Main Nav

Hi Everyone,

I've been thinking (a dangerous thing for me to do, I'll admit): While the definition for OERs has been standardized, I'm not so confident in any standard definition for "Open Education", and in some ways:"Open Course" (not Open CourseWare).  Most articles that talk about Open Education include references to OERs and free courses that are not OERs, which then leads to confusion over terms that include the words: Open and Course, and even Education.

Wikipedia's current definition states that "Open Education is a collective term that refers to educational organizations that seek to eliminate barriers to entry. Such institutions, for example, would not have academic admission requirements. Such universities include Open University in Britain and Athabasca University in Canada. Such programs are commonly distance learning programs, but not necessarily." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_education

David Wiley's Openness in Education Course: http://openeducation.us/ has been a wonderful tool for us at Empire State to clarify terms. The course title Openness in Education has one meaning (which to me is clear), while the URL is openeducation (which I'm not so sure about).  Would we say there is a difference between Openness in Education and Open Education? I think we would, but maybe not all would agree?

And we have terms like "Open decentralized course" http://edfutures.com/blogs/gsiemens/what-open-decentralized-course

And MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) and Open Courses like those offered through P2P, but are the Coursera courses MOOCs? or MOCs? Or simply "free"?  Will students use/understand this definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massive_open_online_course I'm guessing, from reading the EdX's pages that the only thing that will be "open" may be its platform--which they are going to release as an open source application. http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2012/edx-faq-050212.html

Educators use OERs, so it makes sense that we would understand and use the correct definition, but the consumer (learner) wouldn't necessarily need to use that term--except when they think of them in the same frame as Open Education. The other terms (especially Open Course, and Open Education) will be used by educators and non-educators alike. Students care about free and unrestricted access to courses and knowledge (what they might term as Open Education), even if it's not licensed under an open license.
I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this and even your definition of Open Education, and Open Course.

It's nice to have a great group of knowledgeable people to throw these questions out to :). Thanks so much!

Ellen


Ellen Marie Murphy

Director of Online Curriculum
SUNY Empire State College
113 West Ave
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
518-587-2100 Ext: 2961
twitter: ellen_marie

********** Participation and subscription information for this EDUCAUSE Constituent Group discussion list can be found at http://www.educause.edu/groups/.

Comments

Hi Ellen,

I agree, the word open has been used way too loosely in the last couple of years, leading to what Anya Kamenetz called "Openwashing". [1]

The big difference comes in considering if a student is consuming a course, or engaging in a course. If all you want is a computerized absorb/test experience, free as in "gratis" is what you are looking for. I would call that a free online course. Udacity or Coursera are examples.

If you want to engage in the class, scaffold and discuss, then the licensing become important. At that point, you'll want a free and open course, as in "gratis" and "freedom of reuse", since you'll be learning in the open, and expecting to build and remix cultural and instructional artifacts to share with the world. I would call that an open course. Wiley's course and DS106 would fall in that category.

And then massiveness depends on how many people can take it at any given time.

Not sure I answered you question, but let keep this going!

[1] http://www.fastcompany.com/1790122/pearson-blackboard

==================================
Mathieu Plourde, MBA
Project Leader, LMS/Educational Technologist
IT Client Support & Services
mathieu@udel.edu
Office: 302-831-4060
==================================
IT Support Center: http://www.udel.edu/help
Sakai@UD Support and Training: http://www.udel.edu/sakai/training
Open Education at UD Blog: http://sites.udel.edu/open/



Thanks for jumping in on this Mathieu,  Actually, I'm taking the Human Computer Interaction course with Coursera, and it's quite interactive. While a student can opt to simply take the quizzes, there is also a studio option that requires students to complete projects and participate in peer assessment. Students have formed all sorts of groups within the context of the course, and there are some great discussions going on. The projects are challenging, and so are the peer assessments--you actually have to complete several practice assessments (and score well on them) before you can progress to assessing your peers. The peer assessments are what determine your grade (the mode, not the mean is used to eliminate outliers). It's quite an experience, and I'm finding it to be very interesting.  With that said, I"m wondering about your second paragraph. Students can certainly share their work (it is, after all, their work) so licensing would be up to individual students rather than the course itself. The course does not have an open license, but theoretically the world could join the course.


Ellen

Ellen Marie Murphy
Director of Online Curriculum
SUNY Empire State College
113 West Ave
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
518-587-2100 Ext: 2961
twitter: ellen_marie



From:        Mathieu Plourde <mathieu@UDEL.EDU>
To:        OPENNESS@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU,
Date:        06/08/2012 02:04 PM
Subject:        Re: [OPENNESS] Open Education vs Open Education Resources
Sent by:        The EDUCAUSE OPENNESS Constituent Group Listserv <OPENNESS@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU>



Hi Ellen,

I agree, the word open has been used way too loosely in the last couple of years, leading to what Anya Kamenetz called "Openwashing". [1]

The big difference comes in considering if a student is consuming a course, or engaging in a course. If all you want is a computerized absorb/test experience, free as in "gratis" is what you are looking for. I would call that a free online course. Udacity or Coursera are examples.

If you want to engage in the class, scaffold and discuss, then the licensing become important. At that point, you'll want a free and open course, as in "gratis" and "freedom of reuse", since you'll be learning in the open, and expecting to build and remix cultural and instructional artifacts to share with the world. I would call that an open course. Wiley's course and DS106 would fall in that category.

And then massiveness depends on how many people can take it at any given time.

Not sure I answered you question, but let keep this going!

[1] http://www.fastcompany.com/1790122/pearson-blackboard

==================================
Mathieu Plourde, MBA
Project Leader, LMS/Educational Technologist
IT Client Support & Services
mathieu@udel.edu
Office: 302-831-4060
==================================
IT Support Center: http://www.udel.edu/help
Sakai@UD Support and Training: http://www.udel.edu/sakai/training
Open Education at UD Blog: http://sites.udel.edu/open/



Great info about Coursera. Nice to see you still going strong as a moockie.

My concern with the openness would be related to the embedding or remixing of resources found in the course itself. Is it ok for someone to download an assignment, paste it in their blog, and answer the questions there, in the open? Or is it possible to embed a video in a blog post and comment on it? That's the level of openness I'm talking about.

==================================
Mathieu Plourde, MBA
Project Leader, LMS/Educational Technologist
IT Client Support & Services
mathieu@udel.edu
Office: 302-831-4060
==================================
IT Support Center: http://www.udel.edu/help
Sakai@UD Support and Training: http://www.udel.edu/sakai/training
Open Education at UD Blog: http://sites.udel.edu/open/



Ah ha, got it. Thanks for clarification on what you meant :)  So, your definition (or maybe the definition) of Open Courses as only those that have an open license?
Also, how about Open Education?

Oh, and yes I agree: let's keep the discussion going.

Ellen

Ellen Marie Murphy
Director of Online Curriculum
SUNY Empire State College
113 West Ave
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
518-587-2100 Ext: 2961
twitter: ellen_marie

-----The EDUCAUSE OPENNESS Constituent Group Listserv <OPENNESS@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> wrote: -----
To: OPENNESS@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
From: Mathieu Plourde
Sent by: The EDUCAUSE OPENNESS Constituent Group Listserv
Date: 06/08/2012 03:33PM
Subject: Re: [OPENNESS] Open Education vs Open Education Resources

Great info about Coursera. Nice to see you still going strong as a moockie.

My concern with the openness would be related to the embedding or remixing of resources found in the course itself. Is it ok for someone to download an assignment, paste it in their blog, and answer the questions there, in the open? Or is it possible to embed a video in a blog post and comment on it? That's the level of openness I'm talking about.

==================================
Mathieu Plourde, MBA
Project Leader, LMS/Educational Technologist
IT Client Support & Services
mathieu@udel.edu
Office: 302-831-4060
==================================
IT Support Center: http://www.udel.edu/help
Sakai@UD Support and Training: http://www.udel.edu/sakai/training
Open Education at UD Blog: http://sites.udel.edu/open/



I would define Open Education as any process where educational institutions make all or part of their courses available on the open web, for anyone to access their content or take them.

==================================
Mathieu Plourde, MBA
Project Leader, LMS/Educational Technologist
IT Client Support & Services
mathieu@udel.edu
Office: 302-831-4060
==================================
IT Support Center: http://www.udel.edu/help
Sakai@UD Support and Training: http://www.udel.edu/sakai/training
Open Education at UD Blog: http://sites.udel.edu/open/



Message from david.wiley@gmail.com

I would say that open education is the umbrella term that covers everything we're doing with openness as a lever to try to expand access to educational opportunity to the entire world. OER are part of it; open teaching is part of it, open access is to research part of it, open assessment is part of it, open badges and other open credentials are part of it, open policies are part of it, etc. In my mind, all of these things we do using openness as a tool to expand access to educational opportunity are "open education." To your other question / point - my course uses the openeducation domain name because it covers all these aspects. Problematically, in practice many people tend to confuse the terms OER and open education. This is the reason I titled my class Openness in Education, so that people would know that class is about more than OER. But in my mind it is the "open education" class, and when people get a little more nuance or sophistication in how they use the jargon, I'll call it that. D
Hi David,

Thanks for responding to this discussion. I'm sorry if it appeared I was in any way criticizing the domain name--I truly wasn't. I clearly understood that the course was not about OERs. I actually used your course this year as a way to have the college become familiar with openness--I've had several individuals go through the entire course already (and earn badges), and then present what they learned to the rest of the college.

I am, in some ways, acting as a devil's advocate to try to get to a common understanding of some of these terms. They are everywhere in the Media, and there is much discussion around credentialing.  You've offered that "open education" is everything we're doing with openness as a lever to try to expand access to educational opportunity to the entire world." I would guess that this definition would leave out Coursera, EdX, and other similar offerings. Is that the case?

Do the individuals who benefit most from this consider the umbrella of open education to be all of the options available: both the open and the not so open, and would they be very incorrect in their thinking? Will the colloquial use win out? Where do we draw the line? Is it a strict definition or are there grey areas?  I'm really just asking these things because I do believe that definitions, clearly articulated and agreed on by the vast majority, is the best way to keep from having misunderstandings.

:)

Ellen

Ellen Marie Murphy
Director of Online Curriculum
SUNY Empire State College
113 West Ave
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
518-587-2100 Ext: 2961
twitter: ellen_marie

-----The EDUCAUSE OPENNESS Constituent Group Listserv <OPENNESS@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> wrote: -----
To: OPENNESS@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
From: David Wiley
Sent by: The EDUCAUSE OPENNESS Constituent Group Listserv
Date: 06/08/2012 04:41PM
Subject: Re: [OPENNESS] Open Education vs Open Education Resources

I would say that open education is the umbrella term that covers
everything we're doing with openness as a lever to try to expand
access to educational opportunity to the entire world. OER are part of
it; open teaching is part of it, open access is to research part of
it, open assessment is part of it, open badges and other open
credentials are part of it, open policies are part of it, etc. In my
mind, all of these things we do using openness as a tool to expand
access to educational opportunity are "open education."

To your other question / point - my course uses the openeducation
domain name because it covers all these aspects. Problematically, in
practice many people tend to confuse the terms OER and open education.
This is the reason I titled my class Openness in Education, so that
people would know that class is about more than OER. But in my mind it
is the "open education" class, and when people get a little more
nuance or sophistication in how they use the jargon, I'll call it
that.

D

Message from ken.udas@gmail.com

Hello,

I hope that all is well.  I appreciate where this is heading.  I would like to get thoughts on how much of the traditional formal learning experience has to be open to qualify as "open education?" For example...
  • Course Content
  • Learning Design
  • Instruction and Support
  • Delivery Technology
  • The Artifacts Created During Participation in an Open Course
  • Pedagogical Intent
  • Learning Activities
  • Assessments
  • Assessment
  • Externally Used Resources
  • Curriculum (programmatic coherence)
  • Credentialing (course and program level)
  • Certification

What else?

In each case, what depth of openness is necessary?
  • Use
  • Reuse
  • Derivative Works
  • Economic Access (open to everybody irrespective of their financial means)

I am sure that there is much more, but I am wondering if there are legitimate shades of openness, and if so, is there a reliable means of codifying them, and if so, would doing so be at all desirable?  Are there degrees of openness that perhaps ought to be recognized?  For example, is it important to recognize in some formal way that although a course may be designed with open content, it may not be open admission, its access may be prohibitively high do to price, it may rely on external content that is not open, use file formats that are not open, software that does not use open standards, may be restricted for only non-profit use, etc.



Cheers & Thanks,

Ken 






On 6/8/12 4:40 PM, David Wiley wrote:
I would say that open education is the umbrella term that covers everything we're doing with openness as a lever to try to expand access to educational opportunity to the entire world. OER are part of it; open teaching is part of it, open access is to research part of it, open assessment is part of it, open badges and other open credentials are part of it, open policies are part of it, etc. In my mind, all of these things we do using openness as a tool to expand access to educational opportunity are "open education." To your other question / point - my course uses the openeducation domain name because it covers all these aspects. Problematically, in practice many people tend to confuse the terms OER and open education. This is the reason I titled my class Openness in Education, so that people would know that class is about more than OER. But in my mind it is the "open education" class, and when people get a little more nuance or sophistication in how they use the jargon, I'll call it that. D
Message from mackintosh.wayne@gmail.com

Kia ora,

In addition, we need to think how existing concepts in the research literature which have evolved, albeit from a different history, inform this discussion. For example:

The philosophy and practice associated with the concept of "Open learning" which underpins a number of conceptual frameworks in the distance education research literature and its corresponding concept of "Open Distance Learning" (ODL).  There are parallels between more contemporary thinking about openness in the internet age and the history of distance education but should be considered as we move forward with better clarity and understanding of "Openness"

Wayne

Message from mackintosh.wayne@gmail.com

Hi Ken,

Ken asked, what else?

I would add issues like:

  • (Open? )Governance
  • (Open?) Management
  • (Open?) Policy
  • (Open?) Business
I think these are important facets of the evolving ecosystem of "Open" 

Wayne


I totally agree with Wayne on these and feel they are often overlooked. I think it is fair to say Canvas, Moodle and Sakai all have different approaches to the items Wayne lists. The ability to participate in the organization that creates, distributes, manages open resources can add additional value. Understanding what role you or your institution can play in/with the organization/community is just as important as understanding use/reuse/remix/redistribution. Patrick Wayne Mackintosh <mackintosh.wayne@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
Hi Ken,

Ken asked, what else?

I would add issues like:

  • (Open? )Governance
  • (Open?) Management
  • (Open?) Policy
  • (Open?) Business
I think these are important facets of the evolving ecosystem of "Open" 

Wayne


Message from mackintosh.wayne@gmail.com

Hi Patrick,

Based on our experiences, open governance and open planning processes add tremendous value -- at the OER Foundation, open philanthropy and radical transparency is a matter of policy for our organisation which filters through to our flagship projects.

For example, the OER university network is an international collaboration of universities, colleges and polytechnics which aims to provide free learning opportunities for all students worldwide using OER courses with pathways to achieve formal academic credit towards credible degrees.  This network will be able to accredit OER learning in North America, Africa, Asia and Oceania. All our planning activities are conducted openly and transparently in the wiki and all our international anchor partner meetings have been streamed on the Internet with planned sessions and breakouts integrated into the meeting open meeting agendas for the open community to contribute to our planning processes. (See for instance  the OERu 2011.11 meeting of founding anchor partners.) In other words -- anyone with an internet connection is free to assist with planning the OER university initiative.   

There is still a lot we need to learn about open governance, open planning, open business models etc.  -- but committing to open processes means we learn a lot faster ;-) Moreover, as the outputs of all our planning activities are openly licensed -- they are free for others to reuse, adapt and modify and hopefully contribute back to improving our work. I hope that in this way we can stop reinventing wheels.

Wayne

Amen brother! I've been looking at a variety of open source maturity models that could serve as a reference model for individuals and institutions to not only assess the authenticity (level? type?) of openness within a community of practice (or, that is, the affordances that organization enables), but also as a tool for open organizations themselves that wish to their realize the potential of openness (perhaps a model for causality). I think what you have described provides an excellent reference implementation. I wonder how one might be able to qualify your practices? That is, are there specific activities and artifacts generated that can serve as evidence of "openness." Of course this assumes we have a set of practices recognized as contributors, dependencies, etc. for creating and maintaining openness. Patrick Sent from my Commodore 64 Wayne Mackintosh <mackintosh.wayne@GMAIL.COM> wrote:
Hi Patrick,

Based on our experiences, open governance and open planning processes add tremendous value -- at the OER Foundation, open philanthropy and radical transparency is a matter of policy for our organisation which filters through to our flagship projects.

For example, the OER university network is an international collaboration of universities, colleges and polytechnics which aims to provide free learning opportunities for all students worldwide using OER courses with pathways to achieve formal academic credit towards credible degrees.  This network will be able to accredit OER learning in North America, Africa, Asia and Oceania. All our planning activities are conducted openly and transparently in the wiki and all our international anchor partner meetings have been streamed on the Internet with planned sessions and breakouts integrated into the meeting open meeting agendas for the open community to contribute to our planning processes. (See for instance  the OERu 2011.11 meeting of founding anchor partners.) In other words -- anyone with an internet connection is free to assist with planning the OER university initiative.   

There is still a lot we need to learn about open governance, open planning, open business models etc.  -- but committing to open processes means we learn a lot faster ;-) Moreover, as the outputs of all our planning activities are openly licensed -- they are free for others to reuse, adapt and modify and hopefully contribute back to improving our work. I hope that in this way we can stop reinventing wheels.

Wayne

Message from mackintosh.wayne@gmail.com

Patrick

Good questions. 

I think the best artifact is the live and dynamic evolution of the OERu logic model from the planning portal page.  This documents the OERu project in an open and transparent way. 

The structure and refinement of the logic model was discussed at the very first meeting, which was also streamed live on the Internet with contributions from the open community. 

So where this gets interesting from the perspective of the Open Education Resource Foundation (Note our selection of the umbrella concept of "Open Education" was intentional -- not a typo) is how open governance functions across flagship initiatives of the Foundation. 

So for example, the WikiEducator community (one of our flagship projects) has its own Open Governance Policy  and the OER Foundation supports the WikiEducator community in accordance with the WikiEducator community policies. This requirement is part of the legal constitution of the OER Foundation. 

As the OERu network matures, I imagine that it will develop its own open community governance policies in open consultation with the anchor partners drawing on the foundations established and lessons learned from the  WikiEducator community. We have not taken any firm decisions on the optimal governance model to accommodate the needs of flagship projects under the OERF umbrella which provides the legal and financial foundations for independent open education projects.  The Apache Foundation and Mozilla Foundation provide successful examples of how this could function  - but we will need to think about whether any tweaks are necessary for the formal education sector. Rest assured -- these discussion will take place openly and transparently as a matter of policy.

The dimension often overlooked in the OER world is the question of financial sustainability.  Other than the Wikimedia Foundation, I'm not aware of any mainstream OER project which is financially sustainable in its own right, without reliance on government or donor funding.

The approach we adopted at the OER Foundation was to prioritise financial sustainability from inception. We have a very small operational budget -- which constrains what we would really like to do. However, the payback is that we are on the verge of achieving our break-even point for a self-sustaining open education project. Its a harder path to follow but in the long term will pay huge dividends for our partners.

Wayne  





   

Message from ken.udas@gmail.com

Good Morning,

I hope that all is well.  I do not want to interrupt this exchange.  It is great to get a feel for the broad nature of openness, some of the connections, and learn about some great and perhaps eventually historic applications (at least instructive applications).  It seems that the we, at least in this thread, have moved from Open Educational Resources, to open education, to openness in education, to open organization.  Let me know if you see this differently. I have another question or two:

What are some of the connections between between open education (some of the stuff listed in terms of OER, curriculum, assessment, credentialing, etc.) and open organization (the stuff that Wayne and Pat have been introducing - governance, management, policy, business, etc.)? 

I was thinking that, for example, "green energy or green energy technology" does not have to be produced by an operationally "green" organization. And "green" organizations do not need to produce "green" products.  Is there this type of disconnection with openness as well? 

I guess that what I am asking is if all of the "educational" artifacts (content, processes, services, etc.) created and made avaialbe by a university are open, by whaterver definition of opnness we choose, but the university does not exhibit openness (it is itself is not open), does that have any impact on anything?  It there a separation between artifacts and the processes used to create them, and the organization responsible for them?

I remember in the earlier days of WikiEducator, when Wayne and others were leading the development of some form of governance, Wayne was taking great pains to create an open structure that would support open governance and was attempting to do so in an open manner. This felt like more than a rhetorical tautology. I recall it being difficult, time consuming and subject not only to critique, but to criticism, and sometimes to a bit of hostility even within the community.  I am sure that these efforts had (and have) a purpose.  What is it?  Why do we invest in the hard work of open governance, and why is it important?

I have another question, but it will wait.

Cheers & Thanks,

Ken

 


On 6/9/12 12:15 AM, Wayne Mackintosh wrote:
Patrick

Good questions. 

I think the best artifact is the live and dynamic evolution of the OERu logic model from the planning portal page.  This documents the OERu project in an open and transparent way. 

The structure and refinement of the logic model was discussed at the very first meeting, which was also streamed live on the Internet with contributions from the open community. 

So where this gets interesting from the perspective of the Open Education Resource Foundation (Note our selection of the umbrella concept of "Open Education" was intentional -- not a typo) is how open governance functions across flagship initiatives of the Foundation. 

So for example, the WikiEducator community (one of our flagship projects) has its own Open Governance Policy  and the OER Foundation supports the WikiEducator community in accordance with the WikiEducator community policies. This requirement is part of the legal constitution of the OER Foundation. 

As the OERu network matures, I imagine that it will develop its own open community governance policies in open consultation with the anchor partners drawing on the foundations established and lessons learned from the  WikiEducator community. We have not taken any firm decisions on the optimal governance model to accommodate the needs of flagship projects under the OERF umbrella which provides the legal and financial foundations for independent open education projects.  The Apache Foundation and Mozilla Foundation provide successful examples of how this could function  - but we will need to think about whether any tweaks are necessary for the formal education sector. Rest assured -- these discussion will take place openly and transparently as a matter of policy.

The dimension often overlooked in the OER world is the question of financial sustainability.  Other than the Wikimedia Foundation, I'm not aware of any mainstream OER project which is financially sustainable in its own right, without reliance on government or donor funding.

The approach we adopted at the OER Foundation was to prioritise financial sustainability from inception. We have a very small operational budget -- which constrains what we would really like to do. However, the payback is that we are on the verge of achieving our break-even point for a self-sustaining open education project. Its a harder path to follow but in the long term will pay huge dividends for our partners.

Wayne  





   

Message from mackintosh.wayne@gmail.com

Hey Ken,

I can see that an experienced open practitioner is behind these questions :-) These are excellent questions. 

The parallel you draw between "green" and "organisations" is a good one imho. 

For us "open" is a way of life in what we do, its part of our DNA and organisational culture. In the real world some organisations are more open than others, and that's fine.  I think there are similarities with "green philosophy". 

There is a price associated with being a "green" organisation, e.g. it could add to the cost of production. Similarly, there is a price to being open -- radical transparency means that everything is open including critique and hostility. This requires tenacity, extra time and effort to remain true to the values of openness. The payback in the long term is that there is a transparent digital history which builds trust in the organisation, its values and its people.  Not unlike a trusted "green" brand where the segments of the market are prepared to "pay" a premium for a "green" product.

Ken asks - It there a separation between artifacts and the processes used to create them, and the organization responsible for them?

I think the answer is yes and no. In the case of the OER Foundation there is no separation in openness between our artifacts, processes and the organisation responsible for them.  However, we nurture the development of open education ecosystems where (because of our openness) we are able to work with individuals and organisations where there is separation between the artifacts and processes used to create them.  Think of openness as the "grease" which enables the cogs of the ecosystem to function more effectively (with apology for mixed metaphors). 

Ken -- we've both had a keen interest in fostering organisational and open innovation over the years. 

Where disruptive innovation is concerned, it is not easy to mainstream disruptive innovation from within the organisation. There is enough research evidence to attest to this phenomenon.  

In our experience, by setting up an independent non-profit organisation we have gained the agility for rapid decision-making in the volatile environment associated with disruptive innovation. That said, unlike the corporate model, we are not in the game of fueling the demise of our "competitors". Our mission is to support the future success of universities through the mainstream adoption of OER on campus. In our case, openness and our commitment to radical transparency provides the trust for conservative institutions to invest in our version of "green". They see what we've done, and how we are doing it. For this reason, I think institutions are prepared to share the load of building more affordable education futures with us for the benefit of all. 

Interesting times - -we are learning every day!

Wayne  



 

Message from ken.udas@gmail.com

Hello,

Wayne, thank you for your feedback – your responses are very helpful.  I have been thinking a bit about the relationships that might exist between the nature of an organization (its behaviour, governance, history, self-concept, etc.), the artifacts it creates and claims it makes.  I am wondering if a fundamentally closed organization (one that does not practice with principles of openness) can reliably produce open artifacts and participate constructively in an ecosystem based on a culture of openness. 

I know that this type of question has the potential to go in circles, which I do not want.  I also know that it probably does not really contribute to Ellen’s questions and comments that stated this thread, but I am wondering if it is worth chewing over in any event.

This is also the type of question that might engender a “so what” response.  So, this is why I think that it may be important.  It is my feeling that it is easier to trust the intent behind the actions of an organization (creating OER for example), if the organization itself takes seriously the principles generally adopted by the community of users and contributors (the OER community for example).  If, as an organization or an individual, I am depending on OER (use, distribution, creation of derivative works) to support my course design and development process or if OER is an important element of my pedagogy, I may feel less risk using the artifacts created and contributed by organizations that “live the philosophy.”  After all, trust is an important element of community, OER is a community-oriented activity, trust is something that is built through authentic behaviour, and authentic behaviour depends, at least in part, on commitment to principles and capacity to perform in accordance with those principles.

So I am left thinking about the nature of traditional universities, or at least the propensity of many traditional universities.  Several years ago I read Allan Bloom’s Closing of the American Mind, and one of the clear take aways for me was Bloom’s questioning if American universities, as fundamentally non-democratic institutions, can serve the needs of a vibrant liberal democracy.  That is, can non-democratic institutions prepare students (one the products of teaching universities) to contribute to, care for, defend, and grow democracy and democratic processes?   I do not believe that he thought so.  Now I am asking if this is true of “openness “ as well.

I am not sure if this type of question can be answered definitely, but practically, I think we can start developing a better understanding of any connections that may exist between the “openness” of an organization and the organization’s ability to reliably participate in an open community.  It seems to me that the foundation for some of this work is being started on the Jasig 2-3-98 project support site on the “Openness Maturity Model” page (https://wiki.jasig.org/x/6YBpAg), which will help us better assess the organizational capacity for “openness” and open behaviour.  As this effort develops, might we also think about a way to understand how organizations tend to participate in and contribute to communities of openness?


-Ken
   



On 6/9/12 2:08 AM, Wayne Mackintosh wrote:
Hey Ken,

I can see that an experienced open practitioner is behind these questions :-) These are excellent questions. 

The parallel you draw between "green" and "organisations" is a good one imho. 

For us "open" is a way of life in what we do, its part of our DNA and organisational culture. In the real world some organisations are more open than others, and that's fine.  I think there are similarities with "green philosophy". 

There is a price associated with being a "green" organisation, e.g. it could add to the cost of production. Similarly, there is a price to being open -- radical transparency means that everything is open including critique and hostility. This requires tenacity, extra time and effort to remain true to the values of openness. The payback in the long term is that there is a transparent digital history which builds trust in the organisation, its values and its people.  Not unlike a trusted "green" brand where the segments of the market are prepared to "pay" a premium for a "green" product.

Ken asks - It there a separation between artifacts and the processes used to create them, and the organization responsible for them?

I think the answer is yes and no. In the case of the OER Foundation there is no separation in openness between our artifacts, processes and the organisation responsible for them.  However, we nurture the development of open education ecosystems where (because of our openness) we are able to work with individuals and organisations where there is separation between the artifacts and processes used to create them.  Think of openness as the "grease" which enables the cogs of the ecosystem to function more effectively (with apology for mixed metaphors). 

Ken -- we've both had a keen interest in fostering organisational and open innovation over the years. 

Where disruptive innovation is concerned, it is not easy to mainstream disruptive innovation from within the organisation. There is enough research evidence to attest to this phenomenon.  

In our experience, by setting up an independent non-profit organisation we have gained the agility for rapid decision-making in the volatile environment associated with disruptive innovation. That said, unlike the corporate model, we are not in the game of fueling the demise of our "competitors". Our mission is to support the future success of universities through the mainstream adoption of OER on campus. In our case, openness and our commitment to radical transparency provides the trust for conservative institutions to invest in our version of "green". They see what we've done, and how we are doing it. For this reason, I think institutions are prepared to share the load of building more affordable education futures with us for the benefit of all. 

Interesting times - -we are learning every day!

Wayne  



 


When MIT began OpenCourseWare it pried open certain aspects of its education, and made it freely available. This was not an insignificant factor in the Open Education movement. So to Ken's point, I would say yes "a fundamentally closed organization (one that does not practice with principles of openness) can reliably produce open artifacts and participate constructively in an ecosystem based on a culture of openness." But, I would also acknowledge that MIT did not open up its credentialing and that, too, is not insignificant, because an individual's access to certain occupations is often restricted by the credentials the person possesses, regardless of the knowledge and skills they possess. We do have institutions that will provide credentials for non-university gained knowledge (the process is usually referred to as recognition of prior learning, or various terms close to that) and some are now looking into providing credentials for knowledge and skills achieved through free and open educational resources. All of these together contribute to an ecosystem.

From its inception higher education has been a closed system--only providing access to a few individuals. The desire for access to this elite system, and the benefits that come with credentialing from such a system, burned in the hearts of vast numbers of people for whom there was no access and little hope of access.  I would venture to guess that it is this perspective that drives the definitions we see in common uses of the terms "Open Course" and "Open Education" and even "Open Universities".  I am not defending the misuse of terms, nor the ambiguity, only saying that the misunderstandings may stem from the original uses of open and how they apply to access.

On another note:
I am participating in one of Stanford's Coursera courses, and in a recent forum post a student posted a link to his "Guide to Open Learning". He began his post by saying "I am extremely passionate about Open Learning". He later stated that another student encouraged him to post the link to his guide.  You can read it here: http://iamcorbin.net/openlearning
It begins with this text

What is Open?

Issac Newton said “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.” This statement embodies what the Open movement is about. Through sharing and collaboration we can do much more than we ever could on our own. Let's briefly examine the various facets of the Open movement.

What is Open Learning and Open Education?

“Open learning is an approach to education that seeks to remove all unnecessary barriers to learning, while aiming to provide students with a reasonable chance of success in an education and training system centered on their specific needs and located in multiple arenas of learning.” - Neil Butcher[1]

To define Open Learning is a challenge in itself. Since every person has their own unique way of experiencing and learning about the world around them it is different for every person. What can be looked at is the ways in which we can organize systems that foster Open Learning.

Open Learning is a system that aims to eliminate or greatly lower barriers to use, extraction, and reuse of knowledge. It is purposeful, directed learning as opposed to simply the accumulation of knowledge without really understanding why you need to know about a topic. It takes place in a volatile environment that the individual learns to customize and it provides the user with feedback that is constantly used to refine and improve upon the experience.

Open Learning is largely available because of the internet, although it is possible for it to take the form of offline content as well. It very often makes use of Open Educational Resources (OER).


We have our work cut out for us :)

Ellen

Ellen Marie Murphy
Director of Online Curriculum
SUNY Empire State College
113 West Ave
Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
518-587-2100 Ext: 2961
twitter: ellen_marie



-----The EDUCAUSE OPENNESS Constituent Group Listserv <OPENNESS@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU> wrote: -----
To: OPENNESS@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
From: Ken Udas
Sent by: The EDUCAUSE OPENNESS Constituent Group Listserv
Date: 06/17/2012 07:23AM
Subject: Re: [OPENNESS] Open Education vs Open Education Resources

--> --> --> Hello,

Wayne, thank you for your feedback – your responses are very helpful.  I have been thinking a bit about the relationships that might exist between the nature of an organization (its behaviour, governance, history, self-concept, etc.), the artifacts it creates and claims it makes.  I am wondering if a fundamentally closed organization (one that does not practice with principles of openness) can reliably produce open artifacts and participate constructively in an ecosystem based on a culture of openness. 

I know that this type of question has the potential to go in circles, which I do not want.  I also know that it probably does not really contribute to Ellen’s questions and comments that stated this thread, but I am wondering if it is worth chewing over in any event.

This is also the type of question that might engender a “so what” response.  So, this is why I think that it may be important.  It is my feeling that it is easier to trust the intent behind the actions of an organization (creating OER for example), if the organization itself takes seriously the principles generally adopted by the community of users and contributors (the OER community for example).  If, as an organization or an individual, I am depending on OER (use, distribution, creation of derivative works) to support my course design and development process or if OER is an important element of my pedagogy, I may feel less risk using the artifacts created and contributed by organizations that “live the philosophy.”  After all, trust is an important element of community, OER is a community-oriented activity, trust is something that is built through authentic behaviour, and authentic behaviour depends, at least in part, on commitment to principles and capacity to perform in accordance with those principles.

So I am left thinking about the nature of traditional universities, or at least the propensity of many traditional universities.  Several years ago I read Allan Bloom’s Closing of the American Mind, and one of the clear take aways for me was Bloom’s questioning if American universities, as fundamentally non-democratic institutions, can serve the needs of a vibrant liberal democracy.  That is, can non-democratic institutions prepare students (one the products of teaching universities) to contribute to, care for, defend, and grow democracy and democratic processes?   I do not believe that he thought so.  Now I am asking if this is true of “openness “ as well.

I am not sure if this type of question can be answered definitely, but practically, I think we can start developing a better understanding of any connections that may exist between the “openness” of an organization and the organization’s ability to reliably participate in an open community.  It seems to me that the foundation for some of this work is being started on the Jasig 2-3-98 project support site on the “Openness Maturity Model” page (https://wiki.jasig.org/x/6YBpAg), which will help us better assess the organizational capacity for “openness” and open behaviour.  As this effort develops, might we also think about a way to understand how organizations tend to participate in and contribute to communities of openness?


-Ken
   



On 6/9/12 2:08 AM, Wayne Mackintosh wrote:
Hey Ken,

I can see that an experienced open practitioner is behind these questions :-) These are excellent questions. 

The parallel you draw between "green" and "organisations" is a good one imho. 

For us "open" is a way of life in what we do, its part of our DNA and organisational culture. In the real world some organisations are more open than others, and that's fine.  I think there are similarities with "green philosophy". 

There is a price associated with being a "green" organisation, e.g. it could add to the cost of production. Similarly, there is a price to being open -- radical transparency means that everything is open including critique and hostility. This requires tenacity, extra time and effort to remain true to the values of openness. The payback in the long term is that there is a transparent digital history which builds trust in the organisation, its values and its people.  Not unlike a trusted "green" brand where the segments of the market are prepared to "pay" a premium for a "green" product.

Ken asks - It there a separation between artifacts and the processes used to create them, and the organization responsible for them?

I think the answer is yes and no. In the case of the OER Foundation there is no separation in openness between our artifacts, processes and the organisation responsible for them.  However, we nurture the development of open education ecosystems where (because of our openness) we are able to work with individuals and organisations where there is separation between the artifacts and processes used to create them.  Think of openness as the "grease" which enables the cogs of the ecosystem to function more effectively (with apology for mixed metaphors). 

Ken -- we've both had a keen interest in fostering organisational and open innovation over the years. 

Where disruptive innovation is concerned, it is not easy to mainstream disruptive innovation from within the organisation. There is enough research evidence to attest to this phenomenon.  

In our experience, by setting up an independent non-profit organisation we have gained the agility for rapid decision-making in the volatile environment associated with disruptive innovation. That said, unlike the corporate model, we are not in the game of fueling the demise of our "competitors". Our mission is to support the future success of universities through the mainstream adoption of OER on campus. In our case, openness and our commitment to radical transparency provides the trust for conservative institutions to invest in our version of "green". They see what we've done, and how we are doing it. For this reason, I think institutions are prepared to share the load of building more affordable education futures with us for the benefit of all. 

Interesting times - -we are learning every day!

Wayne  



 

I suppose Butcher's definition for open+learning and open+education might be adequate, but not for open+*. That is, to me, "learning" and "education" seem to serve as the adjectives, describing and qualifying open, rather than the other way around, as one might expect. I am beginning to feel this is the case with most of the open initiatives coming forth: open enrollment, open courses, open courseware, open educational resources, etc. Butcher's "unnecessary barriers to learning" might indeed include paying for content (OER), paying for admission (open universities), paying for a course, or meeting per-requisites (open enrollment) but those along do not constitute all of the ays a course might be "open" or benefit from openness. I do not see any attributes inherent within the MIT open courseware initiative that: - allows/requires the organizations that redistribute MIT OCW's content to offer it for free; - allows/requires the organizations that redistribute MIT OCW's content to enroll anyone; - allows/requires MIT OCW to update the courses based on feedback from those who have used it - allows/requires those taking courses based on MIT OCW content to design their own syllabus (learning objectives, assessments, outcomes, etc.). - allows/requires the participants (faculty,students) to organize the systems (courses, programs, credentials) etc. Patrick || |||| ||| || | | || ||| || ||| || | | ||| || ||| || Patrick Masson Chief Technology Officer, UMassOnline The University of Massachusetts, Office of the President 333 South St., Suite 400, Shrewsbury, MA 01545 (774) 455-7615: Office (774) 455-7620: Fax (970) 4MASSON: GoogleVoice UMOLPatMasson: AIM massonpj: Skype Web Site: http://www.umassonline.net Blog: http://www.umassonlineblog.com ________________________________________ From: The EDUCAUSE OPENNESS Constituent Group Listserv [OPENNESS@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Ellen Marie Murphy [Ellen.Murphy@ESC.EDU] Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 9:17 PM To: OPENNESS@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU Subject: Re: [OPENNESS] Open Education vs Open Education Resources When MIT began OpenCourseWare it pried open certain aspects of its education, and made it freely available. This was not an insignificant factor in the Open Education movement. So to Ken's point, I would say yes "a fundamentally closed organization (one that does not practice with principles of openness) can reliably produce open artifacts and participate constructively in an ecosystem based on a culture of openness." But, I would also acknowledge that MIT did not open up its credentialing and that, too, is not insignificant, because an individual's access to certain occupations is often restricted by the credentials the person possesses, regardless of the knowledge and skills they possess. We do have institutions that will provide credentials for non-university gained knowledge (the process is usually referred to as recognition of prior learning, or various terms close to that) and some are now looking into providing credentials for knowledge and skills achieved through free and open educational resources. All of these together contribute to an ecosystem. From its inception higher education has been a closed system--only providing access to a few individuals. The desire for access to this elite system, and the benefits that come with credentialing from such a system, burned in the hearts of vast numbers of people for whom there was no access and little hope of access. I would venture to guess that it is this perspective that drives the definitions we see in common uses of the terms "Open Course" and "Open Education" and even "Open Universities". I am not defending the misuse of terms, nor the ambiguity, only saying that the misunderstandings may stem from the original uses of open and how they apply to access. On another note: I am participating in one of Stanford's Coursera courses, and in a recent forum post a student posted a link to his "Guide to Open Learning". He began his post by saying "I am extremely passionate about Open Learning". He later stated that another student encouraged him to post the link to his guide. You can read it here: http://iamcorbin.net/openlearning It begins with this text What is Open? Issac Newton said “If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.” This statement embodies what the Open movement is about. Through sharing and collaboration we can do much more than we ever could on our own. Let's briefly examine the various facets of the Open movement. What is Open Learning and Open Education? “Open learning is an approach to education that seeks to remove all unnecessary barriers to learning, while aiming to provide students with a reasonable chance of success in an education and training system centered on their specific needs and located in multiple arenas of learning.” - Neil Butcher[1] To define Open Learning is a challenge in itself. Since every person has their own unique way of experiencing and learning about the world around them it is different for every person. What can be looked at is the ways in which we can organize systems that foster Open Learning. Open Learning is a system that aims to eliminate or greatly lower barriers to use, extraction, and reuse of knowledge. It is purposeful, directed learning as opposed to simply the accumulation of knowledge without really understanding why you need to know about a topic. It takes place in a volatile environment that the individual learns to customize and it provides the user with feedback that is constantly used to refine and improve upon the experience. Open Learning is largely available because of the internet, although it is possible for it to take the form of offline content as well. It very often makes use of Open Educational Resources (OER). We have our work cut out for us :) Ellen Ellen Marie Murphy Director of Online Curriculum SUNY Empire State College 113 West Ave Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 518-587-2100 Ext: 2961 twitter: ellen_marie -----The EDUCAUSE OPENNESS Constituent Group Listserv wrote: ----- To: OPENNESS@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU From: Ken Udas Sent by: The EDUCAUSE OPENNESS Constituent Group Listserv Date: 06/17/2012 07:23AM Subject: Re: [OPENNESS] Open Education vs Open Education Resources Hello, Wayne, thank you for your feedback – your responses are very helpful. I have been thinking a bit about the relationships that might exist between the nature of an organization (its behaviour, governance, history, self-concept, etc.), the artifacts it creates and claims it makes. I am wondering if a fundamentally closed organization (one that does not practice with principles of openness) can reliably produce open artifacts and participate constructively in an ecosystem based on a culture of openness. I know that this type of question has the potential to go in circles, which I do not want. I also know that it probably does not really contribute to Ellen’s questions and comments that stated this thread, but I am wondering if it is worth chewing over in any event. This is also the type of question that might engender a “so what” response. So, this is why I think that it may be important. It is my feeling that it is easier to trust the intent behind the actions of an organization (creating OER for example), if the organization itself takes seriously the principles generally adopted by the community of users and contributors (the OER community for example). If, as an organization or an individual, I am depending on OER (use, distribution, creation of derivative works) to support my course design and development process or if OER is an important element of my pedagogy, I may feel less risk using the artifacts created and contributed by organizations that “live the philosophy.” After all, trust is an important element of community, OER is a community-oriented activity, trust is something that is built through authentic behaviour, and authentic behaviour depends, at least in part, on commitment to principles and capacity to perform in accordance with those principles. So I am left thinking about the nature of traditional universities, or at least the propensity of many traditional universities. Several years ago I read Allan Bloom’s Closing of the American Mind, and one of the clear take aways for me was Bloom’s questioning if American universities, as fundamentally non-democratic institutions, can serve the needs of a vibrant liberal democracy. That is, can non-democratic institutions prepare students (one the products of teaching universities) to contribute to, care for, defend, and grow democracy and democratic processes? I do not believe that he thought so. Now I am asking if this is true of “openness “ as well. I am not sure if this type of question can be answered definitely, but practically, I think we can start developing a better understanding of any connections that may exist between the “openness” of an organization and the organization’s ability to reliably participate in an open community. It seems to me that the foundation for some of this work is being started on the Jasig 2-3-98 project support site on the “Openness Maturity Model” page (https://wiki.jasig.org/x/6YBpAg), which will help us better assess the organizational capacity for “openness” and open behaviour. As this effort develops, might we also think about a way to understand how organizations tend to participate in and contribute to communities of openness? -Ken On 6/9/12 2:08 AM, Wayne Mackintosh wrote: Hey Ken, I can see that an experienced open practitioner is behind these questions :-) These are excellent questions. The parallel you draw between "green" and "organisations" is a good one imho. For us "open" is a way of life in what we do, its part of our DNA and organisational culture. In the real world some organisations are more open than others, and that's fine. I think there are similarities with "green philosophy". There is a price associated with being a "green" organisation, e.g. it could add to the cost of production. Similarly, there is a price to being open -- radical transparency means that everything is open including critique and hostility. This requires tenacity, extra time and effort to remain true to the values of openness. The payback in the long term is that there is a transparent digital history which builds trust in the organisation, its values and its people. Not unlike a trusted "green" brand where the segments of the market are prepared to "pay" a premium for a "green" product. Ken asks - It there a separation between artifacts and the processes used to create them, and the organization responsible for them? I think the answer is yes and no. In the case of the OER Foundation there is no separation in openness between our artifacts, processes and the organisation responsible for them. However, we nurture the development of open education ecosystems where (because of our openness) we are able to work with individuals and organisations where there is separation between the artifacts and processes used to create them. Think of openness as the "grease" which enables the cogs of the ecosystem to function more effectively (with apology for mixed metaphors). Ken -- we've both had a keen interest in fostering organisational and open innovation over the years. Where disruptive innovation is concerned, it is not easy to mainstream disruptive innovation from within the organisation. There is enough research evidence to attest to this phenomenon. In our experience, by setting up an independent non-profit organisation we have gained the agility for rapid decision-making in the volatile environment associated with disruptive innovation. That said, unlike the corporate model, we are not in the game of fueling the demise of our "competitors". Our mission is to support the future success of universities through the mainstream adoption of OER on campus. In our case, openness and our commitment to radical transparency provides the trust for conservative institutions to invest in our version of "green". They see what we've done, and how we are doing it. For this reason, I think institutions are prepared to share the load of building more affordable education futures with us for the benefit of all. Interesting times - -we are learning every day! Wayne
Message from mackintosh.wayne@gmail.com

Hi Ken,

Apology for the tardy response -- things have been crazy this week preparing for the OERu presentation for the closing plenary at the UNESCO World OER Congress.   

I think "closed" organisations can contribute to the evolution of an open ecosystem. At one level, organisations comprise individuals who can and do engage actively in the open ecosystem. The OERu network collaboration is a good case in point. 

Apart from Otago Polytechnic (which has a default CC-BY intellectual property policy), the OER Foundation  and BCcampus, the remaining 14 anchor partners do not have open policies and for the purposes of this example are "closed" institutions insofar as IP policy is concerned. However, many of the partners operate in the distance education world with organisational experience in removing barriers of entry  (eg Unisa, Athabasca University, SUNY Empire State College, Thomas Edison State College, University of Southern Queensland, the Open Polytechnic.)  

The threshold of open participation in the OERu network is very low -- OERu anchor partners are only required to assemble two courses based on OER from the institution.  In this way individuals with keen interest in open within these organisations can contribute. At the system level, the impact is considerable - -currently the OERu network will be able to administer 30  OERu courses. The payback on campus is also attractive -- 28 courses in return for a contribution of 2. 

Judging from our experience, it would appear that organisational experience in widening access to learning (a dimension of capability maturity) is a factor with reference to leadership in moving the OER agenda forward.  In time organisations outside of the OER movement will gain confidence and acquire "authentic" open behaviors.

To be honest, the mainstream adoption of OER in post-secondary education is no longer a question of whether is going to happen -- the mainstream adoption of OER is inevitable if organisations intend to remain competitive in a digital age.

Wayne

 



Message from ken.udas@gmail.com

Wayne & Forum-

Thank you for extending this discussion and illustrating it though example.  It seems to me that we are clearly extending from solo open efforts (in which the actor behaves as a service provider - I'll creating something and you can use it) to ones predicated on acts of collaboration requiring cooperative strategies.  I know that this is not new, but perhaps it becomes more obvious as "openness" is discussed more commonly in broader circles.


Cheers!

Ken


On 6/21/12 8:20 PM, Wayne Mackintosh wrote:
Hi Ken,

Apology for the tardy response -- things have been crazy this week preparing for the OERu presentation for the closing plenary at the UNESCO World OER Congress.   

I think "closed" organisations can contribute to the evolution of an open ecosystem. At one level, organisations comprise individuals who can and do engage actively in the open ecosystem. The OERu network collaboration is a good case in point. 

Apart from Otago Polytechnic (which has a default CC-BY intellectual property policy), the OER Foundation  and BCcampus, the remaining 14 anchor partners do not have open policies and for the purposes of this example are "closed" institutions insofar as IP policy is concerned. However, many of the partners operate in the distance education world with organisational experience in removing barriers of entry  (eg Unisa, Athabasca University, SUNY Empire State College, Thomas Edison State College, University of Southern Queensland, the Open Polytechnic.)  

The threshold of open participation in the OERu network is very low -- OERu anchor partners are only required to assemble two courses based on OER from the institution.  In this way individuals with keen interest in open within these organisations can contribute. At the system level, the impact is considerable - -currently the OERu network will be able to administer 30  OERu courses. The payback on campus is also attractive -- 28 courses in return for a contribution of 2. 

Judging from our experience, it would appear that organisational experience in widening access to learning (a dimension of capability maturity) is a factor with reference to leadership in moving the OER agenda forward.  In time organisations outside of the OER movement will gain confidence and acquire "authentic" open behaviors.

To be honest, the mainstream adoption of OER in post-secondary education is no longer a question of whether is going to happen -- the mainstream adoption of OER is inevitable if organisations intend to remain competitive in a digital age.

Wayne

 



Close
Close


Annual Conference
September 29–October 2
View Proceedings

Events for all Levels and Interests

Whether you're looking for a conference to attend face-to-face to connect with peers, or for an online event for team professional development, see what's upcoming.

Close

Digital Badges
Member recognition effort
Earn yours >

Career Center


Leadership and Management Programs

EDUCAUSE Institute
Project Management

 

 

Jump Start Your Career Growth

Explore EDUCAUSE professional development opportunities that match your career aspirations and desired level of time investment through our interactive online guide.

 

Close
EDUCAUSE organizes its efforts around three IT Focus Areas

 

 

Join These Programs If Your Focus Is

Close

Get on the Higher Ed IT Map

Employees of EDUCAUSE member institutions and organizations are invited to create individual profiles.
 

 

Close

2014 Strategic Priorities

  • Building the Profession
  • IT as a Game Changer
  • Foundations


Learn More >

Uncommon Thinking for the Common Good™

EDUCAUSE is the foremost community of higher education IT leaders and professionals.