I will be utilizing the picture painted by the University of Maryland Global Campus in their discussion on OERs and their potential pros and cons. In order to promote OERs at UMGC, there is a need to not just establish trust in this system, but to additionally promote faculty engagement and participation, as without this, OERs would be stagnant and unable to evolve the quality of the resources, which is a large selling point for OERs.
Many of the primary concerns with the potential integration of OERs mentioned within the discussion were: quality issues arising the materials being subject to open amendments; intellectual property issues (many want to retain these rights to materials that have their name stamped on it); decrease in human interaction between students and teachers; losses of the financial nature resulting in motivation to pull materials from OER repositories; and technological issues as far as having a level playing field for students to have affordable access to these materials (UMGC).
While these are all relevant concerns regarding, they are counter-balanced by the potential positive aspects of OER integration. UMGC has an array of online resources already available on their Libguides website regarding OERs that concerned staff could be directed to, but a further step could be engaged in order to address these specific concerns directly and sell them on the idea of OERs (UMGC). This step could take the form of an in-person or online symposium/presentation event that would address these concerns, with an emphasis on the messaging that “the more we participate and engage with OERs, the stronger the materials, and thus the institution that they are present in can become.” This further engagement should result in a higher potential for them to interact with the website and its resources while additionally working as a pitch for OERs.
The first stage in this presentation would be to illustrate these specific concerns as a means of building transparency. Next, the focus will lean into illustrating how we can overcome many of these concerns through higher participation. Finally, moving to articulate the presently measurable benefits of OERs as well as the potential ones that would result from further buy-in, and then providing direction to UMGC’s online resources on OERs.
Regarding the issue of potential lapses in quality, it would be illustrated that the process of amending materials would also serve as a form of peer-review for novel contents in addition to the actual process of adding/updating/modernizing these teaching resources (McGill) (Mossely 8). With enough of a buy-in, more and more eyes could be looking at these materials, where these eyes would be the very individuals that would police the quality and integrity of these materials (McGill). This would make it so the institution as a whole would have more say in what the materials contain, versus outside textbook authors that can have points of view or motives that do not align with the institution itself. Phrases like “iron sharpens iron” could hammer this point home, as this is a form of an institution working to refine of these resources.
The potential decrease in human interaction can be addressed in that we, now more than ever, have experience with this due to the complications created by the Covid-19 pandemic. While holding class sessions over Zoom isn’t considered unanimously ideal, we presently have more experience with such methods of communication in delivering educational experiences due to these complicated times. By now, many have figured out how to navigate this landscape as best as possible in promoting human interaction from a distance, and thus this concern may have held more water prior to this pandemic. Encouraging communication between colleagues as of means of having tips shared should be promoted as a worthwhile endeavor.
In response to issues of technological accessibility, while this is certainly a problem across academia, it can be illustrated that this concern would be mitigated due to how OERs are scalable and can additionally reduce financial costs placed on students if they do not have to spend money on expensive physical textbooks or other materials of that nature that are ephemerally used typically over one semester. While I do not have data to compare these costs over time, it can be said that the more OERs are integrated, the more the financial burden on students would be reduced, leveraging their ability to have these finances spent on less ephemeral education tools and towards more long-term ones like laptops. Increasing availability of grants and other funds resulting from institutional finances saved through OER integration could be allocated towards students that need these resources as well, further mitigating this concern.
Regarding the concerns over intellectual property and potential financial losses that would motivate staff to pull their materials from an OER repository post-launch, the notion of buying-in is should be hammered home. While mentioning that the option to opt out is present, additionally selling them on the fact that OERs benefit the institution and the students overall, and can result in novel opportunities that could lead to potential financial gain and increased prestige for staff that do opt in. The more the OER is interacted with, the stronger the materials would become, with the quantity of people viewing and utilizing these materials increases, resulting in non-student parties becoming privy to contents that would not have been openly accessible if they were tucked away behind monetary barriers. OERs are more about looking towards the future, where as time goes on, the benefits reaped become higher through the strengthening and wider availability of the materials.
A good closing to these proceedings would be to postulate that, like with UNC’s experience with OERs, where “areas like health affairs, information and library science are already doing OERs to some extent, just not calling it that” (Concerns at UNC Document), that UNGC staff may have already benefitted or interacted with OERs. This could further promote potential interaction with UNGC’s online resources regarding OERs where in addition to learning more elucidating knowledge on the subject, could find evidence of prior positive experiences with these resources. This could have an additional mitigating effect on hesitancy in working with OERs.
Refences:
Concerns at UNC. Retrieved November 5, 2021. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%2F%2Fils.unc.edu%2Fcourses%2F2021_fall%2Finls700_001%2FPresentations%2FCarolina_OER%2520-%2520Challenges.pdf&clen=101874&chunk=true
McGill, Lou. (2013). Stakeholders and Benefits. Open Education Resources. Retrieved November 5, 2021. https://openeducationalresources.pbworks.com/w/page/24838012/stakeholders%2520and%2520benefits
Mossely, David. (2013). Open Education Resources and Open Education. The Higher Education Academy. 1-25. Retrieved November 2, 2021. https://ils.unc.edu/courses/2021_fall/inls700_001/Readings/Mossely2013-OERandOpenEducation.pdf
University of Maryland Global Campus. (n.d.) Open Educational Resources: Pros and Cons. Retrieved November 5, 2021. https://libguides.umgc.edu/c.php?g=23404&p=138771