Visit to a blind student's school🧑🦯🧑🦯(community medicine)
Openness at the University of Cape Town
1. From Project to Mainstream in a
constrained environment:
Towards openness at the University of Cape Town
Laura Czerniewicz
Gregory Doyle
Glenda Cox
Cheryl Hodgkinson- Williams
Cambridge 2012, 16-18 April 2012
2. Structure of presentation
Glenda Cox
Academic
Laura Czerniewicz
Institutional
Student
Technical
tutor
Cheryl Hodgkinson-
Gregory Doyle
Williams
4. Inculcating openness at UCT:
An institutional perspective
Laura Czerniewicz
Director: OpenUCT Initiative
University of Cape Town
laura.czerniewicz@uct.ac.za
5. Institutional perspective Some premises
• OERs overlap with Open access and Elearning
Open access OER Elearning
• OER part of a broader open movement
• Innovation usually starts with soft funding
(external & internal)
• Institutional context and culture critical to how
OER and open agenda play out
6. Institutional perspective Institutional cultural types
Policy definition:
Loose
Collegium Bureaucracy
Control of Control of
implementation: implementation:
Loose Tight
Enterprise Corporation
Policy definition:
Tight
McNay, I. (1995). From collegial academy to corporate enterprise: The changing cultures of universities.
7. Institutional perspective Institutional cultural types
Policy definition:
Loose
Collegium Bureaucracy
Control of Control of
implementation: implementation:
Loose Tight
Enterprise Corporation
Policy definition:
Tight
8. Institutional perspective The collegium type
• Characterised by
– loose institutional policy definition
– informal networks and decision arenas
– and innovation at the level of the individual or
– department. (McNay 1995)
• The organisational response
– ’laissez faire’, few targeted policies or processes
(Rossiter, 2007).
– Core value of collegium is freedom
• Defines organizational expectations in terms of
freedom from external controls (Yee-Tak 2006)
9. Institutional perspective University of Cape Town
• Oldest South African university
– Top ranked African university
– QS World University Rankings
– The Times Higher Education World University
Rankings
– Academic Ranking of World Universities
• Medium sized
– +/- 25 000 students
– 982 permanent academics (of 5 442 total staff)
10. Institutional perspective Prestigious research university
• 5 Nobel Laureates
• Booker Prize winner
• Numerous internationally recognised research
initiatives
– Africa Earth Observatory Network (AEON
– The Department of Mathematics and Applied
Mathematics is an international centre for research
in the fields of cosmology and topology.
– The Department of Physics is home to the UCT-
CERN research centre,
– The Department of Electrical Engineering is
involved in the development of technology for the
Karoo Array Telescope (KAT), a precursor to the
Square Kilometer Array
11. Institutional perspective Teaching at UCT
• Residential • Funding subsidy for
• Face to face headcount & throughput
(not curriculum or content)
• Almost no distance ed
• Centre for Higher Educational
• Not set up for “non- Development active, strong
traditional” courses academic development
12. Open agenda at UCT: projects
Scholar Scholar Scholar
Scholar Student Community
2007 Opening Scholarship
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
15. Institutional perspective Strategic approaches
• Individual agency/ control
• Maximum flexibility
• Network / community building
• Enabling (not requiring)
• Champions at different levels
Collegium culture:
loose institutional policy definition
informal networks and decision arenas
and innovation at the level of the individual or department.
(McNay 1995)
16. Institutional perspective Historically
• Opportunities for open agenda in the
eLearning space (CHED)(rather than OA )
– Contributed to change strategy
• No institutional repository
17. Institutional perspective Multiplicity
• Multiple strategies
• Many small sites of innovation and
activity, aiming for agglomeration across
the institution, to achieve critical mass
• Change at all levels of the university
• Develop networks and build community
18. Champions
• At senior level
– DVC signs Cape Town Declaration (2008)
– VC signs Berlin Declaration (2011)
21. Institutional perspective Champions & change
• In our experience of our cultural context
– Senior level support symbolic
– Vertical relationships do not cause change per
se, only when actual projects in place (eg HS)
– Champions work best in horizontal networked
relationships, building communities of practice
• New roles and reconfigurations
– The rise of the non-specialist “expert,” (or the
“extended professional”)
22. Incentives: small grants
• 9 small grants in
2011
• £ 800 each
• Health Science,
Engineering, Law,
CHED, Science
• To create and/ or
adapt OER
• From course level to
smaller resources
24. Institutional perspective Academic agency
• Decentralised uploading
– Individual academics upload and maintain
their resources directly
• Pride of authorship
– Quality assurance with the individual
– Quality assurance part of broader teaching
and learning systems, not separate
• Minimal moderation
– Copyright compliance
25. Institutional perspective Flexibility
• Granularisation of resources important
• Whole courses
• Single resources
– Ebooks
– Presentations
– Podcasts
– Lecture notes
– Animations
– Images
26. Institutional perspective Institutional Community
• IP Law Unit
• Knowledge Co-op
• Citizen Science projects in COL
• Enterprise Content Management Project
• Eresearch
• Library
• Communications Office
• Faculties
27. Institutional perspective New IP policy
• Work enabled by new UCT IP Policy
– Specifically addresses issues relating to the
creation of OER resources and the licensing
processes to be followed
– Expressly states the support for publication
of materials under Creative Commons
licenses
28. How we are doing
in terms of institutional participation
30. Institutional perspective Faculty contributions
Centre for Higher Education
11% Development
3% 24% Commerce
Engineering and the Built
Environment
Health Sciences
8%
Humanities
34%
4% Law
16% Science
Faculty contributions February 2010- March 2012
31. Institutional perspective Types of resources
Video
10%
Audio
28%
Text/HTML
Webpages Audio
20%
Downloadable Documents
Graphics/Photos
Other
Text/HTML Webpages
Other Video
3%
Downloadable
Documents
Graphics/ 38%
Photos
1%
32. Institutional perspective Concluding comments
• A steady upswell rather than mainstream
• Integration of resourcing requirements
into existing structures
• Acceptance of non-linear organic process
• Slow approach more likely to be
sustainable & effective
• A research-based approach to inform
strategy
33. Institutional perspective References
• Czerniewicz, L and Brown, C (2009) study of the relationship
between institutional policy, organisational culture and e-
learning use in four South African universities in Computers &
Education 53 (2009) 121–131
• McNay, I (1995) From collegial academy to corporate enterprise:
The changing cultures of universities. In T. Schuller (Ed.), The
Changing University. Buckingham: Society for Research into
Higher Education and Open University Press
• Rossiter, D (2007) Whither e-learning? Conceptions of change and
innovation in higher education. Journal of Organisational
Transformation and Social Change. 4 (1), pp.93–107
• Yee-Tak , W (2006) Student Expectations in the New Millennium:
An Explorative Study of Higher Education in Hong
Kong, Dissertation, unpublished dissertation
34. Technological considerations when
creating OER -
“the nuts and bolts”
Gregory Doyle
Faculty of Health Sciences:
Education Development Unit
gregory.doyle@uct.ac.za
39. The ‘ordinary’ academic
• Enabling factors
Technical perspective
http://www.omnitechsupport.com/img/technical-support.gif
• Division of Labour: Time and effort
http://teamdoubledouble.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/drivethruneon.jpg
http://www.imageenvision.com/150/37952-clip-art-graphic-of-a-pink-guy-character-pushing-an-orange-orb-by-jester-arts.jpg
41. Raise OER
Source content Clear copyright
awareness and
(volunteers) (dScribe)
interest
Technical perspective
Production Package OER
Process
Publish OER Review OER
Publicize OER (internal)
(repository)
42. Content creation
• Creating interactive modules
Technical perspective
– e.g., click and drag, simulations
• Lecture recording
– Convert PPT to video
– Automatically
• Video recording
– Procedures / lectures
– Converting videos
– Camtasia or similar
43. Copyright clearance &
packaging
• dScribe
Technical perspective
– Images – substitute / redraw / permission
• Packaging
– Bandwidth (video, compressing,
annotating)
• OER-tech mailing list
– Recommended Practices for Packaging and
Distributing OER
44. Institutional issues
• How will resources be distributed
Technical perspective
http://www.marketingmo.com/common/files/distribution-channels.jpg?c34083
• What software platform to use
http://image.made-in-china.com/2f0j00FeaEfyuKANol/Stage-Platform-XF3-.jpg
45. Technical perspective How do people find UCT OER
http://www.slideshare.net/mpaskevi/365-days-of-openness
49. “Why would you do it, ... would a student
actually be interested?” Understanding the
barriers and enablers to academic
contribution to an OER directory
Glenda Cox
Centre for Educational Technology
University of Cape Town
Glenda.cox@uct.ac.za
51. Academic perspective About the research
6 interviews
Science. Engineering, Commerce and Humanities
From Professors to Lecturers
Purposive sampling for range of faculty and rank
3 who have not contributed- to find out why not
And 3 who have contributed, to find out why and
also why they feel their colleagues have not
added
Pilot study more to follow
Test Activity theory as a lens for understanding
OER contribution and non-contribution
52. Tools: OpenContent Directory, PDF’s, PPT< Video,
Academic perspective
Podcasts
Subject: Object:
Teaching Outcome: Open
The Education resources
academic materials for
sharing
Rules: explicit and Division of
implicit norms that Community:
regulate the
Labour:
academics, Academic as
university (e.g. departments, the
Promotion is based teacher and as
institution, OER researcher, CET
on research team, students,
published) as facilitators
users of Open (Power and
Content status)
The Activity system ( Engeström 1987)
53. Framing the interviews
Tools: Are their aspects about the directory itself that
prevent academics adding materials?
Subject: Object:
Teaching Outcome: Open
The Education resources
academic materials for
sharing
Rules: Are Division of
concerns around Community: Are
the rules of
Labour: Are
their concerns you concerned
promotion being around peers in the
based on research about the time
department not and effort it will
output and not supporting OER? Are
teaching take?
there concerns
materials? Are around poor quality
there concerns materials?
about IP
infringement or
violation? The Activity system (Interview questions)
55. Barriers: purpose of OERs
Tools
Outcome:
Subject Object Open
Education
resources
Division of
Rules Labour
Community
Implicit rule: Pedagogical
Concerns about the
purpose and use of
OER
56. “why would you do it;...would students actually be interested? And my
materials “...may not make any sense to anybody else without lots of
structure, and notes...”
“Who cares?”
“Not convinced it would make a big difference to someone”
57. Academic perspective Barriers: concerns about quality
Tools
Object
Subject
Division of
Rules Labour
Community
(implicit)
Concerns about
the quality of
materials
58. “..it would take some time to get to the quality that I will be happy with
to getting it online...”
59. Barriers: culture of sharing
Tools
Subject Object
Division of
Rules Labour
Community
The influence of
colleagues, no
culture of sharing
60. “...It is not valued by my unit, so I wouldn’t worry about it”
61. Barriers: time
Tools
Subject Object
Time
Division of
Rules Labour
Community
Time
62. “there is a lot of extra work here...I do not have the time...”
63. Enablers: an obligation to share
Tools
Enablers
Outcome: Open
Subject Value Object Education
Resources
Division of
Rules Labour
Community
64. “ ... I think it's an obligation to share our knowledge with people who
can’t afford these resources..."
"...increase reachability of resources that were previously only available
in a few places..."
65. Enablers: Content shareable
Tools
Outcome: Open
Subject Content Object Education
shareable resources
Division of
Rules Labour
Community
66. “ Not all teaching materials are readily accessible in terms of structure
and content...other courses we teach are not so full of such rich
multimedia materials...”
67. Enablers: Technological ability
Tools
Technological ability
Outcome: Open
Subject Object Education
Resources
Division of
Rules Labour
Community
68. “...I have set up a system over the years and it easy for me to record
lectures and share them...it’s going to be hard to get everyone to buy into
this sort of uniform model...”
69. Enablers: Small grants
Tools
Outcome: Open
Subject Object Education
resources
Division of
Rules Labour
Community
Small grant
71. Enablers: stage in career
Tools
Outcome: Open
Subject Object Education
Stage in resources
career
Division of
Rules Labour
Community
72. “...I am at the stage in my career where I am not worried about making
money from text books...’...”
73. In the light of these findings
WHAT CAN BE DONE?
74. Transforming academic practice
Tools e.g. lecture
recording, reposi
tory
Outcome: Open
Subject Object
Transform Education
the activity resources
Awareness
of need
and
purpose
Division of
Rules Labour
Community
Alt Part of academic
metrics, Citati Cases of use practice, support and
ons and credit and feedback small grants
in University
reward system
75. Academic perspective Open Education: some questions
Is it a personal philosophy or can ‘we’ grow a
culture of sharing within our institutions?
What are the enabling factors to support open
practices for academics?
76. “It’s part of my campaign”
Using Perceived Attributes as a framework to
understand postgraduate students’ adaptation of
academics’ teaching materials as OER
Cheryl Hodgkinson-Williams &
Michael Paskevicius
Cambridge 2012 Conference
16-18 April 2012
78. Enablers and barriers to OER
contribution
Student tutor perspective
Organisational Technical Academic
Signing of CTOED UCT
Champions OpenContent Willingness
Incentives
directory
No policy Limited technical
Lack of time
expertise
No rewards
80. Student tutor perspective Post-graduate students’ participation
• One way to support academics to rework existing
materials is to use postgraduate students –
Masters’ level – tutors, graduate assistants and
interns
• Shuttleworth Foundation funding for 3 students in
a department and 2 in the Centre for Educational
Technology, Hewlett Foundation funding for 1
student in the Health OER project
• Process similar to that devised by the University of
Michigan – DScribe process – participatory model
for creating OER
81. Research study
• Little published on practice or theoretical
Student tutor perspective
explanation of:
– “What might encourage postgraduate students to
rework existing materials?”
• Case study research of 6 students
– 3 employed by a department (interviewed)
– 3 by OER projects
• 2 from the UCT OER project (interview & questionnaire)
• 1 from the UCT Health OER project (interviewed)
82. Theory
• Use Moore and Benbasat’s extension of
Student tutor perspective
Rogers’ Theory of Perceived Attributes to
explain the adoption of the new innovation of
creating OER:
Rogers (1983) Moore and Benbasat (1991)
Voluntariness
Image/Status
1. Relative Advantage Relative Advantage
2. Compatibility Compatibility
3. Ease of use Ease of use
4. Observabiity Result demonstrability
Visibility
5. Trialability Trialability
83. Student tutor perspective Compatibility
Departmental policy of sharing
Departmental open initiatives
Departmental website with open materials
Academics’ personal websites I like to link to university
Academics’ online textbooks sites to help answer
other peoples’
Students’ community engagement questions. It’s part of my
campaign. (Student 2)
Students’ online research activities
Students’ engagement with social media
Students’ interest in the OER content
Students’ altruistic dispositions
84. Student tutor perspective Relative advantage
• Relative advantage (more institutional than
personal)
– Institutional OER directory and/or repository
– Indexing system of materials
– Licensing system
I think it’s good for their PR in some
– Funds available ways, just to have a centralised
presentation from UCT [department] to
say this is what we can provide, and
say to anybody this is what you can
look at. (Student 1)
85. Student tutor perspective Ease of use
Familiarity with dScribe process
Ability to find alterative images
Ability to use a range of software
Knowledge of Creative Commons licensing
So it takes work for the lecturers to create new
content. Whereas what we did it did not require that
much work from the lecturers side (Student 3).
86. Student tutor perspective Status
Perception that institution’s image will be enhanced
Perception that department’s profile will be raised
Perception that OER development enhances their CVs
A good thing to be a part of; it looks good on your CV
that always motivates people (Student 2).
87. Student tutor perspective Voluntariness
Willing to participate without payment
Developing OER as part of community service
I think we could have done it without being paid. Being paid
was just a nice bonus (Student 1). … As you know we were paid
to do this process, and we may have done it anyway, but it was
good to get paid in order to help prioritize (Student 2).
There is a specific amount of community service and volunteer
that you must do. I don’t see why this can’t be on the list, this
thing is so big like building a house, important … they should put
that on the list (Student 4).
88. Student tutor perspective Visibility
Presence of OER platform
For many academics, there would have been no place previously
where they could share teaching resources they were really
proud of. So the project provided avenues for academics to
share the content they created, providing visibility for
themselves and the university (Student 6).
89. Student tutor perspective Result demonstrability
Alterative metrics for measuring use of OER
As one can … track when social media is accessed, one can
develop new metrics for measuring impact and engagement
with the wider community (Student 6).
90. Student tutor perspective Trialability
Control over uploading of OER
Yea there will be a link on the [departmental] web site. So
perhaps what I can do is also put the links on the OpenContent.
But we are sort of in the middle of trying to decide whether to
post them locally or put them on YouTube. YouTube has its
advantages and we cannot stream video locally. So we will
probably offer both local download and YouTube (Student 3).
91. What encourages student tutors to create
OER?
Student tutor perspective
Compatibility
Ease of use
Digital Voluntariness
identity?
Trialability
92. References
• Moore, G.C. & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an
instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an
information technology innovation. Information Systems
Research, 2(3): 192-222.
• Rogers, E.M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations (3rd edition).
New York: The Free Press.
93. Authors
Laura Czerniewicz Laura.Czerniewicz@uct.ac.za
Glenda Cox Glenda.Cox@uct.ac.za
Cheryl Hodgkinson-Williams cheryl.hodgkinson-williams@uct.ac.za
Michael Paskevicius mike.vicious@gmail.com
Gregory Doyle Gregory.Doyle@uct.ac.za
OpenContent Directory: http://opencontent.uct.ac.za
Companion site on Vula: https://vula.uct.ac.za/portal/site/openuct
OER UCT project blog: http://blogs.uct.ac.za/blog/oer-uct
OpenUCT Initiative: http://openuct.uct.ac.za/
OpeningScholarship : http://openingscholarship.uct.ac.za/
Follow us: http://twitter.com/openuct
Presentations: http://www.slideshare.net/laura_Cz
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 South
Africa License. To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/za/ or send a letter to Creative
Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.
Editor's Notes
McNay, I. (1995). From collegial academy to corporate enterprise: The changing cultures of universities. In T. Schuller (Ed.), The changing university. Buckingham: Society forResearch into Higher Education and Open University Press.A study of the relationship between institutional policy, organisationalculture and e-learning use in four South African universitiesLaura Czerniewicz *, Cheryl Brown in Computers & Education 53 (2009) 121–131
Rossiter, D. (2007) Whither e-learning? Conceptions of change and innovation in higher education. Journalof Organisational Transformation and Social Change. 4 (1), pp.93–107.From http://edoc.ub.uni-muenchen.de/5730/1/Wan_Yee-Tak.pdfStudent Expectations in the New Millennium —An Explorative Study of the Higher Education in Hong Kong, Dissertation, zurErlangung des Doktorgrades der Philosophie an derLudwig-Maximilians-UniversitätMünchen, vorgelegt von Yee-Tak Wan ausHongkong, LMU München, 2006
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Cape_Town
There's a 'teaching input' subsidy that works on the basis of enrolled students (full-time equivalents, not just headcount). It's weighted by subject category, so an Engineering or Music student earns more than a regular Hum or Commerce student. Also weighted by academic level, but not in a very nuanced way. This element is by far the biggest of the overall teaching (as opposed to research-related) subsidy. The 'teaching output' subsidy funds graduate output, so this is the reward for success. But it's not very large, only about 14% of total teaching subsidy at present. It's calculated in a fairly complicated way but a university can improve the size of its slice of the cake by improving its grad output relative to other universities'. Overall, the output incentive is commonly said to be not large enough to persuade institutions to privilege success over access, but it's certainly not negligible. For a growth-averse institution like UCT, it's important. (Scott 2012,perscomm)Bear in mind that Masters (the research component) and doctoral grads are funded from a different pot, and output here is seen to be quite lucrative (tho no-one does the cost-vs-income sums properly)
Scholar to scholar and scholar to community- traditional sites of open access movementScholar student – traditional site of elearning
The second key concept is the power of individuals to make a positivecontribution to bringing about change. According to Giddens’‘structuration theory’ (1984), power resides in the meshing of individualaction with organisational structures; individuals can become ‘extendedprofessionals’ (Hoyle, 1969) and act strategically to make a positivecontribution to bringing about change (Somekh & Thaler, 1997)…
Intellectual Property policy and OERCreators of Open Educational Resources (OER) are to take note of and act in accordance with the newly-updated Intellectual Property (IP) policy of the University of Cape Town. The updated version now specifically addresses issues relating to the creation of OER resources and the licensing processes to be followed. The policy also now expressly states the support for publication of materials under Creative Commons licenses.In term of the updates, an Intellectual Property (IP) Advisory Committee is to be established to manage the processes relating to IP for UCT. Section 9 of the policy relates to creators of OER resources. It states that software development projects involving Open Source Licensing (OER) should, from the outset, submit the intended type of license agreement for review to the Research Contracts and Intellectual Property Services (RCIP) office for review in terms of compliance to South Africa’s Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Act and guidelines.Notable aspects of the updated policy also include IP related to the creation and licensing of films as a teaching learning medium/tool. Others are (Section 8.2): UCT automatically assigns to the author(s) the copyright, unless UCT has assigned ownership to a third party in terms of a research contract, in: Scholarly and literary publications Paintings, sculptures, drawings, graphics and photographs produced as an art form Recordings of musical performances and musical compositions Course materials, with the provision that UCT retains a perpetual, royalty-free, nonexclusive licence to use, copy and adapt such materials within UCT for the purposes of teaching and or research Film.
*
* Displays the most diverse number of authors per faculty - not necessarily the highest number of resources submitted by faculty
The academic who wants to publish OERThe team support OERThe institution where to put the OER
Telling academic what is available does not really helpInternet Archive / Google advanced search / wiki media commons / creativecommons searchFlickr / compfight / Flickr storm / pixabay / alegri photos / Creativity 103 / pic drome / geograph uk /Open images / wellcome images / opengraphic / deviantArt / DryIcons / AcademicEarth / KhanAcademy / OpenVideo ProjectFreeSound / FreeMusic Archive / Jamendo / CCMixter / FreeLoops / IntraText / SourceForge / MITOpenCourseWare / OER Commons / ConnexionsXKCD / AbstruseGoose
What are the enabling factors to support open practices for academics?Division of Labour: Are you concerned about the time and effort it will take?Time / Indexing / Publishing / Packaging / Who will pay for my time / Where will I find the information / What software do I need to know /Solution: Full time tech assistant. Part time administrators and reps
Which license do I use, what does it mean, and where do I put it, how do I ensure I will get acknowledgement. Since we are suppose to be a 1 stop shop what can I do in terms of the university’s IP policy? And if I later want to publish it in a book and sell it?- Are my material being downloaded by whom, can I get some feedback / Licensing Example of Dr FreercksSolution: Access to OER IP and IP office
tools for real-time interaction between learners/users of OER? As an example, there is an OpenStudy website (http://openstudy.com/)
http://open.umich.edu/education/med/oernetwork/guides/distrib-guidelines/2011https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/oer-tech UCT has 'white-listed' some OER sites so that they they do not count towards student's internet quota: http://blogs.uct.ac.za/blog/oer-uct/2011/05/26/students-can-now-access-a-selection-of-international-oer-sites-freely
OER is hosted online and linked to the UCT OpenContent directory. - Search across institutional OER collections. There is OER Commons, GLOBE (Global Learning Objects Brokering Exchange), OCWC Consortium, DiscoverEd (?) and the Learning Registry is a new one - a place for organizations or individuals to register their learning content Via open content website as directory, using sakai as repositoryDrupal content management system. Lifetype for bloggingMetadata : use a loosely defined oai_dc format. Our format is based on the requirements from OER Commons
Pilot study to test robustness of Activity theory but also to start collecting cases...
Kuutti (1996, p. 13) defines AT as “...a philosophical and cross-disciplinary framework for studying different forms of human practices as developmental processes, with both individual and social levels interlinked at the same time...”. Activity Theory enables the researcher to investigate activity within a social setting, which is also referred to as the activity system. Engeström (1987) formulated a model of the structure of this system which includes the subject, object, tools, division of labour, community, rules and outcome. In this system the Tools, Rules and Division of labour are the mediating artefacts through which the object is transformed into the outcome (Figure 1). These mediating artefacts influence how the subject (s) acts on the object in order to arrive at the outcome. The subject is therefore influenced by the rules of the system, the community and also the division of labour (Engestrom, 1987). One of the key principles of Activity theory as a dialectical theory is the concept of ‘contradiction’. Contradictions are historically present in Activity systems. When a new activity is introduced into the system internal ‘ primary’ contradictions result in “aggravated secondary contradictions where some old element collides with a new one...” (Engeström, 2001). Contradictions are present and are crucial driving forces of transformation ( Engeström and Sannino, 2010). Articulating the location of these contradictions in the system and overcoming them can transform the activity.These contradictions occur when there is a “misfit within elements, between elements, between different activities, or between different developmental phases of a single activity” (Kuutti, 1996, p.34). These contradictions can be visible or invisible, intentional or ‘...unintentional disturbances...’ (Engestrom, Brown, Christopher & Gregory, 1991, p.91)
The research included reading much of the published material around motivations for contribution and concerns from various institutions. The literature together with the Activity theory nodes helped me group the concerns of academics from the literature and also to frame interview questions so.....
“why would you do it;...would students actually be interested? And my materials “...may not make any sense to anybody else without lots of structure, and notes...”“Who cares”“Not convinced it would make a big difference to someone”
There was a concern about the time it would take to get materials “..it would take some time to get to the quality that I will be happy with to getting it online...” and a concern about the ‘correctness’. One academic said he had a 1000 slides he would like to share but the images needed to by updated and improved.
again “ who cares” but also one academic felt that there was not support and there needed to be a “unit wide and institutional conversation around adding content...”“It is not valued by my unit, so I wouldn’t worry about it”
“ ... I think it's an obligation to share our knowledge with people who can’t afford these resources..." "...increase reach ability of resources that were previously only available in a few places..."
Keep in mind that although the three key reasons given below enable academics to contribute OER they are also potential barriers.The academic who referred to teaching materials as being “readily accessible” also mentioned that other courses were not as media rich and could not stand alone
One academic described how for years he had been recording his lectures and putting them up on his website. He had set up a system that meant he could easily do this. However he felt “ it’s going to be hard to get everyone to buy into a uniform model...you know people get stuck in their ways...”
One of the academics who was interviewed who had contributed was a “OpenUCT’ grant holder. We started to allocate small grants and 800 pounds for academics to employ students, illustrators, web designers and/or desktop publishers in order to adapt existing materials or develop new materials. ( We allocated 14 grants in 2011 and will do more this year).This small grant meant a student could adapt existing materials.
A commerce professor stressed how it was his stage in career that enabled his sharing. He added that the nature of commerce is to make money in corporate and sell courses and text books- NOT share
Tools:Ease of use and convenienceRules:Reward excellent teaching. Eliminate concerns about promotion for research only and reward great teaching materials which will allay concerns about the quality of materials. CommunityShow cases were OER;s are used well and effectively in the class or for learning. DOLOutcome: Transform the activity so that teaching materials are open and copyright free and great quality from the start!