Intranet : Blogs

Deus ex OER machina

March 24th, 2011 at 04:03

Those of us with degrees have such distinctions that we can sign people’s driving license application forms. The degree makes us notable, and as such, means the awarding body has acted as a form of notary. In the age of Internet, reputations, and noteworthy actions are increasingly important. Many tools exist to allow people to gauge how important tweeters are, and there is even the whuffie - a virtual currency based on people’s reputations.

As I am the author of this blog – I have next to no choice to be shown to be it’s author. Obviously in doing so, I respect that this is a work log and will reflect upon me professionally. As such, this act of creation is distinctly tied to my reputation, or at least perceptions of it. Would I write differently if this was anonymous – definitely. Would I write it differently if I could tell exactly who would read it – definitely. The audience, perceived and actual of the work, and the inferred perception the author has of this audience are tied directly to the creation of materials. So an act of social creation, perhaps something near to social constructivism, leads to a conflict, leading to an inhibited process of creation.

Could we propose a spectrum of “open”, regarding how accessible the end results of a process are? Degrees affording professional status will need accreditation, but this is unlikely to compare to say OFSTED inspections of A level classes. Obviously as a comparison, one of these is a forced openness, it is not done willingly. However, in these processes, there is still a majority of people going through the process – and they are likely to have gone through similar processes previously. So although there maybe reticence, it is not an unknown audience to deal with, there is not an unknown response with which to deal.

So imagine a new form of exposure. Let’s call it open educational resources. So we imagine, academically that this process would need a new critical theory. OER is different from creating content for a VLE – there is copyright clearance and the reputation of the University to deal with. There isn’t the peer review of publishing a paper, and it’s unlikely a colleague will be on hand whose gone through the process before.

As this is a University based process, there is a desire to capitalise on attribution and reputation by making it apparent who the author is – but does this process inhibit the creation of materials in the first instance. Perhaps a bashful anonymity and the option to assert attribution at a later date if the material proved popular. We don’t have an advanced idea of what good quality OER looks like yet, and so beauty lies in the eye of the beholder, and as such to introduce worries over audiences that we do not yet understand are somewhat spurious. Psychological theory on social facilitation highlights how group work can improve performance if we are confident in what we do, but without that confidence (such as in a new field) our performance is hindered by a fear of as of yet unknown response. This response though is to ourselves, so perhaps the idea of a “lurker writer” would facilitate the creation of more OER? A lurker writer could remain anonymous until either confident or empowered. It may also lead to braver and more interesting work.