K12 Open Ed

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.

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.

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?

With school budget crunches worsening, there is an increasing interest in free, open, and/or digital instructional resources. States like California, Texas, Indiana, and others are setting policies to allow and even encourage non-traditional resources to compete with traditional textbooks for funding dollars thereby prompting more wide-scale usage. These initiatives include various emphases on free, open, and digital materials.

The labels of free, open, and digital are very different though. Understanding the differences is important and is more than just nuance, though even the smartest of policymakers and leaders seem fuzzy on the differences.

I’ve spoken and written somewhat extensively already about the difference between free and open. There are many, many free tools out there that are not open. The implications of that are that 1) they may not always be free (or even exist); 2) you most likely can’t modify or redistribute them (which is essential for differentiating instruction); 3) you likely do not control your own data.

Conversely, all open resources have a free version. However, all versions of an open resources are not necessarily free. For example, while most open-licensed textbooks are distributed online free of charge, there could also be versions, especially, for example, physical products (printed or CD/DVD), that are sold (assuming no non-commercial license). Not only is this permissible, but it likely to be necessary if open textbooks are to gain wide adoption.

So now on to the difference between open and digital. Digital merely means that the materials are available in an electronic format. It does not imply that the materials are open or free. So, for example, a PDF file of a traditional textbook would qualify as “digital,” though it offers very few advantages over print. Most importantly, digital but proprietary resources are not able legally to be modified or remixed, which is an essential element of differentiating instruction (and what most policymakers are hoping for with digital resources, I think).

Nearly all open resources are available in a digital format. It is implicit, though not technically required, in the definition of open.

So why are these distinctions important? Because in order to redirect valuable funds from print to more flexible digital resources AND to be able to remix these resources to make them suitable for a wide range of learners’ needs, new initiatives need to focus on OPEN and DIGITAL resources. To do less is a disservice to our educational system.

Google Images’ advanced search now supports searching for open licensed photos.