Talk:Greater Access Choice and Flexibility: Learning at University of Canberra
Open education is about Process
There is a wide-spread misunderstanding (myth?) that "open educational resources" are what's important for the goals you've mentioned (access, choice, flexibility). However, they are really far from being enough. Once someone has "access" there is still a question about what they are going to do. This is true whether we're talking about access to a material resource or a community. Research into how people learn is called for, and probably not just that. Learning is only one of the things people do at University: they also socialize, network, and achieve (the list could go on). I would suggest to draw on the efforts of people and organisations who have been thinking about these issues for a while: they're not particularly easy. To sum up, I think the innovations that Leigh Blackall talks about below could be "incubated" by strategic partners who are coming from outside of the University. Now is probably not the time for shameless self-promotion, but if you're interested in following up you know where to find me! Arided 09:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Thoughts on the choice of words...
I am in the post go-live of a significant grant where we have "increased access to education" for the lawyers of British Columbia Canada. The title of the grant was "Increasing Access to Education". After three years of having this as the title I have great appreciation for the words chosen. It provided great flexibility (and little to no restraint) from many perspectives. When I read your identified need to create port holes I wonder about the optics of the choice in words - Greater choice and flexibility to what?... why not just name the initiative as "Increasing Access to Learning at the University of Canberra" - Choice and Flexibility I perceive as solution approaches, that don't necessarily provide greater access. To much choice and flexibility can confuse and decease access. And giving lots of choice and flexibility can incur costs that could be better utilized elsewhere. As an example could be search engine technology (a good search technology well implemented does amazing things to increase access to learning). We have used a federated / faceted search approach where all information sources are within one search engine with facets to allow discovery and organize within our defined taxonomy (or subject areas for U of Canberra). We have given no choice in this matter and the cost of giving everyone the choice of search engine would have been considerable. What we did do is increase access, but not choice and flexibility.
Once we had the grant in place we had department heads, faculty, managers, IT people... everyone open to submitting proposals that fit within increasing access. Some increased choice and flexibility others did not, choice and flexibility were not a requirement... increasing access to education was. I would see the same here, why put greater choice and flexibility as a goal when it is more about the learning and sometimes decreasing choice is good for learning... What would happen if someone made an outstanding proposal that did not provide greater choice or flexibility. Would the idea be declined?
Really sorry to be a stickler on wording. Though, I do see it as important for success and optics from a high level. I know it is too late to change wording in strategic planning documents, but I really want to share some of my insights into what has happened with our grant that created seven major initiatives that I believe have done amazing things to increase access (and decrease costs) to education. And this wording detail is what jumped out at me.
Peter Rawsthorne 17:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Signing declarations about access
I think their are two declarations UC should sign to:
- Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities (2003)
- Cape Town Open Education Declaration
Leighblackall 09:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Leigh This sentiment about responsibility and authority is a key part of the dynamic along the spectrum between institutions and self-managed community groups we were talking about today. The tools of communication and rules of governance are different for each.
I think this distinction is an important part of the conceptual framework for using social media or not effectively.
I hope it helps
Warmly, Mark - 2 August 2011
Responsibility and authority by Seth Godin
|“||Achievers in traditional organizations often say, "I want more authority." They mean that they want the power to make things happen, the mantle of authority that will allow them to get things done.
This is an industrial-era mindset. Management by authority is top-down, risk-averse, measurable and perfect for the org chart. It's essential in organizations that are stable, asset-based and adverse to risk.
There's a different approach, though, one that's based on responsibility instead of authority. "Anyone who takes responsibility for getting something done is welcome to ask for the authority to do it."
Ah, your bluff is called. And so is your boss's.
Notes about CIT's ACE Program
I met with Rob Howarth at CIT Solutions today, to talk about their approach to Adult and Community Education (ACE). Here's my notes. I think in there is a model that UC should certainly consider developing. Leighblackall 04:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- If UC and CIT merge, this could/would become "our" model? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I suggest paperless capabability as one of the "Greater Access, Choice and Flexibility" working party consideration. Currently, much paper-only documentation, procedures and systems limits the institutions accessability and flexibility. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 21:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- agreed Leighblackall 00:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I have asked that the f2f meeting minutes be published and linked here. Leighblackall 00:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
The final document is being edited on Google Docs by the core team. Thanks everyone for your comments and suggestions, we will publish the final draft for your review before submission. Leighblackall 00:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)