September 2009
The equity agenda
Posted by karen on September 30, 2009 in Uncategorized
I was at a meeting to discuss OER where a very salient point was made. As the group tried to articulate a consensus position on the important principles of using OER, Glen Thomas, the Secretary of Education for California talked about an “equity agenda.” Most of us got into public education, he said, because we think that everyone should have access to knowledge and learning. OER is all about “ubiquitous access to all content” for all learners.
This was reminiscent to me of Jimmy Wales’ goal of giving “every single person on the planet … free access to the sum of all human knowledge.” How can anyone argue with the nobility of that aim?
This also brings to mind the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that everyone has the right to a free education.
Some may say that these goals are not new. Nearly since the birth of our nation, we have striven for educational equity and (arguably) have provided it through nearly universal public education, free (in some places) textbooks, etc.
So what has changed?
Two things, at least. First, technology. In today’s world, access to technology and, more specifically, the Internet is a vital resource and tool needed to be a well-educated citizen. To be without this access is to be profoundly disadvantaged. And clearly, we are a long way from equitable access to the Internet in both schools and homes.
Secondly, our learners have changed. They are increasingly diverse with widely varying prior experiences, native languages, reading levels, learning styles, interests, etc. Old one-size-fits-all models are no longer effective. For many students, methods like lecturing and tools like textbooks no longer provide access.
Let’s reconsider the equity agenda. One of the greatest things about America has been a commitment to education for all. We need an update on how to continue this tradition.
Four letters: CC BY
Posted by karen on September 26, 2009 in Uncategorized
I was in a series of policy meetings on OER this week. One of the big discussion areas was on definitions and language.
I have written already about my concern with the confusion between digital, free, and open that I seem to see everywhere lately (with OPEN being the key factor in my mind). In other discussions, I have heard “open” and “open source” used to describe materials that are not open under even the most broad definitions.
Creative Commons and a team of others are working on a “consensus” definition of open educational resources, and I think this is important work. But whatever they come up with, it is likely to be a bit complex for some and thereby may be misinterpreted, miscommunicated, and misunderstood by those who are casually interested parties.
My advice for policy makers, legislators, and others who want to promote openness but are struggling with language: require CC BY (especially for materials developed with public funds). This is simple and guarantees that materials that are intended to be open and shared will be so.
The effectiveness of textbooks
Posted by karen on September 10, 2009 in Uncategorized
As various folks are talking about open ed and open textbooks, there are often discussions of whether textbooks are an effective instructional tools at all.
To me, that isn’t really the point. The effectiveness of instruction and the degree to which students learn has everything to do with the teacher, the classroom, and the process, and little to do with the materials. I have seen awful textbooks used by talented teachers who are fostering magnificent learning environments. I have also seen brilliant electronic resources used by ineffective teachers in classrooms where students are tuned out and no learning is taking place.
What matters is how the teacher uses the resources. What is most important about open resources is that they can be remixed and used in the ways that are best for different learners. (Unique features of open resources, textbooks or otherwise, that allow for this are legal licenses and open formats. This is why the distinction between merely digital and open is so important.)
My own interest in open education comes from my work in differentiating instruction. Proprietary resources make this extremely difficult. And whether we like it or not, textbooks are the center of instruction in the vast majority of all classrooms. Further, large amounts of money flow into schools through textbooks funding. The opportunity to use open textbooks to redirect that funding from paper and ink to differentiating instruction and providing professional development is tremendous.
If they are open, textbooks can be easily transformed into other forms of instructional resources — wikis, multimedia presentations, hands-on projects, etc. That’s the whole point of differentiating instruction. And in the hands of great teachers, the potential is limitless.
Chasm between ed tech and curriculum & instruction
Posted by karen on September 3, 2009 in Uncategorized
I’m really concerned about the chasm that exists in most K-12 districts between the ed tech folks and curriculum & instruction. Of course, this has always been a problem and is probably why technology has never reached its potential in enhancing learning.
Now, the problems are becoming evident to me in a new way as I’m working on a few open ed projects. One in particular involves open textbooks. I’m facilitating a feasibility study into open licensing a K-12 basal textbook series in one or more core subject areas.
A big part of the project will be to work on the demand side — identifying states, districts, and schools who are enthusiastic about using open textbooks. In thinking about this and beginning to talk to folks, I can easily identify many people who are excited about the idea. They are all in ed tech, though, and I fear that having this under the “ed tech” banner might be the kiss of death. Unfortunately, most curriculum & instruction people I know don’t know what “open” is or why it would be useful.
My own interest in open ed came not out of technology, but out of a real classroom need. In differentiating instruction, I have found it essential to be able to remix content to meet different learner needs. However, with traditional copyrighted content, remixing is a) technically difficult (because of format issues) and b) generally involves breaking copyright law.
This should be an easy-to-understand and compelling argument for open content.
Know any K-12 instructional leadership teams (not ed tech) who would be interested?
Tags: curriculum | textbooks
Search
Licensing
Unless otherwise indicated, this work is licensed under a, Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
