Yearly Archives: 2019

Home / 2019

BCcampus Holiday Closure

BCcampus offices will be closed between December 23, 2019 and January 1, 2020 inclusive. Limited IT Support will be available on January 2 and 3, 2020. Normal office hours resume on January 6, 2020.

From our team to you, we wish you a peaceful and renewing end to 2019. See you next year!

BCcampus Award for Excellence in Open Education: Florence Daddey

Florence Daddey smiling

The 18th recipient of the BCcampus Award for Excellence in Open Education is Florence Daddey, a tireless advocate for open education at the Justice Institute of British Columbia (JIBC). She has adopted and adapted open textbooks for the courses she teaches and has been instrumental in weaving open education advocacy into faculty development activities at JIBC.

Nominated by Krista Lambert, Project Manager for ABE/Health Zero Textbook Cost Programs and Environmental Scan for Early Childhood Education (ECE), BCcampus

Florence was a 2018/19 BCcampus Open Education Advocacy and Research Fellow, conducting research on student savings on textbooks in the Law Enforcement Studies Diploma (LESD) program at JIBC and leading the Zero Textbook Cost (ZTC) initiative for this program.

Florence has been instrumental in establishing open education faculty development opportunities by taking the lead on the recent JIBC Open Ed Showcase, which brought together B.C. open education leaders in a conference format to share and learn about open educational practices. She has organized numerous open ed workshops and lunch and learns. In addition, she initiated and led the JIBC open education working group in 2018 and spearheaded JIBC’s successful application for a BCcampus OpenEd Sustainability Grant.

As a faculty member at JIBC, Florence has adopted open textbooks in both her research methods and her project management courses. She has led research into student use of open resources and has championed student participation in workshops and presentations related to this research. Florence is also a member of the BCcampus Open Education Advisory Board, the BCcampus Advisory Committee, and the BCcampus Business ZTC Advisory Committee.

Notable quote:

“Florence leads by example in both using OER for her own teaching and conducting open research as well as tirelessly building awareness at the Institute through community building efforts such as forming an Open Education Group and organizing the JIBC Open Education Showcase.” – Melanie Meyers, Open Education Advisor, BCcampus 

Research

Previous honoureesJennifer Kirkey, Rajiv JhangianiCindy UnderhillMichael PaskeviciusMaja KrzicGrant PotterIrwin DeVriesTara RobertsonChristina HendricksTannis MorganInba KehoeDiane PurveyErin Fields, Arley CruthersChad Flinn, Aran ArmutluTerry Berg, and Will Engle

The Inside Scoop on Festival of Learning 2020

The party people at BCcampus have been super busy preparing everything for the upcoming Festival of Learning 2020. Our goal is to build on the success of the 2018 Festival, and we have some great things lined up for the post-secondary community of B.C. Here’s a quick look at what you can expect at #FoL2020.

Post by BCcampus’ editorial team

Registration for Festival of Learning 2020 is now open, and while the event is scheduled for May 11–13, 2020, we’re already busy behind the scenes getting everything ready for another phenomenal event. We proudly hosted the first Festival of Learning in 2016, and then again in 2018, and we’re eager to connect with friends and colleagues at #FoL2020 in May. Festival of Learning is B.C.’s largest conference about learning and teaching in higher education.

Disruption and transformation

This year’s theme is Disruption and Transformation: how are we intentionally disrupting our work at an individual, institutional, or societal level, and what prompts us to transform practices, policies, or processes?

“We’re exploring inclusive approaches to change the way people see and access post-secondary education,” shared Tracy Roberts, senior manager, Learning + Teaching at BCcampus. “By inviting everyone—faculty, students, leaders, librarians, learning designers, educational technologists, and accessibility specialists—to events like this to network and learn, we can build positive change together in service of all students and their learning.”

Universal access

No conversation would be complete without representation from everyone involved, so we’ve worked hard to ensure that everyone interested can attend #FoL2020. We’ve partnered with Disability Resource Network of B.C. for Post-Secondary Education to deliver a space that welcomes presenters and participants from all backgrounds, races, ethnicities, abilities, cultures, sexual orientations, genders, languages, ages, and religions, as well as those identifying as neurodivergent. However you self-identify, we’re looking forward to including your voice in the experience. 

What can you expect at #FoL2020?

The #FoL2020 program committee is currently working on the schedule of events. The call for submissions has just ended, so now they’re working on the hard part of trying to include all of the brilliant submissions into the agenda. 

Keynote speakers

We are excited to hear from our two keynote speakers at #FoL2020: Kevin Lamoureux and Jess Mitchell.

Kevin Lamoureux is a faculty member at the University of Winnipeg and a well-known public speaker. He has served as associate vice president for the University of Winnipeg, education lead for the National Centre for Truth and Reconciliation, and as scholar-in-residence for several school divisions. Lamoureux is an award-winning scholar with an impressive publication and research grant record and has consulted for governments, organizations, and institutions across Canada. His most recent book contribution, for Ensouling Our Schoolswith Dr. Jennifer Katz, is being used by educators across Canada working to create inclusive spaces for all students. He has been seen on TV, in documentaries, in print, and in the media. More than anything, Lamoureux is committed to reconciliation and contributing to an even better Canada for all children to grow up in.

Jess Mitchell is senior manager, Research + Design at the Inclusive Design Research Centre at OCAD University in Toronto—which is a meaningless title that tells you virtually nothing about her. Here’s what you need to know: Jess is often a misfit, values a critical perspective, and appreciates the messy parts of human interaction. Additionally, she has a fondness for things in threes and a background in ethics.

We’re hammering out the details on a third keynote and hope to have something to share with you very soon.

Don’t miss this opportunity to hang out with people who understand what you do and why you do it. Register now and take advantage of the early bird pricing. 

Learning Access Program for Educators (LAP-E)

Recognizing that budget limitations are a reality for some institutions, and it’s not possible to take advantage of every professional development opportunity, BCcampus has included #FoL2020 in our LAP-E program. The program provides financial assistance with registration fees, as well as travel, per diem, and accommodation costs. Only one person per institution per event, so register today to benefit from this program.

Learn more

Bridging the accessibility gap with VR

Derek Turner is a faculty member at Douglas College in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences. In this blog post, Derek introduces us to his research as a 2019–2020 BCcampus Educational Technology Fellow, and his investigation of how new and existing technology platforms might be used for virtual reality (VR) field trips, bringing these experiential learning opportunities to those who haven’t traditionally been able to use them.

Field work is an essential part of the educational experience for students of environmental science, geology, and many other natural sciences. Yes, it’s important for learning concepts, but it’s even more important for connecting the content to their daily lives and inspiring them to consider these fields as possible career paths. A few years ago, when I started a post-doctoral position at UBC, one of the challenges we faced with field trips was how to continue to offer these valuable experiential learning opportunities in the face of decreasing budgets and increasing student-to-faculty ratios and liability concerns. We started experimenting with different technologies like augmented reality and virtual reality (VR), not as a replacement for traditional field trips, but as ways to help students who wouldn’t otherwise be able to get outside of the classroom travel to places beyond the reach of most normal field trips.

First, let me start by saying that much of what I’ll describe here is not really VR. Merriam-Webster defines VR as being “an artificial environment … in which one’s actions partially determine what happens.” Some of the technologies that market themselves as VR do just that and allow fully immersive, interactive environments. Many others are more passive, letting users watch a 360odisplay with limited to no interaction. As we started experimenting with using these different technologies for education, we found that there are many more differences between the types of VR beyond the user experience. There are practical concerns for educators, such as the cost of more advanced VR technology and the challenges of having large classes interact with it, often one student at a time. Then there are also pedagogical questions, like what content exists for students to interact with, and if there isn’t much available, how easy is it to create new content designed for a specific course?

These choices have led me to identify two broad families of VR: “high tech” and “low tech.” High-tech VR, such as the HTC Vive and Oculus Rift, offer highly immersive and interactive environments that, when well done, truly can come close to simulating the real experience of being in a remote location. However, they are also expensive, especially when factoring in the need for a computer with a good graphics card and the potential need for more than one unit if you want to have large classes interact with it. Perhaps a bigger obstacle currently is the lack of educational content readily available. There is certainly a growing number of pre-made environments, but unless you’re lucky, few if any of these provide high quality, discipline-specific content needed for a proper field trip. To help address this problem, I was fortunate to be a part of a large BCcampus-funded project to virtually recreate a field trip on the environmental history of Stanley Park. While the end product turned out great and has been a valuable tool for opening access to this field trip for my environmental sciences classes, it isn’t something that can easily be replicated by individual faculty members without an advanced understanding of photogrammetry and VR technology (and a lot of time to put it all together!).

The alternative, low-tech VR options (which admittedly are not actually VR at all by the definition above) offer a lower cost and more accessible alternative. These include phone-mounted basic VR headsets or online platforms viewable from a computer screen that show 360ovideos or photospheres (360oimages). While these technologies are certainly less immersive and limited in how students can interact with them, they provide one significant advantage besides the cost: the ease of creating new content. For a few hundred dollars, faculty can purchase a portable 360ocamera that can be brought to remote locations to capture images and video. These can then later be embedded with other multimedia, such as close-up photos, videos, website links, or narration. This also opens the possibility of having students create their own virtual environments. To use a geoscience example, students could create a 360otour stop of a potential environmental hazard in their community that could be shared with the class or the general public. It’s for these reasons that I’ve leaned towards this type of VR technology, but I continue to experiment with versions of both.

As these decisions started to guide my experience using VR in classrooms, I moved from UBC to Douglas College. With this change in educational contexts came new challenges for offering field trips. With smaller classes, some of the problems faced by UBC are less of an issue at Douglas. However, I also found that more of my current students were unable to come on field trips due to weekend jobs or family commitments. To bridge this accessibility gap, I started using similar technology that had helped deliver field trips to larger classes to instead open access to students who couldn’t experience a field trip because they had families or couldn’t miss a work shift. With the support of my colleagues in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, we have since built multiple low-tech VR field trips to increase access to field experiences for students who otherwise wouldn’t be able to participate.

The more I’ve used these education technologies, the more two questions have bothered me:

  • If field trips are powerful tools to stimulate interest in and motivate students to pursue the natural sciences (i.e.,affective learning), what, if any, affective learning benefits do VR field trips provide?
  • Are there any differences in any affective learning benefits between different types of VR technology?

An increasing body of research has started exploring the cognitive benefits of VR in and outside of the geosciences (e.g., Freina and Ott, 2015; Billingsley et al., 2019), but few studies have explored the affective learning benefits (e.g., the interests, attitudes and values students have for a subject; Krathwohl et al., 1964), and none that I’ve found have looked at how these might vary between types of VR technologies. These are important questions to ask to help guide faculty like myself in choosing whether to invest time and money in high-tech VR, low-tech VR, or neither. These were two questions that were holding me back from expanding what we could build with VR.

This is where BCcampus has been a vital part of this journey. The leadership provided by BCcampus in education technology and open educational resources has helped shape my understanding of how best to apply and distribute VR field trips. The funding associated with my BCcampus Educational Technology Fellowship has allowed me the resources to begin to explore both questions. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the community that has grown around BCcampus both formally and informally has been an excellent resource for sharing ideas and stretching me beyond my comfort zone.

With this BCcampus support, our department is currently surveying our students before and after every field trip they take, whether they are traditional in-person field trips, high-tech VR field trips, or low-tech VR field trips, as well as tracking changes in students who don’t go on field trips as a control group to see how much affective learning takes place purely in the classroom. The literature on evaluating affective learning in traditional field trips is fortunately robust and well-developed, so we have been able to use existing surveys and experimental designs (e.g., Boyle et al., 2007; Glynn et al., 2011) with modifications to accommodate the incorporation of VR technology. Cognitive learning gains are also being tracked to compare to the affective learning benefits to get a more complete picture of how and if students are benefiting from different types of trips.

The preliminary results of this work are clearly showing that certain demographics benefit more from including the option to go on VR field trips. For example, international students and mature students show a preference for having a VR field trip option and experience greater affective learning gains compared to domestic students and younger students. Some of the qualitative answers to the survey questions suggest that international students may benefit from being able to hear field trip narration multiple times, rather than trying to hear a fast-speaking instructor talking into the wind in the field. Mature students may prefer a VR option due to the higher likelihood of having children, jobs, or other time commitments on weekends.

While I should highlight that these VR technologies have never been meant to replace the kinds of experiential learning offered by an in-person field trip, this early work indicates that the types of students who may benefit from them are exactly the types of students whom we are actively trying to engage with more in geoscience. The potential to open access to field work to demographics who are typically limited in our discipline is an exciting and unexpected outcome of the early stages of this research. This project started out about experimenting with new educational technologies, but seems to be evolving more into how to provide access to educational opportunities to students who were previously marginalized by field trips. To me, this is not only a welcome change, but one that inspires me to continue this work to find new ways of opening field trips to new students.

References:

Billingsley, G., Smith, S., Smith, S., Meritt, J., 2019. A systematic literature review of using immersive virtual reality technology in teacher education. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 30 (1), 65–90.

Boyle, A., Maguire, S., Martin, A., Milson, C., Nash, R., Rawlinson, S., Turner, A., Wurthmann, S., Conchie, S., 2007. Fieldwork is good: the student perception and the affective domain. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 31 (2), 299–317.

Freina, L., Ott, M., 2015. A literature review on immersive virtual reality in education: state of the art and perspectives. Conference eLearning and Software for Education. https://ppm.itd.cnr.it/download/eLSE%202015%20Freina%20Ott%20Paper.pdf

Glynn, S.M., Brickman, P., Armstrong, N., Taasoobshirazi, G., 2011. Science Motivation Questionnaire II: validation with science majors and nonscience majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48 (10), 1159–1176.

Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S., Masia, B.B., 1964. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook II: Affective Domain. David McKay Company, Inc. New York.

Learn More:

Bridging the accessibility gap with VR

Derek Turner is a faculty member at Douglas College in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences. In this blog post, Derek introduces us to his research as a 2019–2020 BCcampus Educational Technology Fellow, and his investigation of how new and existing technology platforms might be used for virtual reality (VR) field trips, bringing these experiential learning opportunities to those who haven’t traditionally been able to use them.

Field work is an essential part of the educational experience for students of environmental science, geology, and many other natural sciences. Yes, it’s important for learning concepts, but it’s even more important for connecting the content to their daily lives and inspiring them to consider these fields as possible career paths. A few years ago, when I started a post-doctoral position at UBC, one of the challenges we faced with field trips was how to continue to offer these valuable experiential learning opportunities in the face of decreasing budgets and increasing student-to-faculty ratios and liability concerns. We started experimenting with different technologies like augmented reality and virtual reality (VR), not as a replacement for traditional field trips, but as ways to help students who wouldn’t otherwise be able to get outside of the classroom travel to places beyond the reach of most normal field trips.

First, let me start by saying that much of what I’ll describe here is not really VR. Merriam-Webster defines VR as being “an artificial environment … in which one’s actions partially determine what happens.” Some of the technologies that market themselves as VR do just that and allow fully immersive, interactive environments. Many others are more passive, letting users watch a 360odisplay with limited to no interaction. As we started experimenting with using these different technologies for education, we found that there are many more differences between the types of VR beyond the user experience. There are practical concerns for educators, such as the cost of more advanced VR technology and the challenges of having large classes interact with it, often one student at a time. Then there are also pedagogical questions, like what content exists for students to interact with, and if there isn’t much available, how easy is it to create new content designed for a specific course?

These choices have led me to identify two broad families of VR: “high tech” and “low tech.” High-tech VR, such as the HTC Vive and Oculus Rift, offer highly immersive and interactive environments that, when well done, truly can come close to simulating the real experience of being in a remote location. However, they are also expensive, especially when factoring in the need for a computer with a good graphics card and the potential need for more than one unit if you want to have large classes interact with it. Perhaps a bigger obstacle currently is the lack of educational content readily available. There is certainly a growing number of pre-made environments, but unless you’re lucky, few if any of these provide high quality, discipline-specific content needed for a proper field trip. To help address this problem, I was fortunate to be a part of a large BCcampus-funded project to virtually recreate a field trip on the environmental history of Stanley Park. While the end product turned out great and has been a valuable tool for opening access to this field trip for my environmental sciences classes, it isn’t something that can easily be replicated by individual faculty members without an advanced understanding of photogrammetry and VR technology (and a lot of time to put it all together!).

The alternative, low-tech VR options (which admittedly are not actually VR at all by the definition above) offer a lower cost and more accessible alternative. These include phone-mounted basic VR headsets or online platforms viewable from a computer screen that show 360ovideos or photospheres (360oimages). While these technologies are certainly less immersive and limited in how students can interact with them, they provide one significant advantage besides the cost: the ease of creating new content. For a few hundred dollars, faculty can purchase a portable 360ocamera that can be brought to remote locations to capture images and video. These can then later be embedded with other multimedia, such as close-up photos, videos, website links, or narration. This also opens the possibility of having students create their own virtual environments. To use a geoscience example, students could create a 360otour stop of a potential environmental hazard in their community that could be shared with the class or the general public. It’s for these reasons that I’ve leaned towards this type of VR technology, but I continue to experiment with versions of both.

As these decisions started to guide my experience using VR in classrooms, I moved from UBC to Douglas College. With this change in educational contexts came new challenges for offering field trips. With smaller classes, some of the problems faced by UBC are less of an issue at Douglas. However, I also found that more of my current students were unable to come on field trips due to weekend jobs or family commitments. To bridge this accessibility gap, I started using similar technology that had helped deliver field trips to larger classes to instead open access to students who couldn’t experience a field trip because they had families or couldn’t miss a work shift. With the support of my colleagues in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, we have since built multiple low-tech VR field trips to increase access to field experiences for students who otherwise wouldn’t be able to participate.

The more I’ve used these education technologies, the more two questions have bothered me:

  • If field trips are powerful tools to stimulate interest in and motivate students to pursue the natural sciences (i.e.,affective learning), what, if any, affective learning benefits do VR field trips provide?
  • Are there any differences in any affective learning benefits between different types of VR technology?

An increasing body of research has started exploring the cognitive benefits of VR in and outside of the geosciences (e.g., Freina and Ott, 2015; Billingsley et al., 2019), but few studies have explored the affective learning benefits (e.g., the interests, attitudes and values students have for a subject; Krathwohl et al., 1964), and none that I’ve found have looked at how these might vary between types of VR technologies. These are important questions to ask to help guide faculty like myself in choosing whether to invest time and money in high-tech VR, low-tech VR, or neither. These were two questions that were holding me back from expanding what we could build with VR.

This is where BCcampus has been a vital part of this journey. The leadership provided by BCcampus in education technology and open educational resources has helped shape my understanding of how best to apply and distribute VR field trips. The funding associated with my BCcampus Educational Technology Fellowship has allowed me the resources to begin to explore both questions. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the community that has grown around BCcampus both formally and informally has been an excellent resource for sharing ideas and stretching me beyond my comfort zone.

With this BCcampus support, our department is currently surveying our students before and after every field trip they take, whether they are traditional in-person field trips, high-tech VR field trips, or low-tech VR field trips, as well as tracking changes in students who don’t go on field trips as a control group to see how much affective learning takes place purely in the classroom. The literature on evaluating affective learning in traditional field trips is fortunately robust and well-developed, so we have been able to use existing surveys and experimental designs (e.g., Boyle et al., 2007; Glynn et al., 2011) with modifications to accommodate the incorporation of VR technology. Cognitive learning gains are also being tracked to compare to the affective learning benefits to get a more complete picture of how and if students are benefiting from different types of trips.

The preliminary results of this work are clearly showing that certain demographics benefit more from including the option to go on VR field trips. For example, international students and mature students show a preference for having a VR field trip option and experience greater affective learning gains compared to domestic students and younger students. Some of the qualitative answers to the survey questions suggest that international students may benefit from being able to hear field trip narration multiple times, rather than trying to hear a fast-speaking instructor talking into the wind in the field. Mature students may prefer a VR option due to the higher likelihood of having children, jobs, or other time commitments on weekends.

While I should highlight that these VR technologies have never been meant to replace the kinds of experiential learning offered by an in-person field trip, this early work indicates that the types of students who may benefit from them are exactly the types of students whom we are actively trying to engage with more in geoscience. The potential to open access to field work to demographics who are typically limited in our discipline is an exciting and unexpected outcome of the early stages of this research. This project started out about experimenting with new educational technologies, but seems to be evolving more into how to provide access to educational opportunities to students who were previously marginalized by field trips. To me, this is not only a welcome change, but one that inspires me to continue this work to find new ways of opening field trips to new students.

References:

Billingsley, G., Smith, S., Smith, S., Meritt, J., 2019. A systematic literature review of using immersive virtual reality technology in teacher education. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 30 (1), 65–90.

Boyle, A., Maguire, S., Martin, A., Milson, C., Nash, R., Rawlinson, S., Turner, A., Wurthmann, S., Conchie, S., 2007. Fieldwork is good: the student perception and the affective domain. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 31 (2), 299–317.

Freina, L., Ott, M., 2015. A literature review on immersive virtual reality in education: state of the art and perspectives. Conference eLearning and Software for Education. https://ppm.itd.cnr.it/download/eLSE%202015%20Freina%20Ott%20Paper.pdf

Glynn, S.M., Brickman, P., Armstrong, N., Taasoobshirazi, G., 2011. Science Motivation Questionnaire II: validation with science majors and nonscience majors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48 (10), 1159–1176.

Krathwohl, D.R., Bloom, B.S., Masia, B.B., 1964. Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook II: Affective Domain. David McKay Company, Inc. New York.

Learn More:

Working Group Guide: Members and Partners

An excerpt from the Working Group Guide, by Lauri Aesoph.

Recruit members

When establishing an open working group, a key point of consideration is who could or should be involved. Depending on your institutional context and the purpose of your open working group, an initial recruitment strategy is to reach out to key stakeholders who might influence or impact decision-making about creating, adapting, or adopting open educational resources (OER) on campus. Key allies and potential stakeholders on campus may include the following:

  • Librarians
  • Teaching and learning centre staff
  • Student society representatives
  • Faculty champions
  • Bookstore staff
  • Technology professionals
  • Administrators
Key Stakeholders and Their Roles in Supporting OER Initiatives
Stakeholder Key Role(s) in Supporting OER Initiatives
Librarians
  • Are knowledgeable about educational materials
  • Work with faculty and students to find, adopt, and adapt OER
  • Organize and catalogue OER
Teaching and Learning Centre Staff
  • Work with faculty to train on the use of OER
  • Support course and curriculum design and pedagogy for open teaching assignments
  • Support faculty who want to incorporate OER within a course
Student Society Representatives
  • Advocate as the end user of all educational materials
  • Inventory OER use on campus
  • Determine students needs/interest in OER
  • Connect with other stakeholders on campus
Faculty Champions
  • Implement open into their classrooms
  • Lead by example by having an open practice
  • Encourage colleagues to participate in open
  • Conduct research about open
  • Work with articulation committees to include OER in the curriculum
Bookstore Staff
  • Offer print-on-demand services
  • Stock print copies
  • Distribute OER
Technology Professionals
  • Install and support open technology and websites
  • Research and integrate open tools and OER within campus systems
  • Develop open source software
Administrators
  • Advocate for, promote, and budget for open initiatives
  • Align OER with strategic and organizational plans

When establishing a group, roles and responsibilities for members may vary—some may be doers, some may be advocates, and some may provide support. Formal groups working towards accomplishing a specific goal or task may have clearly defined roles and responsibilities for members from the outset. In comparison, more informal groups may initially have more fluid roles and responsibilities as members’ time and interest permit.

Partner with other institutions

You may want to consider expanding your open working group to include open working groups from other institutions. These relationships can help foster knowledge transfer and staff exchanges, and you may want to work together to develop workshops for online webinars, build subject-specific OER guides, and write grant applications. British Columbia has a number of examples of cross-institution open partnerships. For Open Access Week 2018, open working groups from several institutions collaborated to plan the Open but not Free: Invisible Labour in Open Scholarship panel. Another example would be the B.C. Open Education Librarians (BCOEL) community of practice.

Develop a Common Vision

Sharing knowledge is an act of knowing who will use it and for what purpose. This often involves mutually discovering which insights from the past are relevant in the present. To share tacit knowledge is to think together.[1]

Working to developing a common vision for the group can be a prerequisite for the success of the group. One approach to developing this vision is the CARE Framework. The CARE Framework was developed to support open educational resource (OER) stewards on campus. This framework can guide the group as you consider developing a shared vision.

The CARE Framework

The purpose of the CARE Framework is to articulate a set of shared values and a collective vision for the future of education and learning enabled by the widespread adoption and use of OER. It aims to address the question of how an individual, institution, or organization, seeking to be a good steward, can contribute to the growth and sustainability of the OER movement in a way that is consistent with the community’s values.

At the centre of the CARE Framework (see Figure 1) are a wide variety of stakeholders—OER creators and users, working as individuals and as part of organizations, in traditional and non-traditional educational settings—seeking to act as good stewards of the values of a sustainable OER movement. Locating people at the centre of the CARE Framework serves to remind us first and foremost of the broader social context and purpose of the OER movement.

OER Stewards Contribute, Attribute, Release, and Empower
Figure 1: The CARE Framework for OER Stewardship.

People serving as OER stewards pursue a wide variety of strategies and tactics relevant to their specific context to improve access to education and opportunity over time. Yet, what all good OER stewards should have in common is a commitment to practices that serve to demonstrate their duty of care to the broader OER movement:

  1. Contribute. OER stewards actively contribute to efforts, whether financially or via in-kind contributions, to advance the awareness, improvement, and distribution of OER.
  2. Attribute. OER stewards practise conspicuous attribution, ensuring that all who create or remix OER are properly and clearly credited for their contributions.
  3. Release. OER stewards ensure OER can be released and used beyond the course and platform in which it was created or delivered.
  4. Empower. OER stewards are inclusive and strive to meet the diverse needs of all learners, including by supporting the participation of new and non-traditional voices in OER creation and adoption.

Attributions

Media Attributions


  1. R. McDermott, “Knowing in community: 10 critical success factors in building communities of practice.” International Association for Human Resource Management 4, no.1 (2000): 19–26. 

Learn More:

Working Group Guide: Members and Partners

An excerpt from the Working Group Guide, by Lauri Aesoph.

Recruit members

When establishing an open working group, a key point of consideration is who could or should be involved. Depending on your institutional context and the purpose of your open working group, an initial recruitment strategy is to reach out to key stakeholders who might influence or impact decision-making about creating, adapting, or adopting open educational resources (OER) on campus. Key allies and potential stakeholders on campus may include the following:

  • Librarians
  • Teaching and learning centre staff
  • Student society representatives
  • Faculty champions
  • Bookstore staff
  • Technology professionals
  • Administrators
Key Stakeholders and Their Roles in Supporting OER Initiatives
Stakeholder Key Role(s) in Supporting OER Initiatives
Librarians
  • Are knowledgeable about educational materials
  • Work with faculty and students to find, adopt, and adapt OER
  • Organize and catalogue OER
Teaching and Learning Centre Staff
  • Work with faculty to train on the use of OER
  • Support course and curriculum design and pedagogy for open teaching assignments
  • Support faculty who want to incorporate OER within a course
Student Society Representatives
  • Advocate as the end user of all educational materials
  • Inventory OER use on campus
  • Determine students needs/interest in OER
  • Connect with other stakeholders on campus
Faculty Champions
  • Implement open into their classrooms
  • Lead by example by having an open practice
  • Encourage colleagues to participate in open
  • Conduct research about open
  • Work with articulation committees to include OER in the curriculum
Bookstore Staff
  • Offer print-on-demand services
  • Stock print copies
  • Distribute OER
Technology Professionals
  • Install and support open technology and websites
  • Research and integrate open tools and OER within campus systems
  • Develop open source software
Administrators
  • Advocate for, promote, and budget for open initiatives
  • Align OER with strategic and organizational plans

When establishing a group, roles and responsibilities for members may vary—some may be doers, some may be advocates, and some may provide support. Formal groups working towards accomplishing a specific goal or task may have clearly defined roles and responsibilities for members from the outset. In comparison, more informal groups may initially have more fluid roles and responsibilities as members’ time and interest permit.

Partner with other institutions

You may want to consider expanding your open working group to include open working groups from other institutions. These relationships can help foster knowledge transfer and staff exchanges, and you may want to work together to develop workshops for online webinars, build subject-specific OER guides, and write grant applications. British Columbia has a number of examples of cross-institution open partnerships. For Open Access Week 2018, open working groups from several institutions collaborated to plan the Open but not Free: Invisible Labour in Open Scholarship panel. Another example would be the B.C. Open Education Librarians (BCOEL) community of practice.

Develop a Common Vision

Sharing knowledge is an act of knowing who will use it and for what purpose. This often involves mutually discovering which insights from the past are relevant in the present. To share tacit knowledge is to think together.[1]

Working to developing a common vision for the group can be a prerequisite for the success of the group. One approach to developing this vision is the CARE Framework. The CARE Framework was developed to support open educational resource (OER) stewards on campus. This framework can guide the group as you consider developing a shared vision.

The CARE Framework

The purpose of the CARE Framework is to articulate a set of shared values and a collective vision for the future of education and learning enabled by the widespread adoption and use of OER. It aims to address the question of how an individual, institution, or organization, seeking to be a good steward, can contribute to the growth and sustainability of the OER movement in a way that is consistent with the community’s values.

At the centre of the CARE Framework (see Figure 1) are a wide variety of stakeholders—OER creators and users, working as individuals and as part of organizations, in traditional and non-traditional educational settings—seeking to act as good stewards of the values of a sustainable OER movement. Locating people at the centre of the CARE Framework serves to remind us first and foremost of the broader social context and purpose of the OER movement.

OER Stewards Contribute, Attribute, Release, and Empower
Figure 1: The CARE Framework for OER Stewardship.

People serving as OER stewards pursue a wide variety of strategies and tactics relevant to their specific context to improve access to education and opportunity over time. Yet, what all good OER stewards should have in common is a commitment to practices that serve to demonstrate their duty of care to the broader OER movement:

  1. Contribute. OER stewards actively contribute to efforts, whether financially or via in-kind contributions, to advance the awareness, improvement, and distribution of OER.
  2. Attribute. OER stewards practise conspicuous attribution, ensuring that all who create or remix OER are properly and clearly credited for their contributions.
  3. Release. OER stewards ensure OER can be released and used beyond the course and platform in which it was created or delivered.
  4. Empower. OER stewards are inclusive and strive to meet the diverse needs of all learners, including by supporting the participation of new and non-traditional voices in OER creation and adoption.

Attributions

Media Attributions


  1. R. McDermott, “Knowing in community: 10 critical success factors in building communities of practice.” International Association for Human Resource Management 4, no.1 (2000): 19–26. 

Learn More:

Test

This is test content

Indigenization Guide: Urban Indigenous Peoples and Demographics

An excerpt from Pulling Together: Foundations Guide by Kory Wilson

In 2016, almost 900,000 Indigenous people lived in urban areas (towns and cities with a population of 30,000 or more), accounting for more than half of Indigenous people in Canada. They are often referred to as “Urban Indigenous peoples.” The largest Urban Indigenous populations are in Winnipeg, Edmonton, Vancouver, Calgary, and Toronto.

Many Indigenous people move to cities seeking employment or educational opportunities. Some have lived in cities for generations, while for others the transition from rural areas or reserves to urban settings is still very new. Many Canadian cities occupy the traditional territories and reserves of First Nations. For example, Vancouver lies on the traditional territory of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh Nations.

Most Urban Indigenous peoples consider the city they live in to be their “home.” However, for many it is also important to keep a close connection to the Indigenous community of their family’s origin. This could be the place where they were born or where their parents or grandparents lived. Connection to these communities helps many people retain their traditional and contemporary Indigenous culture.

Urban Indigenous peoples in Vancouver

The Urban Indigenous peoples in Vancouver are an important and visible part of the city’s life. However, the majority believe they are viewed in negative ways. Despite this, according to the Urban Indigenous Peoples Study (2010), among Indigenous people in Vancouver:

  • 83 per cent are “very proud” of their Indigenous identity
  • 52 per cent are “very proud” of being Canadian
  • 44 per cent are not concerned about losing their cultural identity; they feel it is strong enough to continue and that they can protect it
  • 70 per cent think Indigenous culture has become stronger in the last five years
  • 18 per cent hope that young people from the next generation will stay connected to their cultural community, and 17 per cent hope their young people will experience life without racism and discrimination.

In 2016, there were more than 1.67 million Indigenous people in Canada, representing 4.9 per cent of the total population, up from 3.8 per cent in 2006.

Table 1.1 Canadian and Indigenous Peoples Population1
Group Population* Percentage of total Indigenous population Percentage of total* Canadian population Percentage increase since 2006
Total Canadians 35,151,728
Total Indigenous Peoples 1,673,785 4.9% 42.5%
First Nations 977,230 58.4% 2.8% 39.3%
Métis 587,545 35.1% 1.7% 51.2%
Inuit 65,025 3.9% 0.2% 29.1%

In 2016, almost 900,000 Indigenous people lived in urban areas with a population of 30,000 or more, accounting for more than half (51.8 per cent) of Indigenous people in Canada.

Where Indigenous Peoples in Canada live

The largest First Nations population is in Ontario (236,680), followed by British Columbia (172,520) and Alberta (136,585).

According to the 2011 Census, First Nations people living in Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta accounted for less than 4 per cent of the total provincial populations. However, First Nations people accounted for 32.7 per cent of the total population of the Northwest Territories, 19.8 per cent of the total population of Yukon, and about 10 per cent of the population of Manitoba and that of Saskatchewan. In Nunavut, First Nations people account for 0.34 per cent of the population.

In Quebec, nearly three-quarters (72.0 per cent) of First Nations people with registered Indian status lived on reserve, the highest proportion among the provinces. This was followed by New Brunswick (68.8 per cent) and Nova Scotia (68.0) per cent). In Ontario, 37.0 per cent of First Nations people with registered Indian status lived on a reserve, the second lowest proportion among the provinces after Newfoundland and Labrador (35.1 per cent).

Métis people live in every province and territory in the country, but in 2016 the majority lived in Ontario (120,585) and the western provinces (351,020). But the Métis population is growing fastest in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.

The majority of Inuit live in Nunavut (30,135), followed by Nunavik (11,800), Inuvialuit (3,110), and Nunatsiavut (2,285). Another 17,690 Inuit live outside of Inuit Nunangat, many in urban centres in southern Canada, including Ottawa, Edmonton, and Montreal. Ottawa-Gatineau had the largest Inuit population.

Where Urban Indigenous peoples live

In 2016, Winnipeg had the largest Urban Indigenous population, followed by Edmonton and Vancouver. But Indigenous people account for a much larger proportion (around 35 per cent in the 2006 Census) of the population of several smaller cities in the western provinces, including Prince Rupert, Prince Albert, and Thompson.

Table 1.2 Urban Indigenous Populations, 2016 Census
City First Nations Métis Inuit Total
Winnipeg 38,700 52,130 315 91,145
Edmonton 33,880 39,435 1,115 74,430
Vancouver 35,770 23,425 405 59,600
Toronto 27,805 15,245 690 43,740
Calgary 17,955 22,220 440 40,615
Ottawa-Gatineau 17,790 17,155 1,280 36,225
Montreal 16,130 15,455 975 32,560
1. Aboriginal peoples in Canada: Key results from the 2016 Census: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/171025/dq171025a-eng.htm

test

css.php