Open Learning and Costs of Education

OPEN LEARNING: LOWERING THE COST OF EDUCATION 1

Open Learning: Lowering the Cost of Education

Angela Batsford, Jan Thiessen, Su Tuan Lulee

Professor: Dr. Martha Cleveland-Innes

Prepared for Assignment 2 Group Project

EDDE 804: Leadership and Project Management in Distance Education

Ed. D., Athabasca University

March 10, 2011


Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 3

Open Learning ............................................................................................................................................ 4

Open Resources and Tools ....................................................................................................................... 5

Complexity Leadership Theory ............................................................................................................... 7

Adopting Complexity Leadership ........................................................................................................... 9

Adopting Complexity Leadership Theory in Open Learning Contexts .......................................... 11

Strategies for Leadership in Open Learning ........................................................................................ 13

Case Examples of Open Learning at Three Levels .............................................................................. 13

International Case: UNESCO/COL. ............................................................................................... 14

Organizational/Institutional Case: Athabasca University.......................................................... 15

Grassroots Case: Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). ..................................................... 17

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 19

References ................................................................................................................................................. 20


Open Learning: Lowering the Cost of Education

Introduction

Rising costs are a barrier to individuals who wish to access education, and are

hampering institutions’ ability to provide affordable education. According to Lataif (2011), in

2001 the cost of a four-year, public college education in the US was 18% of a middle-income

family’s annual income. By 2010 this figure had risen to 25%. The Delta Cost Project report

(Wellman, 2008) describes the state of costs for post-secondary education in the US as

increasingly out of balance—between 1990 and 2002, the Higher Education Price Index

increased at an average rate of 4.47% per year while the Consumer Price Index increased an

average of only 3.4% per year. Figure 1 illustrates how tuition and fees for US colleges have

been increasing since the 1980s.

Figure 1: Average Annual Cost of Tuition and Fees for US Public Colleges, Adjusted for

Inflation (in 2009 dollars) (Simon & Banchero, 2010)

The situation is similar in Canada. According to Industry Canada (2010), from 1982 to

2002 the tuition fee component of Canada’s Consumer Price Index (CPI) grew an average of 8.1%

per year, compared to 3% for the all-items CPI. In households that paid tuition fees in 2002,

average spending for fees exceeded expenses for food (see Figure 2).


Figure 2: Post-secondary Tuition Fees and Food, Average Household Expenditures per

Reporting Households, 1982-2002 (Industry Canada, 2010)

Rising tuition costs are associated with increasing levels of student debt, and may also

be a factor in the growing proportion of 25 to 29 year olds who still live with their parents—up

from 12% in 1981 to 24% in 2001 (Industry Canada, 2010). In the US, if students are priced out of

four-year institutions, this may impede the nation’s “ability to meet future workforce needs for

baccalaureate, master’s and professional degree holders” (Wellman, 2008, p. 41). Barriers that

prevent access to education also affect an individual’s employability. From 1990 to 2002,

Industry Canada (2010) reports the creation of over 3 million net new jobs requiring post-

secondary education—most of these (81.7%) full-time jobs. For the same period, there was a net

job loss of over 1 million jobs for workers without a high school diploma. Nearly 90% of these

were full-time positions.

Open Learning

Open learning is one way to address the rising cost of education as well as the barriers

and problems this creates for individuals, educators, and society. What is open learning? What

open learning strategies and tools hold promise as effective approaches? Open learning refers to

a wide range of structures, tools, and strategies. The term is sometimes used to describe open

administration practices such as open admissions, removal of minimum age or residency


requirements, and freedom from course prerequisites. Open learning can also include

• courses that are flexibly designed to meet individual requirements, making use of

learner-centred philosophy (Lewis & Spencer, 1986).

• allowing learners to set their own time, place, and pace for studies (Calder & McCullum,

1998).

• providing free teaching and learning resources; allowing users to reuse, revise, remix,

and redistribute resources (Wiley, 2010).

In our discussion of the problem of rising educational costs, we use the term open learning to

describe learning environments that use open educational resources (OERs) and open source

software to provide accessible learning opportunities for everyone. We propose that open

learning, in the form of OERs and supportive computer technologies, is a solution to rising costs

in education. Theoretically, openness and sharing can spread the cost of educational resources,

as well as learning applications and opportunities, across very large numbers of learners and

educational situations, thereby reducing overall costs.

Open Resources and Tools

The notion of shared resources for learning is not new—the term learning objects

emerged in the early 1990s to refer to “a digital resource that can be re-used to achieve a specific

learning outcome” (Ally, 2004, p. 87). A significant development occurred in 2001 when the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) announced it would make the resources for most

of their courses freely available online. Since then, lines between development of learning

objects and open courseware initiatives have become blurred. The focus has shifted to the

concept of open educational resources defined as technology-enabled educational resources that

are openly available for consultation, use, and adaptation by users for non-commercial

purposes (UNESCO, 2002). According to Wiley (2010), open educational resources have four


key characteristics.

• Users can reuse OER content in its unaltered form (e.g., make a backup copy of the

content).

• Users can revise OER content to adapt, adjust, modify, or alter the content itself (e.g.,

translate the content into another language).

• Users can remix OER content by combining original or revised content with other

content to create something new (e.g., incorporate content into a mashup).

• Users can redistribute OER content by sharing copies of the original content, the

revisions, or the remixes with others (e.g., provide copies to friends).

If educators wish, these four “Rs” can reduce the cost for developing learning materials.

Increasingly, educators and learners have access to open educational resources with open

licenses that give users pre-defined rights to use and change the materials in various ways. The

number of repositories, projects, and providers continues to grow. The following is a partial list.

• Open Learning Initiative (Carnegie Mellon)

• Learning Space (British Open University)

• Commonwealth of Learning (UNESCO)

• MIT Open Courseware

• Tufts Open courseware

• MERLOT

• Sofia (Foothill College)

• Connexions (Connexions Consortium)

• Wikiversity (Wikipedia)

• London School of Business & Finance, Global MBA on Facebook

These organizations and initiatives have developed thousands of items, including learning

materials, learning units, and full courses all available free for non-commercial use. OERs are

becoming more attractive to educational institutions that face rising costs, and increasingly


restrictive and expensive copyright regulations. With the increased attention (in practice, in

policy, and through new funding) OERs offer the promise of sharing and openness—a broader

response to the perennial problem of inefficiencies caused by reinventing the wheel. A recent

announcement from the US of a $2-billion federal grant program (Parry, 2011) has raised a stir,

but how much of this funding will be spent on creating new OERs remains to be seen.

Open learning resources rely on supportive computer technologies. The number of

freely available open source technologies has increased rapidly during the past decade. The

following tools are especially useful in improving the effectiveness of open learning.

• Learning Management Systems such as Moodle and SAKAI

• Video conferencing tools such as WizIQ that has been merged with Moodle

• Concept mapping tools such as Cmap and VUE

• Social learning tools such as blogs, wikis, bookmarking tools, e-portfolio, web-

presentation, including Blogger, Google

Docs, Diigo, Delicious, Mahara, SlideShare, Google Groups, and Netvibes

• Visual tools such as ManyEyes and OECD Factbook

• Learning analytics tools for dynamic network analysis and modeling such

as SNAPP, Signals, and computational modeling tools for system dynamics modeling

and data mining

With the right to use OERs and the support of open source learning and analysis tools, it is

conceivable that open learning can provide low-cost solutions to the social problem of

increasing cost in education—without sacrificing quality. What sorts of leadership do the

opportunities of openness and the OER phenomenon call for?

Complexity Leadership Theory

Educators accustomed to managing resources and experiences for learners are beginning

to see new opportunities offered by information technologies and rapid communication.

However, the freedom of open learning calls for new approaches. If we see open learning


educators as leaders, at once co-creators and users, what sort of leadership is needed for this

sort of open system of development, sharing, and re-use? We propose that complexity

leadership theory is most appropriate for describing the current and potential dynamic,

interactive relationships in open learning networks.

Complexity leadership theory is a framework that enables the learning, creative, and

adaptive capacity of complex adaptive systems (CAS) within knowledge-producing

organizations or organizational units. It also describes conditions in which adaptive dynamics

emerge and generate creative and adaptive knowledge. Through complexity theory, leadership

is not limited to position and authority but is also an emergent, interactive dynamic that

produces new patterns of behaviour or new modes of operation. Complexity leadership theory

focuses on identifying and exploring the strategies and behaviours that foster organizational

sub-unit creativity, learning, and adaptability (Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007). Through

the lens of complexity leadership theory, leadership is made up of the behaviours and resource

elements of interacting individuals, as members of communities come together in useful ways

(Lichtenstein, Uhl-Bien, & Marion, 2006).

As a complex adaptive system, open learning is different from traditional formal

learning; open learning is usually informal, and flexible in terms of learning pace, time, and

place. Increasingly, open learning is delivered through social networked learning environments.

CCK08, taught by George Siemens and Stephen Downes in 2008, is an example of a new type of

open learning course. Over 2,300 people registered for this massive open online course (MOOC).

Students came from over 10 countries, connecting and learning via technologies such as blogs,

Skype, wikis, SecondLife, Facebook, and Google Reader. A MOOC includes hundreds of

interactions every day, with dialogue occurring among the participant learners, serving to splice

together information and social relations. In addition, the course structure requires that

educators give up full control of the learning process to allow more creativity from learners.

There are no pre-determined learning paths and structures. While these conditions generate a

bit of chaos, Siemens (2010a) describes this as a networked course that has no centre.


Open learning is an emergent, interactive, dynamic, and complex system. As such,

complexity leadership theory is an appropriate choice for examining how open learning can

address the problem of rising costs in education. According to Uhl-Bien, et al. (2007),

complexity leadership theory

• addresses the nature of open learning: nonlinearly changeable, unpredictable in the long

term, temporally based, and dynamic interaction.

• allows us to develop a leadership perspective that extends beyond bureaucratic

assumptions to add a view of leadership as a complex interactive dynamic through

which adaptive outcomes emerge.

• provides an overarching framework that describes the interplay of bureaucratic

leadership (formal managerial roles) and complex adaptive systems (emergent,

interactive, and dynamic).

Adopting Complexity Leadership

Complexity leadership theory assumes that real-world complex adaptive systems do not

lend themselves to controlled experimentation. Figure 3 illustrates the four cyclic steps for

applying complexity leadership.

Figure 3: Four Cyclic Steps for Applying Complexity Leadership Theory

• Observation: Leadership begins with observing the network of interactions among

heterogeneous individuals and rapidly changing environmental demands.


• Data collection: From the perspective of complexity leadership theory, leadership

events are not constructed by the actions of single individual (the leader). Leadership

events emerge through interactions among agents over time. It is important to collect

data from the context that shapes ideas, including networks of interaction, complex

patterns of conflicting constraints, patterns of tension, interdependent relationships,

rules of action, and direct as well as indirect feedback loops.

• Analyzing mechanics for change: Complexity leadership theory assumes that there are

causal relationships in the complex system. Leaders should systematically capture these

relationships and interactions as data, and model the data in ways that highlight their

longitudinal and relational qualities. This analysis step examines the mechanisms that

emerge, including

o resonance (i.e., correlated action) and aggregation of ideas.

o catalytic behaviours that speed up or enable certain activities.

o generation of both dynamically stable and unstable behaviours.

o dissipation of built-up tension as phase transitions.

o nonlinear change.

o information flow and pattern formation.

o accreting nodes (ideas that rapidly expand in importance and which accrete related

ideas) (Lichtensein et al., 2006; Uhl-Bien et al., 2007).

• Enabling leadership: With an understanding of the context and the mechanics of an

open learning system, leaders (instructors or facilitators) can apply leadership by

o creating a general structure of complex networks that facilitate effective interaction

for forming new knowledge and creative ideas.

o providing conditions that catalyze effective network interaction for information flow

and connections.

o fostering interdependency with rules that apply pressure to coordinate when

conflicts, problems, or dilemmas arise (rule-enabled interdependency).


o promoting tension by heterogeneity through building atmosphere (structuring work

groups) in which diversity is respected, and diverse ideas and perspectives on

problems are tolerated. Tension can foster productive discussions and interaction.

Adopting Complexity Leadership Theory in Open Learning Contexts

Since there is so much data in a complex system, it is necessary to leverage computer

technologies. For example, visual tools and social network analysis applications can be used to

collect data and present it with easy-to-interpret diagrams (Lichtenstein et al., 2006; Uhl-Bien et

al., 2007). Figure 4 illustrates how these four steps of applying complexity leadership theory

align with the process of learning analytics as described by Siemens (2010b).

Figure 4: Aligning Complexity Leadership and Learning Analytics (modified from Siemens,

2010b)

In the beginning of an open course, learners post their portfolio or a self-introduction to

the virtual learning environment. They welcome each other and the instructor encourages

participation. During this stage, the facilitator should observe the network interactions to


understand the nature of the context. When the learning activities begin, the facilitator should

then collect data such as the relationships, conflicts, and tensions that occur among the learners.

In the meantime, learners start to interact with learning materials and make connections with

information that is meaningful to them. After a short initial period, the facilitator begins to

analyze the data collected in order to capture it in a systematic way and identify the mechanics

such as

• catalytic behaviors or interaction cues.

• transformations taking place between stable and unstable dynamical behaviours.

• non-linear changes taking place.

• information flow around the network.

• evident patterns of knowledge formation.

• which nodes are accreting and how.

With this understanding in mind, the facilitator applies appropriate leadership to foster

learning.

Figure 5: How Networks Change

Figure 5 depicts how the shape of a social network changes. The diagram on the left

illustrates the interactions among participants in the initial stages of a MOOC. The network has

a simple shape, with few connections and many outliers. The diagram on the right depicts a

point later in the course. After a period of learning, the social network becomes thicker and


begins to show patterns of interactive relationships. By analyzing the dynamical behaviours,

their patterns, and the transforming mechanics, facilitators are able to make decisions about

further and effective interventions. These activities—observing, collecting, analyzing,

enabling—are the processes for applying complexity leadership in open learning.

Strategies for Leadership in Open Learning

The following are some specific strategies for ways to harness the potential of

complexity learning theory for creating open learning solutions (Hazy, 2010; Lichtensein et al.,

2006).

• Identify and shape the dynamical patterns and structures of learning models to predict

and enact the best interactions.

• Focus on how leadership may occur in any interaction.

• Focus on managing and leading a learning community’s dynamic capabilities.

• Encourage all members to be leaders within interactions (e.g., co-evaluation, self-

organization).

• Drive responsibility downward (e.g., self-organization, innovation).

• Use tension to create adaptive change.

• Leverage the capability of analytic tools to find actionable data for leadership.

Case Examples of Open Learning at Three Levels

Uhl-Bien et al. (2007) describe adaptive outputs at three hierarchical levels within

complex adaptive systems. We chose three case examples—international, organizational, and

grassroots open learning scenarios—to align with the levels from Uhl-Bien et al. On the basis of

interviews and literature study, we suggest the type of complexity leadership most evident in

each case, whether administrative, adaptive, or enabling (Uhl-Bien et al., 2007). We also

consider the extent to which each case example demonstrates the adaptive outputs suggested

by Uhl-Bien et al. Our goal is to examine open learning initiatives and complexity leadership


strategies in the real world, and to explore how these might address the problem of increasing

costs of education.

International Case: UNESCO/COL. To explore adaptive outputs and complexity

leadership within the upper level of open learning as a complex adaptive system, we chose the

international case of UNESCO/COL, and we interviewed Dr. Rory McGreal who was recently

appointed Research Chair for Open Educational Resources (OERs). Our questions regarding

open learning at the international level dealt with

• open learning and costs

• provision of resources to for-profit and not-for-profit providers

• OER partnerships

• leadership

• research opportunities.

According to Dr. McGreal, OERs are increasing in number and quality. The general idea

of open resources is becoming more widely known across the world, and use is increasing in

informal learning settings. However, uptake of OERs in formal settings has been slow. One

barrier is faculty attitudes of educational creationism which McGreal describes as the notion that

every course and its resources must be created anew for each offering by each teacher. McGreal

is clear that the UNESCO/COL initiative will not create an OER repository—the goal is to bring

people together and support the creation, use, deployment, and reuse of OERs at institutional,

national, and international levels. A related objective is to support the development of scaleable

systems to assess and accredit individuals’ informal learning taking place via OERs and other

resources. McGreal cites rising costs for using copyrighted material and the general increase in

costs for learning resources as incentives for educators to use OERs.

While one might expect to see the administrative form of complexity leadership in the

UNESCO/COL efforts (e.g., hierarchy, alignment, control), our interview with Dr. McGreal

suggests the presence of enabling leadership. McGreal’s descriptions of enhancing connections


and “bringing people together” suggests an emphasis on interactions and interdependence that

Uhl-Bien et al. (2007) say are two of the three ways enabling leadership encourages complex

networks. Enabling leadership also fosters tension through heterogeneity, respect for diversity,

dissent, and divergent perspectives. The UNESCO/COL Chair’s team and partners represent

geographic, cultural, and economic diversity, but it is too early to tell the extent to which

dissent and different perspectives will be nurtured.

Within the framework of complexity leadership theory, Uhl-Bien et al. (2007) describe

three sorts of adaptive outputs at the upper level represented by the UNESCO/COL case: a)

emergent planning, b) resource acquisition, and c) strategic relationship with the environment.

Emergent planning is described as flexible and organic, with broad strategic objectives

(Mintzberg & McHugh, 1985); it is also characterized as flexible and empowering (Dibrell,

Down, & Bull, 2007). McGreal describes the UNESCO/COL initiative as having broad strategic

scope, and he implies flexibility in achieving objectives. He describes his leadership as

facilitative—to encourage processes and empower others to develop and use OERs as a means

to address local as well as mass education issues in cost-effective ways. The UNESCO/COL

project’s resource acquisition outputs will come from its focus on capacity building, and

through giving OERs respectability as the MIT initiative did for open courseware. Finally, the

project will clearly have adaptive outputs related to strategic relationships with the

environment, through its focus on networking, enhancing connections at institutional, national,

and international levels, as well as collaboratively developing a map of the landscape of OER

initiatives worldwide.

For more detail on leadership, costs of education, and other issues related to the

UNESCO/COL initiative, review the recording of our interview with Dr. McGreal.

Organizational/Institutional Case: Athabasca University. As an example of the middle

hierarchical level, we chose the organizational case of Athabasca University. We interviewed Dr.

Cindy Ives, Director of AU’s Centre for Learning Design and Development. (CLDD is


responsible for course design, development, and production.) Our questions regarding open

learning at an organizational level dealt with

• organizational strategy, policy, and practice (and their impacts)

• leadership for change, innovation, and overcoming resistance

• transforming to new models of teaching and learning

• the role of research and evaluation

• open learning and costs.

Athabasca University demonstrates two broad categories of openness: open

administration (open enrolment, access, and absence of residency or prerequisite requirements)

and institutional commitment to use open-source technology tools. In practice, the use of OERs

in AU courses lags behind Athabasca’s policy commitments to open learning initiatives such as

open access publishing and membership in the OpenCourseWare Consortium. However,

copyright legislation currently pending (which will increase fees for licensed materials) will

likely drive increased use of OERs. Dr. Ives points out that in theory, OERs can reduce costs, but

in practice, customization adds costs. She believes that in the end, there may be little difference

between using OERs and building resources from scratch, though use of OERs may be more

cost-effective in the developing world. There is much we still don’t know about costs, and we

don’t yet have good data on where or how to achieve cost savings with OERs.

For the most part, the AU case illustrates the type of complexity leadership that Uhl-Bien

et al. (2007) call administrative leadership—planning and coordinating organizational activities.

However, most decisions about pedagogy and degree of technology use are made by individual

faculty. Dr. Ives refers to the need for consultative leadership (e.g., providing infrastructure and

support for experiments and pilots) which is evidence of enabling leadership, the type of

complexity leadership “that structures and enables conditions . . . to optimally address creative

problem solving, adaptability, and learning” (Uhl-Bien, et al., 2007, p. 299, italics in original).

Such enabling leadership serves to manage the rhythms between “top-down, hierarchical

dynamics and emergent complex adaptive systems” (Uhl-Bien et al. 2007, p. 306). Overall, in the


Athabasca University case there is some evidence of the outputs Uhl-Bien et al. associate with

the middle level of complex adaptive systems, such as

• focused planning—AU’s strategic planning specifies open-source software, participation

in OER initiatives, mission explicit on openness (e.g., open admission, removal of

barriers to access).

• resource allocation—AU’s support for experiments and pilots, faculty development,

policy initiatives, and infrastructure for change (e.g., stable technology, time, training).

For more detail on open learning and complexity leadership at an organizational level,

review the recording of our interview with Dr. Ives.

Grassroots Case: Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Massive Open Online

Courses (MOOCs) represent an open learning phenomenon designed to serve learners outside

the confines of institutional structures. MOOCs are a bottom-up response to increased

complexity throughout society, in the form of “networked, holistic, and integrated models of

knowledge and learning” (Cormier & Siemens, 2010, p. 38). George Siemens and Stephen

Downes offered the first MOOC in 2008—25 participants paid fees and enrolled for credit, while

2,300 others were not-for-credit participants. We explored blogs and articles on MOOCs as well

as MOOC transcripts for evidence of specific types of complexity leadership and adaptive

outputs.

The complex adaptive activity of MOOCs illustrates the distinction Lichenstein et al.

(2006) draw between leaders, as individuals, and leadership as a “complex dynamic process

that emerges in the interactive ‘spaces between’ people and ideas” (p. 2). Indeed, MOOCs

appear to represent what Uhl-Bien, Marion, and McKelvey (2008) refer to as adaptive

leadership, an “information emergence dynamic that occurs among interactive agents and is not

an act of authority” (p. 198). Indeed, MOOCs are not “an act of an individual, but rather a

dynamic of interdependent agents” (Uhl-Bien et al. 2007, p. 307).


According to Uhl-Bien et al. (2007), at the lower levels of complex systems hierarchy, we

are likely to see adaptive outputs such as a) knowledge development, b) innovation, and c)

adaptation. The following references to aspects of MOOCs demonstrate these outputs.

Knowledge development

From Cormier and Siemens (2010)

• There is interaction, access to debate, negotiation of knowledge rather than “stale

cataloging of content” (p. 32).

• Participants join in the research and discussion, and contribute to the development of

knowledge in a field.

• Learners develop the “skills, knowledge, and mindsets needed to participate in complex,

ever-shifting real-world situations in which coming to know is as important as knowing”

(p. 38, italics in original).

From Greller (2011)

• The density of a MOOC network facilitates participants’ pursuit of knowledge as

resources are pooled simultaneously around a common task or theme.

• MOOCs create connections that participants can take with them away and repurpose;

this preserves and carries on the knowledge created.

From Kop (2011)

• Learners participate actively by aggregating resources, producing blogs and Twitter

feeds, as well as sharing resources within and without the MOOC.

Innovation

• MOOCs represent innovation at several levels, including “how educators prepare to

teach, how learners negotiate knowledge from the information they are encountering,


and how courses can have an impact on the broader field of study” (Cormier & Siemens,

2010, p. 32)

Adaptation

• MOOCs are “characterized by dynamic and non-linear interaction . . . small changes in

one element can have large results and vice versa” (Osborn & Hunt, 2007, p. 320).

• Participants “learn how to make the connections between a wide range of free content

and core principles. . . . the role of the 'lecturer' is not to deliver the content but to find it,

structure it and help interpret it” (Weller, 2011).

According Mackintosh (2011), the most recent MOOC was based solely on OERs, with

materials developed collaboratively and openly across institutional boundaries. We may soon

see these sorts of courses incorporated into formal qualifications. Mackintosh predicts that 2011

will see major leaps forward for the adoption of OERs in the mainstream, and MOOCS can

touch many learners in a very short period.

Conclusion

Open learning has long been promoted as a participatory and cost-effective model for

education. Emerging information technologies and rapid communication are creating a vast

array of new opportunities, but they also present challenges. How do we move toward open

learning that is more than an imprecise phrase with a range of meanings, eluding definition

(MacKenzie, Postgate, & Scupham, 1975)? How can open learning fulfill in real terms the

theoretical promise of local and mass education that is cost effective and affordable?

Complexity leadership theory, as a framework to support the learning, creative, and adaptive

capacity of complex adaptive systems such as we find in education, can play a critical role. As

well, we need to continue trying new methods and gather more evidence about teaching and

learning with OERs and other open learning strategies and tools. It is imperative that we

continue exploring the sorts of leadership that will be effective for emerging forms of open

learning.


References

Ally, M. (2004). Designing effective learning objects for distance education. In R. McGreal (Ed.),

Online Education Using Learning Objects (pp. 87–97). London, England: Routledge Falmer.

Calder, J., & McCollum, A. (1998). Open and flexible learning in vocational education and training.

London: Routledge.

Cormier, D., & Siemens, G. (2010). The open course. Educause Review, July/August, pp. 31–39.

Dibrell, C., Down, J., & Bull, L. (2007). Dynamic strategic planning: Achieving strategic flexibility

through formalization. Journal of Business and Management, 13(1), 21–35.

Greller, W. (2011, February 13). Summative evaluation of MOOCs [Web log message]. Reflections

on Knowledge Society. Retrieved from http://145.20.173.188/~wgr/wordpress/?p=897

Hazy, J. K. (2010). Complexity Thinking and leadership: How nonlinear models of human organizing

dynamics can inform management practice. Retrieved from

http://business.adelphi.edu/pdfs/SB-WP-2010-01.pdf

Industry Canada. (2010). Consumer literacy and education. In Consumer Trends Report. Retrieved

from http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/oca-bc.nsf/eng/ca02102.html

Kop, R. (2011, February 24). Learning on MOOCs [Web log message]. Retrieved from

http://ritakop.blogspot.com/2011/02/learning-on-moocs.html

Lataif, L. (2011). Universities on the brink: Ever increasing costs of education not sustainable.

Forbes.com. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/2011/02/01/college-education-bubble-

opinions-contributors-louis-lataif.html

Lichenstein, B. B., Uhl-Bien, M., & Marion, R. (2006). Complexity leadership theory: An interactive

perspective on leading in complex adaptive systems. Emergence: Complexity and

Organization, 8(4), 2–12.


Lewis, R., & Spencer, D. (1986). What is open learning? London: Council for Educational

Technology.

Mackintosh, W. (2011, March 7). Re: What can the OERu learn from the #OCL4Ed course?

[Electronic mailing list message].

McKenzie, N., Postgate, R., & Scupham, J. (1975). Open learning. Paris: UNESCO.

Mintzberg, H., & McHugh, A. (1985). Strategy formation in an adhocracy. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 30(2), 160–197.

Osborn, R. N., & Hunt, J. G. (2007). Leadership and the choice of order: Complexity and

hierarchical perspectives near the edge of chaos. The Leadership Quarterly 18(4), 319–340.

Parry, M. (2011). $2-billion federal program could be windfall for open online learning. The

Chronicle of Higher Education, January 22, 2100. Retrieved from

http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/2-billion-federal-program-could-be-windfall-for-

open-online-learning/29167

Siemens, G. (2010a). Managing and learning in massive(ly) open online courses. Presented at

Open Access Week, Athabasca, Canada. Retrieved from

http://auspace.athabascau.ca:8080/dspace/handle/2149/2838

Siemens, G. (2010b). What are learning analytics? ELEARNSPACE. Retrieved from

http://www.elearnspace.org/blog/2010/08/25/what-are-learning-analytics/

Simon, S., & Banchero, S. (2010). Putting a price on professors. Wall Street Journal (October 22).

Retrieved from

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703735804575536322093520994.html


Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting

leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4),

298–318.

Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2008). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting

leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. In M. Uhl-Bien & R. Marion

(Eds.), Complexity leadership: Conceptual foundations, (pp. 185–224). Information Age

Publishing.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (2002, July 8).

UNESCO promotes new initiative for free educational resources on the Internet. UNESCO

Education. Retrieved from

http://www.unesco.org/education/news_en/080702_free_edu_ress.shtml

Weller, M. (2011). What is the learner responsibility in open education? The Ed Techie [Web log

message] Retrieved from

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c0c0e53ef0147e2014994970b

Wellman, J. V., Desrochers, D. M., & Lenihan, C. M. (2008). The growing imbalance: Recent trends in

U.S. postsecondary education finance. Washington, D.C.: Delta Project on Postsecondary

Education Costs, Productivity and Accountability. Retrieved from

http://www.deltacostproject.org/resources/pdf/imbalance20080423.pdf

Wiley, D. A. (2010). Openness as catalyst for an educational reformation. Educause Review, 45(4).

Retrieved from

http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/ERVolume442009/EDUCAUSEReviewMa

gazineVolume45/209245

Open Learning and Costs of Education

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (19)

Similar a Open Learning and Costs of Education

Similar a Open Learning and Costs of Education (20)

Más de Su-Tuan Lulee

Más de Su-Tuan Lulee (18)

Último

Último (20)

Open Learning and Costs of Education