OERu/Planning/Proposed decision for 2012 Prototype

Background and process

 * 1) A process for selection the OERu 2012 prototype was developed in the wiki inviting feedback from partners and the open community.
 * 2) Qualification and ranking criteria were considered by the partners and open community.
 * 3) OERu founding anchors partners were invited to nominate candidates for the 2012 prototype
 * 4) We implemented a rough consensus poll requesting inputs from anchor partners and the open community to generate information to assist in formulating a decision for consideration by the OERu anchor partners.

Strategic decision considerations

 * 1) The critical path decision in the final selection will be the requirement to have the prototype nomination ready for delivery in the 2nd half of 2012. This is where we should spend our energies.
 * 2) Institutional autonomy takes preference in our Network and individual partners have the right of first choice for assembling a prototype course of their choice.
 * 3) Parallel development of anchor partner nominations which may not be ready in time are encouraged within the agreed contribution of two courses per anchor partner.
 * 4) OERu anchor partners who did not submit a nomination for the 2012 prototype can apply their 0.2 staff time allocation for 2012 towards collaborative inputs in the prototype developments (We are yet to decide a time frame for the 2 course contributions).

Creative number crunching
A rough consensus poll is a blunt instrument and no claims are made regarding statistical validity, reliability or substantive value of the outcomes. The rough consensus poll is a catalyst and part of the process to help us arrive at a decision in the best interest of realizing the potential of the OERu network. There are implicit biases in the data, for example, the regional spread of member institutions, spread of voters and higher numbers of partners in specific jurisdictions. Nonetheless, the experience of the voters and a healthy dose of good faith can assist individual institutions, particularly members who submitted more than one prototype nomination.

We accept that numbers cannot adequately reflect all the dimensions of a complex and ambitious mission. As an innovation partnership, we cannot be certain that we have selected the best criteria for the task.

In the final analysis, any course which the OERu network can offer using OER with pathways to achieve formal credit is a significant step in widening access to learning for those who are excluded from the formal sector. This is an order of magnitude better than no realistic access for many learners.

Votes counted as on 1 February 2012 (New Zealand time). The table below summarises the results of the rough consensus poll.

Number of prototype courses
The OERu network is very fortunate to have received significantly more viable submissions for the 2012 prototype than the three course target we reasonably anticipated at the OERu 2011.11 meeting. Having received 13 nomination's, we asked the community for advice and guidance on the number of courses to consider. The recommendation from the rough consensus poll:


 * 1) Develop as many of the nominations as possible: 9 votes
 * 2) Limit the prototype to a small number (for example 3 courses): 4 votes
 * 3) Greater than 3 courses, but less than 12: 13 votes

Based on this advice, the straw dog below proposes the selection of 8 nominations for the OERu 2012 prototype.

Prototype course submissions
The voting and analysis of the rough consensus poll is summarized in the table below.

Hint: Click on the arrows in the header row to sort the table in ascending or descending order.

Key and basis of calculation


 * Raw suitable candidate score: Score tallied according to number of votes in each category using the following: Strongly Agree = 2; Agree = 1; Disagree = -1; Strongly Disagree = -2.
 * Raw transfer credit score: The difference between the number of votes which indicated they could award credit and the number of votes stating they couldn't award credit. "Not sure" or "not applicable" votes were not considered. This measure attempts to provided an indicator of credit transfer potential within the OERu network.
 * Raw collaboration potential score: The absolute number of voters who indicated they would be prepared to collaborate on the course development.
 * Adjusted index for suitable candidate score: This score uses a base index of 10 adjusted for differences in the number of voters for each candidate nomination.
 * Adjusted index credit transfer score: This score uses a base index of 10 expressed as a ratio of positive credit transfer votes against the number of legitimate votes (i.e. respondents who could provide a definitive answer on the likelihood of credit transfer at their institution).
 * Adjusted index collaboration potential score : This score uses a base index of 10 expressed as a ration of positive responses against the number of legitimate votes (i.e. respondents who expressed a yes or no answer to collaboration on the specific course).
 * Total: Summation of the three adjusted index scores.

Straw dog proposal Now agreed OERTen decision
Reflective considerations


 * It is unreasonable to expect one OERu anchor partner to take on more than one prototype for delivery (but they are free to consider this option)
 * Attrition from the original 8 selections for the prototype is a possibility -- we can revisit the decision based on progress within the next two months without compromising medium term development.

Draft proposal for 2012 prototypes

Based on our rough consensus poll, context and plausibility of completing successful prototype courses on time, I suggest the following straw dog proposal for our collective decision for 8 initial courses as starting candidates for the 2012 prototype (in no order of preference):


 * 1) Both College Composition, and Introduction to Communication have high rankings. We recommend that SNHU choose one candidate for the 2012 prototype.
 * 2) Introduction to Management has high rankings and as a core course within a national New Zealand qualification, this would facilitate a prime opportunity for collaboration among the three NZ polytechnic founding anchor partners.
 * 3) Mathematical Journey proposed by ESC should be developed as a prototype due to high rankings.
 * 4) Unisa can choose between Critical reasoning or Environmental Literacy both with good rankings. Critical reasoning offers the advantage of a 2nd year level course while Environmental Literacy offers oppotunities to consider overlap and collaboration with the "Why Sustainable Practice" course at Otago Polytechnic.
 * 5) The General and Applied Psychology nomination by the Open Polytechnic is a strong candidate. Local NZ institutions should collaborate to the extent that this course maps to similar course like Social Psychology and there are two Saylor Foundation Psychology courses available as OER which could be reused and remixed as approptiate.
 * 6) Art Appreciation and Techniques proposed by TRU to reuse the Saylor foundation course is a strong candidate.
 * 7) Regional Relations in Asia and the Pacific proposed by USQ should be incorporated given existing progress on course development, a model for the pedagogy of discovery and regional relevance in the Pacific encompassing a number of states.
 * 8) Why Sustainable Practice submitted by Otago Polytechic, but would appear to have considerable overlap with Unisa's Environmental Literacy course. Curriculum comparison recommended.