The video about creative licences was informative (Process Arts, 2011) to sort out how to make sure that my online material won't be used in a manner that I didn't intend. However, I'm not so concerned about getting credit so I'd probably just the CC0 licence (Creative Commons, 2020). If anyone use my material, it's nice, but they don't need to attribute it to me, unless it'd be something that I make money on myself. Of course, I can also use the creative licences for my own teaching, for example by using Flickr (2020).
I disagree with Wiley (2010) who insinuates that selfishness is the reason why teachers don't share more than they do. At the very least, it isn't personal selfishness. We teachers have a responsibility towards both our universities and the creators of textbooks that we use. I agree with him that expertise and expression of expertise can be freely shared but that seems quite obvious to me. I have lived almost my whole life in a digital world so the possibility of sharing has no novelty for me. However, I like that this topic in the ONL course challenges me to question why I don't actually share my course material more, and what I could to in order to achieve this. I do not think that Swedish universities have anything against their teachers sharing their knowledge with the world. However, I use quite a lot of content from the textbooks that I use in my courses, and if I want to share something in those courses, I'd either need to ask the permission from the authors (which I'd be unlikely to obtain) or find other, open, course material.
Nevertheless, even if I did change to open course material, why would I want to? What would I gain? What would my students gain? What would society gain?
There are many possible benefits of openness. I can learn more about my subject while I look for open resources, and I can become a part of an active professional teaching community, where we can help each other to develop both they field and the teaching of the field. This would also help me develop a PLN (Professional Learning Networks) as discussed by Oddone (2016) and Ekaterina (2017). My students wouldn't need to spend so much money on textbooks and also become a part of a new era of collaborative learning. Finally. the society would be more open, available and educated.
Wiley (2010) also proposes that education can now be free in this digital era. I think that information, and even practise, can be free today, but education is also about interaction between the teacher and the student and this is still limited. And since education in Sweden is free, this is really the only necessary restriction. Except examination, which is also time consuming for the teacher.
MOOCs are a really nice idea for learning a specific skill but I'm sceptical if a collection off MOOCs could ever replace an education programme. MOOCs seem to be more engineered towards the benefit of many individuals. There is no proper examination (at least not in the way that was presented by Cormier, 2010) and hence official stamp of quality. Nevertheless, I'm intrigued by MOOCs and once I have a little more time, I'd like to make one, perhaps on Free Body Diagrams in my mechanics course.
References
Creative Commons (2020-11-09) CC0 “No Rights Reserved”
https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc0
David Wiley (2010). TEDxNYED - David Wiley - 03/06/10. [Video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rb0syrgsH6M
Ekaterina T. (2017) Teachers’ self-initiated professional learning through Personal Learning Networks, Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26:2, 179-192, DOI: 10.1080/1475939X.2016.1196236
Flickr (2020-11-09).
https://www.flickr.com
Oddone, K. (2016). PLE or PLN or LMS or OLN?
https://www.linkinglearning.com.au/ple-or-pln-or-lms-or-oln
Process Arts (2011). Creative Commons licences explained. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZvJGV6YF6Y
Thank you for sharing your reflections on topic two, Erik. I liked your analysis of the benefits of openness and also how you have worked with the literature in your argumentation. Perhaps MOOCs should not replace programmes but instead complement them (taking them in parallel as I know students do) and/or as further competence development when having an active career (as you are considering doing). Part of Wiley's (2010) vision that education can be free in the digital era could perhaps be interpreted as a technology optimistic thinking? We can see through history of technological development that there exist a strong belief and hope that technology will revolutionise many of our practices, among them the educational practices. When the reality hits in, with all the aspects of rules, regulations, and costs, the picture often becomes more nuanced. We have seen it regarding the internet (free in the beginning but regulated over time) for example. Last but not least, you wrote that teachers have a responsibility towards their universities and therefore restrain from sharing. Can you elaborate on that further? Why does this responsibility interfere with sharing? All the best, Karin
ReplyDeleteNice and interesting blog post Erik! I like that you are not afraids to be critical to some of the things that've been said in the ONL course.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Swedish universities are not against that we teachers share knowledge (as long as it doesn’t interfere with our obligations towards them as our employer I would assume). I think the main reason we don’t do it to any great extent is that we haven’t thought about it. And if we have thought about it, we are probably concerned (due to lack of knowledge) about what the law and the university regulations allow (or maybe see them as a potential problem so we don’t have to start sharing?). However, creative common (2011) is a good way to start. However, I’m sure there are individual administrators (handläggare) that would find regulations to stop you from sharing resources freely, just because they can (yes, I’m harsh, but that's my experience). Maybe we shouldn’t ask at all, just do it (if we want to share). Remember, it is often easier to be forgiven than it is to get permission.
My understanding of Wiley’s (2010) message is that it's not only sharing of learning material, but also of one self. Personally, I’m trying to become better at sharing my presence (time), my knowledge and skills through feedback, as well as my engagement towards the students when acting in an online environment (since I find this much more natural in the classroom environment). I'm also asking the same question as you, what is the benefit for my students of me openly sharing my material? I like the idea of openness and sharing of education material, but I still have to be convinced of the benefits (especially my personal).
Again, that's for sharing your personal reflection on sharing and openness.