Presentation on theme: "Elaboration on the Health OER Evaluation Framework Critical perspectives on the Institutional presentations."— Presentation transcript:
Elaboration on the Health OER Evaluation Framework Critical perspectives on the Institutional presentations
Framework Domain of sustainability Evidence of Sustainability Within individual institutions Long-lasting institutional disposition towards OER Cultural goods such as artefacts, pictures, books, etc. (i.e. OER!) Formalised codes and / or regulations Across individual institutions: the broader social level Collaboration within an emerging community of practice across institutions in order to realise the full potential of OER (adaptation, reuse, etc.)
Origins of framework: Health OER evaluation on sustainability Domains ‘within’ and ‘across’ institutions are drawn from Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of ‘cultural’ and ‘social’ capital. But for Bourdieu, cultural capital explains how social inequalities are reproduced. So can this concept be used to capture sustainability of OER (designed for much more noble intentions!)? The framework was used in institutions with very different starting points in relation to OER.
1 Long-lasting dispositions to OER (acceptability, relevance, and preparedness for OER) strong evidence that an OER culture has taken hold, and that it exists at a deep-seated level informed by reflection on experience not yet a sufficient critical mass of academics who are confident, competent and active in OER production and use to ensure OER sustainability, but there are signs that the culture of OER is spreading slowly but surely.
2. Production of OER Very impressive progress in production of diverse OER, from ‘learning objects’ to case studies and learning guides for complete modules. A positive feature for sustainability: OER were developed to meet particular needs, and therefore have relevance. On the other hand (a) faculty have struggled with workloads and finding time in which to complete OER; (b) very little re-use or adaptation of OER from elsewhere.
3. Formalised codes: Policy development An active pool of champions are ‘driving’ institutionalization in three of the four institutions, a clear OER policy or strategy has been completed or is well advanced very different approaches to policy development nevertheless all show a strong logical consistency with: the type of OER being produced; chosen mode of production; stance on quality assurance; incentives for production, etc.
4. Social capital: networking, communities of practice little or no networking across partner institutions: (a)progress is viewed incrementally, one step at a time (b)staff workload is an obstacle OER management and the website are extending networks
The framework in relation to presentations: Different starting points Health OER: working from production towards (a) using existing OER and (b) community of practice TESSA and ACE Maths: began their project with networking and community of practice; and built in measures to facilitate re-use & adaptation. Agshare: Key departure point – focussing on curriculum design. USIU: grounded OER development (students’ case studies) and extensive networking Kamuzu NC : adapted U-M materials PHEA (JOS) : used Bunda Agricultural College Module 4 (Listening skills) – but adapted it. Kenyatta used existing materials – to what effect?
Discipline-specific differences Health OER: Disciplines are different (health uses sensitive images - Kathleen) PHEA: Haramaya’s OERs were found by JHb people (problematic – surely only teachers in specific contexts know their own needs.) The need is for subject-specific knowledge.
Overall Differences in approach to OER at all levels: Between individual HEIs within Health OER Between Health OER and other projects Between other projects themselves Between specific disciplines in terms of the nature of OER used/ developed
Despite differences … degrees of success. How do we explain this? Sustainability is achieved through OER development/ use that meets specific needs and purposes in different contexts. In Health OER, this means achievement of: OER Credibility: (because OER development has been based on needs and priorities). OER Viability: Because of credibility, champions exercise agency and opportunism in developing measures to make OER viable.
Question 1: Is the needs-based explanation of (relative) success true of projects other than Health OER? I think it is – because OER is a tool, and like any tool, can be put to different uses. What do you think?
Question 2: What is the challenge? The key challenge in Health OER arises from tensions between two proven propositions that inform the project: 1African-produced OER are necessary (Rationale : OER from the developed world do not address the specificity of the African context) 2The OER value proposition (Use of existing OER reduces teaching loads, makes teaching more effective in difficult circumstances (such as large student numbers), and enhances quality.
Challenge for projects that start with using existing OER? How do they ever address uniquely African conditions, e.g. Buruli ulcer? I think the tension is the same (i.e. the need for African produced OER in relation to the OER value proposition).
For discussion 1 Is it true that for OER to take hold and flourish in very different hands and settings, OER strategy must be based on authentic needs – it can’t be an OER orthodoxy or model that is imposed. OER is essential, but it’s just a tool, a means of meeting the aim of better teaching. 2 Is the key challenge one of managing the tension between the need for African-produced OER and the more general OER value proposition?