Tom's Two Cents

It may seem strangely ironic that a project like the Open Course Library received the People’s Choice award for “most accessible” since our finished product is not yet available. (If it’s so accessible, where is it??)

Let me explain. Accessibility and universal design principles have been a priority from the first day of this project. We are also working to share our project design and progress using social media and a wiki that describes our process.

So over the next couple months as some people may be tempted to ask, “Where are your courses, Mr. Most Accessible OCW Winner?” I’ll just tell them about how we are adding captioning to several hundred YouTube videos, trying to make our open courses a little bit more accessible. I can’t wait for our official launch at the end of October. It’s going to be great!

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

Today I reviewed some presentations from Open Ed 2010 and thought about the last several years of the Open Education movement. Here are a couple clips from the Barcelona conference, starting with a nice overview from my favorite OER advocate, Hal Plotkin:

Hal Plotkin: impressions about Open Ed 2010

Hal Plotkin at Open Ed 2010:
“Meeting President Obama’s 2020 College Graduation Goal – The Role of Open Educational Resources”

And in case you missed Hal Plotkin’s “new speech” from his 2011 Connexions conference keynote, it’s a must. 
Read more…

Related Posts:

• No Related Posts

David Wiley left a comment on my last post about USU OpenCourseWare sustainability that sparked a new post.

David’s comment:

I think the problem of the moment is that every person on campus is asking, with regard to their specific program, “how do you justify NOT paying for it?” And yet things are being cut left and right. In a climate where serious conversations are being had about laying off faculty, I worry that you can’t argue for a program on any merits other than “in addition to be useful, it brings in additional dollars.” But I’d love to be wrong.

My reply:

… I don’t want to stray too far from the context of my letter, which was directed at a marketing and PR committee. My point is that we have not made a strong enough case to these people. Marketing a university costs money, and the return on this investment is measured in eyeballs, visitors, or hits — not dollars. An established OpenCourseWare like USU OCW should be a marketing line item because it provides more marketing bang for every buck. Smart organizations like Talis have figured this out and are now using their marketing budgets to fund interesting projects that will enhance their reputation (http://blogs.talis.com/education/incubator/). I realize this is all stuff you know, but I’m just putting it out there for others.

Value

I think saying that OpenCourseWare needs to “bring in additional dollars” is looking at the problem too narrowly. Yes, every OCW needs to generate value, and that value must be recognized by the institutions decision-makers. I am not against OCWs earning money linking to paid courses, but I think USU OCW has something else to offer.

As I studied in the Utah State University library today I noticed several groups of students being taken on a tour of the campus, 8 students at a time. Several of the students appeared to be foreign students. How did these students decide to attend Utah State University? More importantly, how will students find and choose a university in the future (assuming universities are not irrelevant at that point)?

I am not saying Utah State University should replace its guided campus tours with OpenCourseWare; I am only suggesting that USU OpenCourseWare has incredible value as a sort of Virtual Visitor’s Center. USU OCW is essentially a “student magnet” — a site that attracts learners from near and far and showcases some of the great courses USU has to offer. It’s like the free samples at Sam’s Club.

Free samples

I believe USU OCW is more useful than a traditional advertisement because it draws the right target group: learners! USU OCW allows them a sample of some great course content available at Utah State University. And just like the free samples they give away at your local membership warehouse, it gets people interested. Of course when it comes to course content in an OpenCourseWare, you can give away all the samples you want and you haven’t lost anything. Students will still have to pay for the degree.

This is valuable stuff. How valuable? To put things into perspective I will compare it to something much less useful: a Google Ad. Google Ads for popular university keywords range from 76 cents to $1.80. At a conservative 76 cents per click, an ad campaign for a university would cost $380,000 for 500,000 clicks. At its peak, USU OCW had an annual operating cost of $120,000 and had over 550,000 visits last year. That’s 1.5 million clicks from people interested in learning something. If you are a marketing committee, that’s worth something.

A well-developed OpenCourseWare site is valuable in so many ways. Please understand that by focusing on the marketing potential of OCW I do not mean to reduce it to merely a marketing tool. My point is that something doesn’t have to turn a profit to be sustainable. It can “earn its keep” in other ways — like marketing.

So what is your school doing with its marketing dollars? Why not create a virtual visitor’s center with OpenCourseWare? Why not give out “free samples” to thousands of prospective students? They will still come to you for the credentials. And there will be more of them.

Related Posts:

• USU OpenCourseWare is a Virtual Visitor’s Center

Dear USU Board of Trustees Marketing and Public Relations Committee,

If you could build a university visitor’s center that would attract over a million different visitors in the first four years of operation — a center your could run maintain with just one or two employees that would draw thousands of learners from all over the world — If you could create such a place, how much would that be worth to you? Guess what? You already have it. It’s called USU OpenCourseWare, and it’s already paid for. So how much would you be willing to pay to keep this virtual visitor’s center working for you? Would it be worth $10,000 per month to attract 43,000 monthly visitors (not just random visitors, but people actively seeking educational content) to a USU website, ready to learn? That’s what it would cost to continue to develop USU’s OpenCourseWare site, adding new courses to the showcase each semester. Of course this site is more than a marketing effort. There is value for existing students and faculty to be able to access this course content as well — especially during Blackboard outages. OpenCourseWare courses are available without a password for anyone to use. And they are definitely being noticed. In fact, USU has an international reputation as one of the best OCWs in the world, especially for its agriculture course materials. USU OpenCourseWare is listed alongside MIT, Notre Dame, and Yale OCWs. So how do we justify paying $120,000 each year for an OpenCourseWare program? I would ask how we justify NOT paying for it.

In the past USU has advertised to random travelers in an airline magazine. Surely it must be worth more to attract an audience of learners to a USU website filled with high quality courses for them to examine. Which do you think will attract more prospective students and faculty, a site filled with course materials or an airline ad? So, now that the outside funding is gone, what is a site like USU OpenCourseWare worth in terms of marketing and PR? Is a USU site that consistently attracts 250,000 unique visitors each year worth keeping? Will USU spend its marketing budget on airline ads instead? Please support USU OpenCourseWare so it can continue to showcase content from scores of great USU courses to tens of thousands of interested visitors every month. Many of those virtual visitors will be seeking a degree sooner than you think.

Related Posts:

• Free Samples – USU OpenCourseWare is a Virtual Visitor’s Center: Part 2
• 48 Million+ views in one month
• Making friends in Barcelona with Floyd the inflatable flamingo
• Reflexions on the 2nd Connexions Conference
• Consortia as far as the eye can see! But why pay the fee?

I will be conducting a panel session on OER access and accessibility in about an hour. It will run from 11:15am to 12:45pm CDT (UTC/GMT -5 hours). If you are not present at the OCWC Conference in Monterrey, you can connect via Elluminate web conference here: https://globalcampus.uiowa.edu/. To join the room, click on the “WiderNet eGranary Partnerships” (first link) and enter your name (no password required). This will start a java download that may take a few minutes, so please allow some time before the session.

You can also join in via twitter: #OCWC09wsaccess and #OCWCglobal2009

Here is the page that is pulling feeds together for the session: http://conferences.ocwconsortium.org/index.php/ocwcglobal/monterrey2009/paper/view/49

Panel members joining via Elluminate web conference are encouraged to sign on 15 minutes early (at 11:00am CDT). Others attending the webcast of the session are welcome to participate or listen in, but please save questions for the end. Comments may be submitted via chat during the session, but please be respectful of the speakers. In case you miss the session we are also recording it, and I will send out the link when it is available. Here are the details:

Session Focus: In this exploratory session we will discuss assistive technology efforts as well as projects to improve access to OER in developing countries. What projects are under way to improve accessibility and access to OER? How are accessibility and access challenges similar and what strategies might offer solutions to both problems?

Format: 90 minute session
Brief welcome and introduction by Tom Caswell

Panel Speakers, in speaking order (8-10 minutes each)
1. Tom Abelas (Sagacity) :: What is the future of OER within the context of the future of education?
2. Tom Caswell (OCWC/eduCommons) :: Overview of accessibility efforts within eduCommons project
3. Cliff Missen (WiderNet.org/eGranery) :: Overview of eGranery, with a focus on providing access to OER
4. Ahrash Bissell (ccLearn) :: Thoughts on content licensing considerations and their impact on global access goals
5. Jonathan Whiting (WebAIM.org) :: Introduce WebAIM efforts for web accessibility. What resources exit for those new to accessibility?
6. Dean Jansen (Participatory Culture Foundation/Miro video project) :: How does access and accessibility impact the future of  video? What is being done in these areas? Future directions for Miro
7. Bjoern Hassler (Cambridge University) :: Additional comments on video and access. Introduce Access2OER group (email list) to OCWC members. Where do we go from here?

Questions for panel members (using chat and audio)
Wrap up

Panel Member Biographies:

Tom Abelas has a Ph.D. in physical chemistry, former tenured professor at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay in the area of renewable energy, environmental science and liberal studies. Using distance education delivery systems for over 40 years and international consultant on dist-education and e-learning. Edit the international academic journal, On the Horizon, http://www.emeraldinsight.com/oth.htm which is a foresight journal focusing on education preK->gray with an emphasis on post secondary education. On the editorial boards of other academic journals from sustainable agriculture to world peace. President/Chairman of Sagacity, Inc an international consulting firm in renewable energy and the environment.

Tom Caswell is eduCommons Project Manager for the OpenCourseWare Consortium. eduCommons is an open source content management system designed specificaly for OpenCourseWare. Tom has also worked on the eduCommons project at the Center for Open and Sustainable Learning at Utah State University. He is a fourth year doctoral student studying open content and instructional games at the secondary level.

Cliff Missen is the director of the WiderNet Project and an instructor in the School of Library and Information Science at the University of Iowa.  The WiderNet Project works to improve digital communication in developing countries through the development of human capacity and program planning.  With over 24 years professional experience in computers, networking, multimedia design, teaching, and applications development, Missen oversees the development of the eGranary Digital Library, an innovative way to deliver the world’s knowledge to people and institutions with inadequate Internet access.

Ahrash Bissell is the Executive Director of ccLearn, the education division of Creative Commons, which focuses on removing the legal, technical, and cultural barriers to open education, digital scholarship, and the growth of the global commons. Prior to his current position, Ahrash was at Duke University, where he was Assistant Director of the Academic Resource Center and a Research Associate in Biology. He has a Ph.D. in Biology (Evolutionary Genetics) from the University of Oregon and a BS in Biology from the University of California, San Diego.

Jonathan Whiting, M.S., is the director of training and evaluation at WebAIM. WebAIM is a non-profit organization based at the Center for Persons with Disabilities at Utah State University. It is one of the most influential Web accessibility groups in the nation. As an instructional designer, Jonathan has published dozens of articles, tutorials, and other instructional resources. He has also traveled extensively to train hundreds of higher education Web developers, content creators, and other professionals who develop or maintain Web content. In addition to training, Jonathan has also provided Web accessibility evaluations and reports for several higher education institutions.

Dean Jansen is Outreach Director for the Participatory Culture Foundation. Dean is currently focused on co-organizing the Open Video Conference, which is slated to take place in New York on June 19-20. The conference will be asking big questions about the future of video; for instance, how do we effectively preserve our right to free expression in a world of consolidated commercial video gateways? Additionally, Dean helped draft the Open U proposal, which would be part of a fully open, end-to-end distribution system for educational resources. The Participatory Culture Foundation is a non-profit organization with a media reform mission. They foster bottom up economies and promote openness and decentralization in the online media ecosystem. Miro, the free and open source HD video player and distribution system, is their flagship project—you can check it out at: www.GetMiro.com

Dr Björn Haßler (University of Cambridge) has been working on educational issues for the last 8 years, including research on diagnostic testing for undergraduate mathematics education, widening participation and access through ICT, as well as volunteer engagement in media production. Since 2006 Björn holds a senior research associate position at CARET, working on educational aspects of new media. He has extensive experience in teaching multimedia, both within Cambridge and internationally, and has contributed to a number of best practice guidelines, including UNESCO National Commission reports. Further information at http://www.sciencemedianetwork.org

Related Posts:

• What Video Auto-Captioning Means for OER