For some time now I’ve been critical of “disposable assessments.” An assessment can be characterized as “disposable” if everyone understands that its ultimate destiny is the garbage can. Take an all-too-typical example: Faculty member assigns student to write a two page compare and contrast essay Student writes the paper and submits it to faculty Faculty grades the paper and returns it to student Student checks what grade they received, briefly peruses any written comments, and then throws the paper away (This example assumes physical paper, but the principles are exactly the same in the context of assessments submitted, graded, and returned electronically.) ...

Fifteen years ago MIT announced its OpenCourseWare project. Above all else, this groundbreaking project demonstrated that an institution can openly share it’s core instructional resources without materially harming itself. Inspired by MIT’s example, hundreds of other institutions around the world began openly publishing the resources they created in support of their courses. Of critical importance is the fact that neither MIT nor any of the hundreds of other schools that launched OCW initiatives has ever reported suffering a decrease in enrollments because of its program of open sharing. Creating and sharing OER did not harm their ability to succeed in accomplishing their core missions - the education of their students. And there are many reasons to believe that their efforts in creating and sharing OER actually advanced their core missions. However, by the end of the decade growth of new programs had slowed and I haven’t heard of any new OCW initiatives launching in the last several years. ...

This began as a comment on Heather’s post, but grew unwieldy and so ended up here. Heather’s post is reacting to this quote from an article she read recently: “There is one additional requirement for widespread OER adoption. Incentives need to discourage ‘free-riders’.” This statement is demonstrably false. Of the 50 colleges in the US today with widespread OER adoption initiatives underway (by “widespread” here I mean that so many faculty across the institutions are adopting OER that it is - or will soon be - possible for students to earn complete degrees using only OER), literally none of them have discouraging incentives like those Annand describes. I could have ended this post here, but there’s more to say. ...

In case you didn’t see it elsewhere, I’m republishing the press release from Achieving the Dream about the incredibly exciting OER Degrees work that launched today. It’s really happening! Achieving the Dream Launches Major National Initiative to Help 38 Community Colleges in 13 States Develop New Degree Programs Using Open Educational Resources OER Degree Initiative will accelerate use of openly licensed learning materials in higher education and cut costs to students while improving degree and certificate completion ...

The tl;dr: Supporting effective OER adoption at scale has its problems. Many of these problems have openly licensed solutions. Sometimes it makes sense to deploy these solutions yourself; sometimes it makes more sense to work with a partner. Background and Some Problems To put it in a depressingly small nutshell, I spent the first decade or so of my career creating open licenses to make the sharing of OER legally possible, traveling the world talking to people about why they might want to place an open license on their educational materials and other creative works, experimenting with different open pedagogies in my own teaching, and conducting empirical research about the impacts of OER adoption on outcomes for students, faculty, and institutions. ...

Andrew Rickard has written a thoughtful essay on OER, open pedagogy, and commercial interests. In it, he reflects on several topics, including his honest misgivings about the recent OpenStax / Knewton partnership announcement. His doubts are not unique; I think there is a broad sense of uneasiness regarding the participation of commercial players in the open education space. And I think it’s a topic we should be talking about more. In the interest of transparency let me remind the reader that I co-founded and currently work at Lumen Learning, a for-profit entity that works in the open education space. And let me preface this post by saying that Adam posed a thoughtful question deserving a thoughtful response, but on reflection I see that below I’m responding more to my personal experiences and observations of the past several years than I am his specific post. Sorry, Adam. ...

Robin DeRosa has written an absolutely wonderful post about two of her experiences with open pedagogy. I am so grateful to her for doing so! Reading these stories filled my heart with glee and my soul with joy. And if that sounds hyperbolic, I assure you that I’m understating the effect her post had on me. I frequently tell the stories of Project Management for Instructional Designers and The Open Education Reader in talks I give, but I’ve never taken the time to write something as thorough as Robin’s account of her experiences. I kept finding myself silently shouting “Yes!!” as I read her post. “That’s exactly how I feel!” It’s amazing how moving it is to find you have a shared experience with someone, especially when that experience has affected you so powerfully. ...

During his 2016 State of the Union Address, President Obama called on Vice President Biden to lead a new, national “Moonshot” initiative to eliminate cancer as we know it. Today, the White House is announcing a new $1 billion initiative to jumpstart this work. (fact sheet) The country - the world, really - is fighting the war against cancer with both hands tied behind its back. This work is quintessentially cutting-edge science, and the lifeblood of work in any advanced scientific field is research. Cutting off access to research results - either the seminal (foundational) research or the very latest findings published earlier this morning - is a certain way to kill this kind of endeavor. When researchers, scientists, and others working on a project can’t find out was has already been tried, what has been proven to work, and what has already been shown to fail, they are doomed to spin frenetically in an eddy of frustrated impotence, forever. ...

Earlier this week I read an op-ed - sponsored by Pearson - titled “If OER is the answer, what is the question?” The article poses three questions and answers them. Below I share some thoughts prompted by the article. (The questions from the article are presented in bold; unattributed blockquotes are from the original article.) How do we deliver better learning experiences to more students? There are fantastic learning resources out there of all breeds bringing different types of value to the learning process. OER often shine in their variety and ability to deepen resources for niche topics. Where proprietary courseware (textbooks, etextbooks, or online courseware) stand apart is in pedagogical organization and the unique value of authorship. While it’s possible to build a complete course from OER, the finished product often lacks the scaffolding found in courseware authored by single author/editorial/product teams. That scaffolding connects concepts and practice together, guiding students through the content in a way that maximizes learning. ...

Terrible ideas and brilliant ones can be surprisingly difficult to tell apart. More often than not they tend to be terrible. So, from a purely statistical perspective, what you’re about to read is likely a horrible idea. That fact notwithstanding, in the great tradition of selfishly publishing less than half-baked ideas on my blog so that I can benefit from readers’ comments and feedback, I present the following little thought experiment for your enjoyment. ...