1. Learning with and through open wikis
An OER case study
Benjamin Kehrwald

2. Key Issue
Can ‘openness’ be realised within existing institutional and systemic limitations? What changes are implied?
Openness may be officially encouraged and rhetorically praised,
the reality is that universities compete for students, and that collaboration in this context seems to produce losers as well as winner (see also Cardini, 2006). This situation is unlikely to change any time soon, given the continuing marketization of higher education provision as part of a broader neoliberal agenda by governments, certainly in Western countries (Danaher, Gale, & Erben, 2000). Furthermore, and as a consequence of that agenda, the social construction of knowledge and the status of learners as autonomous agents sit uneasily beside the entrenched privileging of individualized assessment of students’ learning and practices such as the increased use of plagiarism detection software.

3. Underpinnings
Both the technology tools which are employed in open learning and the ways those tools are created and developed can be ‘open’
Open wikis lie at the intersection of two significant applications of learning technology
OERs
Collaborative authoring environments
Open educational wikis would seem to provide alternatives to ‘closed’ institutional systems

4. Background and Context
Instructional Design for e-learning
Postgraduate course
2 semesters of work: half ‘theory’, half ‘practice’
Course available in parallel online versions:
Massey’s LMS
WikiEducator
Design project: teams of 4-5 students design and develop a unit of work
Project materials to exist on WikiEducator
The course is part of the College’s specialized Master of Education programs in Distance and Online Learning, Educational Technologies, and E-Learning.
The program caters to in-service educators in a variety of sectors of education from pre-schooling/early years education, through all levels of schooling, post compulsory education, and lifelong and lifewide learning.
The intent of the course is to provide learners with a foundational understanding of (a) instructional and learning design processes, (b) key views of learning and related pedagogical approaches, (c) the role and potential uses of technology to support learning, (d) familiarity with a range of contemporary learning technologies, and (e) hands-on experience with practical design work for e-learning situations.
The design of the course involves a balance of theoretical and practical work. The course includes three theory modules on the basics of instructional design, exploration of learning technologies, and issues related to design for e-learning. A key component of the course is the design project which requires learners to work in a design team with a particular design brief to produce a complete set of materials for a unit of work within a learning program. Fully one-third of the course is devoted to a practical design project which involves the creation of an OER on WE.

5. Key Issue
Can ‘openness’ be realised within existing institutional and systemic limitations? What changes are implied?
On the one hand, inter-institutional collaboration is officially encouraged and rhetorically praised, on the grounds of conserving resources and maximizing sustainability. This approach is underpinned by a view of knowledge as being socially constructed and by an understanding of learners as autonomous agents. On the other hand, the reality is that universities compete for students, and that collaboration in this context seems to produce losers as well as winner (see also Cardini, 2006). This situation is unlikely to change any time soon, given the continuing marketization of higher education provision as part of a broader neoliberal agenda by governments, certainly in Western countries (Danaher, Gale, & Erben, 2000). Furthermore, and as a consequence of that agenda, the social construction of knowledge and the status of learners as autonomous agents sit uneasily beside the entrenched privileging of individualized assessment of students’ learning and practices such as the increased use of plagiarism detection software.

6. Discussion Points
In what ways does the institution’s T&L infrastructure support openness?
What ‘roadblocks’ to openness exist?
Consider
Materials production processes
Copyright of existing and original material
Intellectual property policies
‘supported’ vs. ‘unsupported’ toolsets
Learner needs/learner experience
Cost of innovation

7. Discussion points
Is it better to … Provide a ‘open’ resource at the exclusion of high quality ‘closed’ content (e.g. authoritative readings) OR Provide the highest quality content at the expense of openness?

8. Discussion points
Is it better to … ‘Play by the rules’ of institutional policy re IP, copyright, etc… OR Trade compliance for improved learner experience (ask forgiveness rather than permission)

9. Discussion points
Is it better to … Introduce new (open) e-learning tools OR Stick with an established toolset with centralised institutional support

10. Discussion points
Is it better to … Provide a unique ‘eye opening’ learner experience (with a high cost in learner time) OR Provide a consistent, familiar learning experience (which allows learners to focus on particular content)?

11. Full case study
Kehrwald, B. A., & Danaher, P. A. (2010). Wikis as open educational resources in higher education: Overcoming challenges, realizing potential. In A. K. Haghi & R. Lupuccini (Eds.), Cases on Digital Technologies in Higher Education (pp ): IGI Global.