Kerr Action Plan; 2-for-1 Design

[James Kerr]

Best to view in Google Docs-the editor stripped all the table formatting when it posted. – Jim

[David Jennings]

Thanks, Jim, (and I’ve tweaked the formatting a bit for ease of reading)

So just to check that I have your plan right: you are aiming to source existing OERs to create a new (?) course, which will be available in two versions – a free, open access version with no credit, and a for-credit version? Is the latter essentially the same course, but with added support and assessment? And is it that you’re using the savings in development costs (by virtue of using OERs) to balance the extra costs of the ‘free’ version (as you say here, there are always some costs)?

This may seem a little like semantic nitpicking but the things you’ve listed as enhancements seem more like methods than enhanced outcomes. For example, “inclusion of more OER” is more a feature than a benefit in its own right, no?

You have mentioned some enhancements at the beginning in terms of improved access for new/extra learners, and improved experience for existing learners (I’d be cautious about promising to save money for the university, because if you aim to increase provision and cut costs at the same time, you need to work through the figures to ensure that’s achievable). Good stuff.

Let me try and put myself in the shoes of a sceptical, business-minded but fundamentally lazy (implausible as that might seem!) head of department or pro vice chancellor… why would I bother? If the cost savings really stack up, OK. Extending access to courses seems like a good altruistic thing to do, and if there’s political pressure on me to do that, this might alleviate the pressure. On the downside, what if it cuts the demand for the paid-for course and reduces our enrolments? Might some other institution come along and offer support and accreditation to the people taking our free course?

Hope you don’t mind me posing these challenges – I’m just trying to anticipate what you might get asked if trying this for real.

[Personal note: I’m having a routine operation later today, so if I don’t respond to any follow-up in the next few days, it’s not that I’m not interested, just that I’m recuperating.]

[James Kerr]

David,

The reality is that currently universities are tripping over themselves and each other to develop MOOC content without solid evidence of long-term benefit to their institution, no matter what the costs up front or ongoing.  I’m suggesting that rather than design and develop courses separately for MOOCs and credit delivery, if they are using the same delivery model (online coursework) there is potential for some savings in aggregating the design and development process, inclusion of OER when available and applicable, and streamlining the whole process.  The primary enhancement is in the design process and methods; I didn’t explore the enhancements of OER inclusion much in the post.

I’m not questioning the value of MOOCs or what happens to enrollments if non-credit options are available.  Right now, the model is “if you want an accredited degree you pay for the credits” and no one is sure where open learning is headed.  There are some colorful ideas and theories, including my own, but it is a big unknown territory that HE is charging into.

[David Jennings]

Thanks the elaboration, Jim – that makes sense, and I get it now In fact it makes such obvious sense that one is tempted to assume that it’s bound to happen sooner or later. But might it take a generation in HE (however long that is – how frequently do departments rethink their courses from first principles in the normal course of events?) to work through the system?

[Author]

Posts