In a posting about what standards to use for OER quality, Wiley (2012) suggested that only the intended achieved learning should be used as the measure of OER quality. I agree that achieved learning should be the gold standard, but worry that not all learning is easily measurable. Wiley contrasts measured-learning against having an unwieldy 700-page OER lavishly produced by an expert-author : utility is of course a concern, but utility need not be compared against measured learning. The Domains-of-Learning Framework proposed here includes utility, cognitive learning, student satisfaction, and so on. It is a comprehensive taxonomy of educational goals across all domains of learning – not only on the Cognitive knowledge and possibly the Affective student satisfaction that are easily measured in traditional ways. The student needs to learn very much more than fixed knowledge and how to apply it in new contexts. OER give us an opportunity to create amazing innovative units, and we’d be amiss if they only taught for the test – for what is easily measured. Outside MIT, 700-page OER are uncommon, and experts as OER authors are usually aware of portability and size concerns. Certainly his call for dynamic evolving wiki-style OER is valid, rather than having staid fixed OER. We should perhaps taker a wider more inclusive view of what different stakeholders term quality.
All Best Wishes
Wiley, D. (2012) OER quality standards. Iterating toward Openness blog posting 16 October. Retrieved January 26, 2013, from http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/2568