Here’s a quick update on the Open Education at UAL project we are running as part of DIAL/ALTO . Team ALTO/DIAL have been out in the field meeting with UAL staff at various sites across UAL – we have completed sessions at CSM, LCF and at CCAD and had various other feedback/discussions which has informed the project to date: http://dial.myblog.arts.ac.uk/tag/open-education-debate/
Our key aims are to engage with people who are interested in producing OER, a self-selected group. Our aim is to expand the boundaries of that community by:
- Generating debate about the OER that addresses peoples’ fears, (mis)conceptions, and aspirations for what it might achieve
- Reviewing the factors that have underpinned achievements in ALTO/process.arts and formulating some strategies accordingly.
Our original Approach was:
Part 1 of the plan is to set up a live debate, preceded by an online debate on OER. Two prominent speakers will be invited. The first debate will focus on OER in Fine Art.
Part 2 is to start reviewing ALTO/process.arts, we will work compile demographic information about the authors who have contributed thus far. E.g. which colleges they come from, the number of items contributed, discipline areas, staff group, types of resource.
How might we evaluate this?
Part 1 – reflective interviews with debate participants
Part 2 – The data itself is evaluative. We might also ask – to what extent is the information collected sufficient to tell us something about who is interested in engaging with OED. Do we also need to do some interviews with a sample of contributors?
What’s changed ?
We had planned to hold a big ‘Open Education at UAL’ event at UAL during global education week but felt this was too much too soon and should go back to basics and instead carry out small ‘on the ground’ focus groups, disscusions and debates.
Given the postponement of the big debate and that we set up more local focus groups our project evaluator Duna advised us (28 February 2012) to re-think our approach to the project evaluation. What data do we want to collect and pass on to Duna to evaluate?
Here are some options:
1. Pick 3 people from each meeting who you think represent different constituencies (more engaged/not engaged or have different roles managing/tutoring) and ask them to respond to a couple of questions by email. The questions could include: Before coming what did you think was the purpose of the meeting for you? In what ways, if any, did it fulfil that purpose? What insights did you gain from coming?
2. Record how many people come, their jobs, their disciplines. Consider to what extent this profile is representative of the college as a whole. Who is missing? Identify people who represent those groups and ask them whether they heard about the meeting, and what prevented them from coming. (This needs to be done carefully – without coming across as blaming staff for not coming. So emphasise it’s about evaluating your approach and its relevance to all staff.)
3. Write up your own reflections on the focus groups independently, compare them with each other, not deleting any differences. Produce a version that is joint but that might contain some question where you disagree. Then send this version to one or two participants in the focus groups and ask them to comment.
4. Get all participants to write one sentence about OE at their college the start of the focus groups and keep it to themselves. Ask them to comment on that sentence, in writing at the end. They then take that piece of paper away with them and send you their comments after a period of reflection. You could engage in this process yourselves as well – checking your assumptions about each of the colleges.
With this in mind and the feedback we’ve had to date we have revised our evaluation plan: See revised our evaluation plan (comming soon)