Wk11, A2c

Please debate the proposition ‘OER will reduce the digital divide’

As part of this activity I chose to read the OpenLearn report from the resource list:

Due consideration has been given to underpinning infrastructure and design of the OpenLearn site and its principles to ensure that access to resources is maximised. For example, the resources themselves, the tools employed by the OU including the VLE, and licensing are all designed with ease of transferability and sharing in mind. Whilst, by acknowledgement, this was seen to be a big (and brave) step, it is perceived as a step forward and is backed up by evidence that within five months of launching, 800,000 learners (p.3) had benefited from the OER content.

OpenLearn has ambitions to support the development of new non-formal learning communities by considering the ways that self-initiated learning can be supported through things like self-assessment, topic forums and personal learning journals (p.12).

I do not believe that OER itself can reduce the digital divide. Fundamental infrastructure and skills development are prerequisites to even accessing the content available. It is possible that OER may provide users with a motivation for working with technology, thus reducing the digital divide, “changing the way people think about opportunities for raising their competencies and abilities” (p.17). However, I would suggest that OER is about making learning more accessible through use of technology. For me, the development of OER enters the debate of widening participation, not the digital divide.

–

OpenLearn (2007) Creating a new world of learning, Open University [online] Available from: http://www.open.ac.uk/openlearn/about-us/our-story.php#3 (accessed 29 April 2009)

Wk11, A1

Wk11, A1

My initial response to this debate was to disagree with the proposition, but after a few minutes consideration, I could see the other perspective too making it difficult to vote for or against. As my understanding of teaching and learning matures, I realise more and more that it is the role of the teacher and learner that enhances quality of education, not the technology and resources. That is to say, it’s not what you’ve got, it’s what you do with it that counts, so I opted for the proposition on that basis.

Frauke’s excellent contribution (Constable, 2009) raised several questions about the debate for me, and one in particular – how do you define quality? I think that the conversation in the debate and our forum has suggested that perhaps even the debaters were unsure of the answer to this.

For me, there are many facets to the ‘quality of education’ and lots of ways to measure these. Quality of the learner experience, or evidence of learning and achievement are two examples. If the emphasis of quality in education is about provision of resources, or enhancing the learner experience, then I think technology has a fundamental role to play. But I think much of what technology enables teachers to do refers to its affordances, for example, the differences between synchronous and asynchronous discussion.

—

Is knowledge advanced by these means?

Yes. But, that doesn’t mean to say that it could not be advanced through other, non-technological mean also.

2. Do you think the debate was affected by the electronic format?

A note on the process of debating: It was in the same way that discussions take place between this cohort online. Asynchronous online discussions enable a more considered and reflective response that can be researched and supported by other perspectives from literature, creating an opportunity to yield a far more ‘academic’ discussion. As Pat identified, (Shearer, 2009) Kozma took this opportunity, whilst Daniel opted for a more informal one which perhaps mimicked a more traditional face-to-face encounter. To an extent Kozma proved his point by the way that he approached the debate.

3. Were you surprised by the results? (Pro 44% / Con 56%)

Not really as I struggled to come to a conclusion myself, and I think the debate was confusing in that, although it raised some very interesting topics and discussions, I’m not sure how much of this was actually an aligned response to the proposition.

—

Constable, F. (26 April 2009) ‘Re: A1b – A1e’, conference message to H800 les6 09 W11 A1

Shearer, P. (25 April 2009) ‘Wk11 activities a-c’, conference message to H800 les6 09 W11 A1

Economist debate (2007), Technlogy in education, ‘This house believes the continuing introduction of new technologies and new media adds little to the quality of most education’, Available from: http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/120 (accessed 28 April 2009)