OEGlobal 2024

Slides can be found here: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/13WXC0JCXBQ9sTPka1P9r9d3zKdh3aPX0q-EmCdc39eA/edit?usp=sharing 

The definition of open educational practices (OEP) is ever changing in the open education community, and recent years has seen this definition shift to encompass pedagogical practices that have less of a focus on OER and focus on advancing social justice in our classroom spaces (Cronin & MacLaren, 2018; Croft & Brown, 2020). However, the discussion falls short when talking about student assessment in a course, and as a result, grading practices often come in direct conflict with the ideals and values that underpin OEP.

Because OEP has a strong focus on student autonomy and empowerment, it results in a shift in the traditional relationship between student and instructor, usually with a focus on knowledge creation, but we would argue that shift can and does occur when employing collaborative grading practices (ungrading) where students have input and can discuss their learning and the resulting grade in the course with the instructor. Students themselves have a much better sense of the work they have put into a course and as a result, a much better sense of their learning in a course. Traditional grading systems have been shown to not be reliable when measuring student learning and to also perpetuate harm on students in the process. Because employing OEP in the classroom requires developing a relationship of trust between instructors and students, those traditional grading practices can and do create conflict.

In addition, traditional grading practices can expand the equity gap, disproportionally harming students that come from underserved populations. As a basic example, simple averaging of grades across a term will favor students that were better prepared at the beginning for the course in question, despite students being at the same point at the end of the term. There is no room in this system to account for the differences in the learning gains. Here, we argue that collaborative grading practices seek to advance representational justice (Lambert, 2018), giving students power and voice to their own experiences in the classroom, and taking into consideration their experiences outside of the classroom as well.

In this session, I will argue that because collaborative grading practices challenge traditional teaching practices and are rooted in constructivist and connectivist pedagogies, it should be considered an open educational practice, decoupled from the creation of OER.

Included in [Session 11C]: WIL and Microcredentials

References
Croft, B., & Brown, M. (2020). Inclusive open education: Presumptions, principles, and practices. Distance Education, 41(2), 156-170.

Cronin, C., & MacLaren, I. (2018). Conceptualising OEP: A review of theoretical and empirical literature in Open Educational Practices. Open praxis, 10(2), 127-143.

Lambert, S. R. (2018). Changing our (dis) course: A distinctive social justice aligned definition of open education. Journal of Learning for Development, 5(3).

Author Keywords
Alternative Assessment, Ungrading, Collaborative Grading, Open Educational Practice, Social Justice, Equity

Although micro-credentials are gaining traction in higher education, more particularly for students who want short, practical, and up-to-date courses for upskilling themselves, there is an ongoing challenge regarding the recognition of micro-credentials by various stakeholders. This has an implication on the portability of micro-credentials should a student wish to transfer or translate credentials from one context to another (Chakroun & Keevy, 2018). Literature shows that some higher education institutions prefer to stake their own micro-credentials to make up a macro-credential or qualification, while others at the least, offer micro-credentials as a pre-cursor course for students looking to enter a diploma or a degree (Varadarajan, Koh & Daniel, 2023).

The portability of courses and credit transfer between contexts (institutions) is not a new issue for South Africa thus, the micro-credentials are increasing this complexity. The Council of Higher Education (CHE) acknowledges that the development of a micro-credentialing policy and strategy is at its infancy but in the meantime, entrusts institutional structures with the micro-credentials’ quality assurance and integrity. The CHE allows firstly, that credit bearing modules that are part of a formal qualification but that are taken for non-degree purposes (NDP) can be recognised as micro-credentials in formal qualifications through Credit Accumulation and Transfer (CAT) mechanisms. Secondly, micro-credentials can be recognised through their inclusion in an assessed portfolio of evidence for Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) for access and/or advanced standing into formal qualifications (CHE Communiqué 2 of 2023, p. 2).

In this paper, I describe how the principles of social justice have informed the design of the Postgraduate Diploma in Blended and Online Learning Design (BOLD). As a means of advancing social justice imperatives, at the university of Cape Town, we are piloting both approaches: using micro-credentials for CAT and RPL. The BOLD PGDip development team has developed the programme (with four 30 credit clusters comprising three 10 credit courses each = 120 credits), which is at the final stages of the accreditation process. As a means of widening access to the courses for lifelong learning, each of the 10 credit courses will be offered for NDP, as short courses to anyone (with a learning design mandate) who wishes to upskill themselves, but should one decide to pursue the PGDip at a later stage, they will be allowed to use these credentials for CAT – this can be up to 50% of the PGDip only. One of short courses, Designing with Artificial Intelligence is being piloted in 2024. At the same time, to enhance access and inclusion, those who do not meet the PGDip entry requirements through their formal qualifications but have relevant work experience, we will use RPL to consolidate their informal learning. In addition to that, they will have to take a short course packaged by the team. This will also be showcased to the participants.



Included in [Session 11C]: WIL and Microcredentials

References
Chakroun, B., & Keevy, J. (2018). Digital credentialing: implications for the recognition of learning across borders. Published United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 7, place de Fontenoy, 75352 Paris 07 SP, France, under the Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO (CC-BY-SA 3.0 IGO) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/igo/)

Council of Higher Education (2023). Communiqué 2 of 2023. Available: https://www.che.ac.za/#/main

Varadarajan, S., Koh, J. H. L., & Daniel, B. K. (2023). A systematic review of the opportunities and challenges of micro-credentials for multiple stakeholders: learners, employers, higher education institutions and government. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 20(1), 13.

Author Keywords
Access, Inclusivity, Lifelong and informal learning, Micro-credentialing and micro-credentials, Social justice

In recent years, Kwantlen Polytechnic University (KPU) has made significant strides in ensuring that its Open Educational Resources (OERs) are accessible to all learners. This presentation outlines our efforts, challenges, and strategies in addressing accessibility within our OER publishing workflows. We will also touch upon the next steps we plan to take to further enhance accessibility of our publications.

In 2022, KPU Open collaborated with a co-op student to develop an accessibility rubric aligned with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG). The goal was to evaluate the accessibility of KPU's Pressbooks catalogue, which hosts a diverse range of OERs. The rubric served as a critical tool for assessing various aspects of accessibility, including text structure, alt text, multimedia content, and layout design.

The student meticulously evaluated 29 OERs using the newly created rubric. Unfortunately, the results revealed several common accessibility gaps: - Heading Structure: Many OERs lacked a consistent and well-organized heading structure, making it challenging for users to navigate content effectively. - Text Emphasis: Overreliance on bold or italicized text for conveying meaning led to inconsistencies and hindered comprehension. - Alt Text Mismatch: Images often had alt text that did not accurately describe their content, limiting accessibility for visually impaired users. - Tables and Captions: Some OERs contained layout tables without proper headers, and videos featured auto-generated, unedited captions.

Across the 29 books assessed, the accessible design success ranged from intermittent (level 1) to marginal (level 2)

Following the assessment, KPU's Open Publishing Suite (OPUS) implemented several measures to enhance OER accessibility: - Accessibility Statement: KPU created a clear and explicit accessibility statement for its website, emphasizing the importance of OER accessibility. - Student Assistant Training: Open Education Student Assistants now receive training in accessibility standards along with the rest of their training. Equipped with the necessary knowledge and skills, they contribute to making OERs more accessible during the creation process by being able to spot and fix accessibility issues immediately when doing the initial conversion. - OER Grant Application: The grant application process now includes a question specifically asking how applicants plan to address accessibility in their OER projects. This proactive step encourages thoughtful consideration of accessibility from the outset. - Project Agreements: OPUS revised its Project Agreements with OER Grant recipients, explicitly discussing common accessibility pitfalls identified during the assessment. This ensures that creators are aware of potential issues and can plan accordingly. - Pre-Publication Accessibility Review: An accessibility review is now part of the pre-publication checklist. By catching any oversights early, KPU aims to minimize accessibility gaps in its OERs.

KPU's commitment to accessibility extends beyond compliance—it reflects a dedication to equitable learning experiences. As the university continues to refine its OER publishing workflows, it remains steadfast in its mission to make education accessible to all.



Included in [Session 11C]: WIL and Microcredentials

Author Keywords
accessibility, OER publication, publishing processes