and purpose
Acad
emic
per
spec
tive
Open Education: some questions
Is it a personal philosophy or can ‘we’ grow a culture of sharing within our institutions?
What are the enabling factors to support open practices for academics?
“It’s part of my campaign”Using Perceived Attributes as a framework to
understand postgraduate students’ adaptation of academics’ teaching materials as OER
Cheryl Hodgkinson-Williams &Michael Paskevicius
Cambridge 2012 Conference16-18 April 2012
Organisationalissues
Academic perspective
Technical issues
Student tutor
perspective
Stud
ent t
utor
per
spec
tive
Enablers and barriers to OER contribution
Organisational
Signing of CTOEDChampionsIncentives
No policyNo rewards
Technical
UCT OpenContent
directory
Limited technical expertise
Academic
Willingness
Lack of time
WHAT ENCOURAGES STUDENT TUTORS TO CREATE OER?
Stud
ent t
utor
per
spec
tive
Post-graduate students’ participation
• One way to support academics to rework existing materials is to use postgraduate students – Masters’ level – tutors, graduate assistants and interns
• Shuttleworth Foundation funding for 3 students in a department and 2 in the Centre for Educational Technology, Hewlett Foundation funding for 1 student in the Health OER project
• Process similar to that devised by the University of Michigan – DScribe process – participatory model for creating OER
Stud
ent t
utor
per
spec
tive
Research study• Little published on practice or theoretical
explanation of:– “What might encourage postgraduate students to
rework existing materials?”
• Case study research of 6 students– 3 employed by a department (interviewed)– 3 by OER projects
• 2 from the UCT OER project (interview & questionnaire)• 1 from the UCT Health OER project (interviewed)
Stud
ent t
utor
per
spec
tive
Theory• Use Moore and Benbasat’s extension of
Rogers’ Theory of Perceived Attributes to explain the adoption of the new innovation of creating OER:
Rogers (1983) Moore and Benbasat (1991)
Voluntariness
Image/Status
1. Relative Advantage Relative Advantage
2. Compatibility Compatibility
3. Ease of use Ease of use
4. Observabiity Result demonstrability
Visibility
5. Trialability Trialability
Stud
ent t
utor
per
spec
tive
Compatibility
Departmental policy of sharingDepartmental open initiativesDepartmental website with open materialsAcademics’ personal websitesAcademics’ online textbooksStudents’ community engagementStudents’ online research activitiesStudents’ engagement with social mediaStudents’ interest in the OER contentStudents’ altruistic dispositions
I like to link to university sites to help answer
other peoples’ questions. It’s part of my
campaign. (Student 2)
Stud
ent t
utor
per
spec
tive
Relative advantage
• Relative advantage (more institutional than personal)– Institutional OER directory and/or repository– Indexing system of materials– Licensing system– Funds available I think it’s good for their PR in some
ways, just to have a centralised presentation from UCT [department] to say this is what we can provide, and say to anybody this is what you can look at.
(Student 1)
Stud
ent t
utor
per
spec
tive
Ease of use
Familiarity with dScribe processAbility to find alterative imagesAbility to use a range of softwareKnowledge of Creative Commons licensing
So it takes work for the lecturers to create new content. Whereas what we did it did not require that
much work from the lecturers side (Student 3).
Stud
ent t
utor
per
spec
tive
Status
Perception that institution’s image will be enhancedPerception that department’s profile will be raisedPerception that OER development enhances their CVs
A good thing to be a part of; it looks good on your CV that always motivates people (Student 2).
Stud
ent t
utor
per
spec
tive
Voluntariness
Willing to participate without paymentDeveloping OER as part of community service
I think we could have done it without being paid. Being paid was just a nice bonus (Student 1). … As you know we were paid to do this process, and we may have done it anyway, but it was good to get paid in order to help prioritize (Student 2).
There is a specific amount of community service and volunteer that you must do. I don’t see why this can’t be on the list, this thing is so big like building a house, important … they should put that on the list (Student 4).
Stud
ent t
utor
per
spec
tive
Visibility
Presence of OER platform
For many academics, there would have been no place previously where they could share teaching resources they were really proud of. So the project provided avenues for academics to share the content they created, providing visibility for themselves and the university (Student 6).
Stud
ent t
utor
per
spec
tive
Result demonstrability
Alterative metrics for measuring use of OER
As one can … track when social media is accessed, one can develop new metrics for measuring impact and engagement with the wider community (Student 6).
Stud
ent t
utor
per
spec
tive
Trialability
Control over uploading of OER
Yea there will be a link on the [departmental] web site. So perhaps what I can do is also put the links on the OpenContent. But we are sort of in the middle of trying to decide whether to post them locally or put them on YouTube. YouTube has its advantages and we cannot stream video locally. So we will probably offer both local download and YouTube (Student 3).
Stud
ent t
utor
per
spec
tive
What encourages student tutors to create OER?
Digital identity?
Compatibility
Voluntariness
Trialability
Ease of use
References
• Moore, G.C. & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3): 192-222.
• Rogers, E.M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations (3rd edition). New York: The Free Press.
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 South Africa License. To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/za/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.
AuthorsLaura Czerniewicz [email protected]
Glenda Cox [email protected] Cheryl Hodgkinson-Williams [email protected]
Michael Paskevicius [email protected] Gregory Doyle [email protected]
OpenContent Directory: http://opencontent.uct.ac.zaCompanion site on Vula: https://vula.uct.ac.za/portal/site/openuct
OER UCT project blog: http://blogs.uct.ac.za/blog/oer-uctOpenUCT Initiative: http://openuct.uct.ac.za/
OpeningScholarship : http://openingscholarship.uct.ac.za/
Follow us: http://twitter.com/openuctPresentations: http://www.slideshare.net/laura_Cz