text:
OERlabs Openbook/Communication between understanding and comprehension (Design Principles)

The cornerstones of communication
The start of projects at universities is always tied to a process - at first it requires preparatory work (e.g. finding cooperation partners, formulating ideas and drafting applications) until it can be incorporated into the administrative apparatus via the bureaucratic part, in order to actually find its place in practice afterwards. Of course, all these steps do not happen on their own, but require the active support of employees as well as university actors.

The OERlabs project tried to shake up the structures of internal university communication from the very beginning. The project represented in some way an expert role in the OER issue, as in both cases there was no active and broad work with OER in teacher training. Thus, a certain thematic authenticity was inherent in all our work, which became particularly visible through the active dissemination of open project material and open practices in the project work. However, the other side of the coin should definitely be mentioned here, because it also turned out that this intrinsic expert role does not give the project any automatic leverage to start discussions or to change practices and attitudes. (see MSD Methods and Marketing) This meant that, especially in the MSD process, communication structures had to be prepared and laid by us in order to be able to find an appropriate working environment. This manifested itself on the one hand in methodical projects during the MSD (see Methodical Procedure = Breaking Hierarchies), and on the other hand in direct communication with stakeholders (e.g. invitations via phone call).

Here one can ask how a sensitization project like OERlabs can get (interested) people on board to participate in a development process. Is it possible that longer preparatory work will be necessary, e.g. the OER regular's table at the TUK? Does the introduction succeed by focusing on a personal contact, with the help of events to get to know the stakeholders or 1-to-1 meetings? Or do you establish communication structures with the help of already existing thematic focuses, such as discussions and questions on copyright or taking on an advisory function? And finally, how does one approach the topic of openness in a university context, possibly at the level of students (see OER-Seminars)?

Integration of an external community into internal work processes
Although the OER community in German-speaking countries has undergone constant development, it could nevertheless be described as family-like. But this is also one of the strengths of this community, because relationships have been established and cultivated over a longer period of time through other (OER) projects, (OER) events or through social media. Accordingly, it is not difficult to get opinions and support in such projects. However, working with the community in such a project is not advantageous. Of course, this is not about the broad OER community in the sense of a sharing culture of CC material such as images, graphics and designs, which was used for various material, but about the creation of appropriate communication structures on the topic.

It is easily possible to talk about challenges and possible solutions with people working in similar OER development projects, because the same objective already provides an incentive for communication and collaboration. However, an essential goal is to build up an UzK or TUK internal OER community. Here people must first be shown what it basically is about before one receives a commitment to cooperation. However, this is only possible with appropriate personnel and time resources, which are limited in some cases. The aim cannot therefore be to involve the external OER community more, but to build up or strengthen the internal structures of the university accordingly.

External communication of the project work
As already mentioned at the beginning, communication in this case is a double-edged sword. For despite weakened communication with the external community and the simultaneous focus of successful internal communication, an "open" project nevertheless requires the visualization of one's own work (or one's own communication). In order to be relevant in both a practical and a scientific context, it is advantageous to bring project results into the community early and permanently. This succeeds on the one hand in the form of scientific publications, on the other hand on a fundamental level through the publication of various formats such as blog posts, podcast episodes, presentations or other material. So as soon as a project sets itself the goal of "openness", this openness must be actively integrated into the work process at all levels. This is because in this development work one can only become credible if, in addition to scientific reflection and support, communication and methodology are communicated as openly as possible to the outside world.


text:
OERlabs Openbook/Lessons lOERned (Twitter)

=Project Twitter= With the Twitter account @OERlabs we operate an additional information and communication channel besides our blog and podcast on the project homepage. Since there is an active OER community on Twitter, we mirror the content of the project homepage on the one hand and provide a more direct and personal insight from our events on the other. This enables the OER community to participate in the OERlabs project and to contribute suggestions and take part in the discussions. In the contributions to our Multi-Stakeholder Dialogues the endeavour to offer a pleasant atmosphere for discussion has become clear, which stands out positively from committee meetings. For this reason, Twitter activities should not only provide information but also give an impression of the atmosphere and thus the working methods on site. Twitter offers the possibility either to inform briefly and concisely or to give an insight into broader blog entries. In addition, it is important for the OERlabs project to be transparent towards its own work and not to wait for (final) project reports before reporting on its own actions. True to the networking concept of our Multi-Stakeholder Dialogues (MSD), we also give guests and their work on open educational resources a stage.

It has proven helpful to remind project team members of Twitter before the start of the event, as a few project team members didn't have any social media experience and therefore don't think about tweeting during events. The same people had to get used to formulating on Twitter and handling tags and hashtags. Therefore, it makes sense to give them an introduction by more experienced Twitter users, because unlike blog posts, there is no possibility of a correction loop before publication, especially since tweeting at events happens in the moment. Depending on the situation, you can take suitable photos and then practice tweeting with adding photo comments. Nevertheless, it is difficult to persuade people with little or no social media affinity to tweet in the project context to do so on their own.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
OERlabs Openbook/Lessons lOERned (Weblog)

=Weblog as basis for a project= To keep a project blog is part of the basic setup in the university context. Although many different materials have been created in our project (see: Link Content-Buffet, see Podcast), the upkeep of a "project homepage" in the form of a weblog is of central importance, because basic information about the project or the "day-to-day" events is easier to present and find in this form.

=Weblog as development possibility?= No blog statistics were collected for the OERlabs blog and in terms of interaction we were able to provide a function to comment (see OERLabs Podcast Episode 5). In the beginning we also experimented with an inquiry or contact option in the form of a "doorbell". We also mentioned and discussed this OERlabs doorbell in some podcast episodes, because we considered it a good possibility to offer interested people a contact point, especially for questions about OER. It has to be mentioned that interest was more often expressed (be it information or questions about OER) "offline", no remedy can be created by the provision of an "online" system.

Due to the work processes during the project, it is not easy to regularly upload to the blog. On the one hand we could offer a lot of other content in the OERlabs, but on the other hand the flow of information on the blog was sometimes too little. This raises the question of the format in which project information is displayed and what kind of project information is requested by interested parties, cooperation partners and the public. In the future, one consideration might be to offer a kind of landing page, from which certain target groups can be directly addressed and forwarded, so that participation opportunities are made more present.

Interactivity and privacy policy
Finally, a word about GDPR, which has also affected the project and the blog since the beginning of 2018. If a certain interaction is desired, demanded or wanted, there will be additional work in some cases. Because as soon as forms or entries by visitors are necessary, you have to communicate in detail what happens with these entries.

Ultimately, the question of how to handle products - be it student products or materials from teachers - may remain unanswered for some time. Should they be made available on your own weblog? Should there be possibilities for this from the side of the own university? And how do you communicate such publications (especially in the field of teaching, trainee teachers and young teachers)?


text:
OERlabs Openbook/Project (Weblog)

=Kickoff, issues and topic priorities= Our Blog keeps readers up to date and provides detailed information about the project. Accordingly, the new contributions will appear as soon as possible after an event has taken place or to inform about a forthcoming event. In addition, our blog contains current scientific publications, contributions on open practices and episodes of our podcast.

=Methods, "rules" and work processess= The blog posts can be found on our website and are arranged chronologically (from the most recent to the older posts). The blue headings classify the posts in different categories:
 * General
 * General/Events
 * MSD Cologne/Events
 * Podcast episodes
 * Scientific publications
 * OpenLab
 * Open practices
 * Open practices/events

Every blog post has a comment function so that readers can contact us directly.

=Participants= Only the members of our project who have access to the website can publish the contributions in our blog. Anyone interested can read and comment on our blog.

title: OERlabs Openbook/Project (Weblog)


text:
OERlabs Openbook/Headnotes (Podcast)

=Podcast as a tool for reflection= The following text is an abstract of an article submitted here on the topic of podcasting and higher education:

''This paper  deals  with  the  question  of  how  reflection  as  part  of  academic  media  literacy  can be addressed at universities. An example of this is a practical project, where students in labs come into contact with Open Educational Resources (OER), but above all with Open Educational Practices  (OEP)  and  open  teaching  material. There is  also  focus  on  other relevant university actors, which together with the students discuss how not only OER, but more importantly OEP in general can be established at the university, in order to facilitate access  to  open  education  for  lecturers  and  learners  alike. On the  basis  of  this  practical experience,  the  article  outlines  the  project's  podcast  that  works  as  an  instrument documentation and also as a channel, wherein project staff at both universities, as well as other university stakeholder can openly reflect their experiences. The question addressed relates to which project elements can be supported with a reflective approach regarding open-learning and  -teaching  practice  at  the  university,  and  how  Open  Educational Practices can be more than content for lectures, and instead sustainably be implemented as part of developmental higher education projects.''

=Project openness via audio= The top priority for OER projects should be to work as openly as possible. This includes not only correct licensing of the created material, but also an open attitude and a transparent work process. In many cases, social media are now used as a documentation platform. Interested parties can experience the events surrounding the project in real time, e.g. via Twitter or Facebook Timeline, when attending conferences or sharing relevant links. There is a personal connection to the audience, but there is a clear limit, because one does not get a real insight into thoughts and experiences. A podcast provides the audience with an insight into conversations between the project team members who, although prepared accordingly, offer the opportunity to look into the project from the outside, but can also create a basis of trust. The same can apply to conversations with stakeholders - in many cases a written interview does not convey the same, even emotional, effect as a voice or video recording. Ultimately, podcasts within the framework of a project enable project staff as well as interested parties to achieve a further level of openness.

=Breaking habits (vs. written project documentation)= Working with OER often shatters the habits and practices of the educational system. The open sharing of material, the editing and further processing of content is neither part of the everyday work of students nor their teachers. One of OERlabs' aims as a project was to change practices. This applies not only to the work with educational material, but also to the work processes of actors in the field of education. In higher education and in project work, this affects certain established project processes (e.g. written project documentation or interim and final reports). One possibility to create change here is to design the basic work differently, as in the case of the Bildungsshaker Podcast to present the project documentation with the help of voice recordings.

Therefore the claim is that through such media or formats, which are also already established, they can be used in a somewhat different context in order to bring about possible changes in perspectives. As soon as interested parties are suddenly confronted with an audio recording instead of a written documentation, a new awareness for work processes can possibly be created. This can have an impact on these people's own work by making their own reflection process more open. Ideally, these people will not only become more open through their own changed reflection process, but will be confronted with more different processes, whereby changes in posture, and ultimately openness, can calibrate themselves as the norm.

title: OERlabs Openbook/Headnotes (Podcast)


text:
OERlabs Openbook/Lessons lOERned (Podcast)

=Projektshaker= As already assumed by the project team in the run-up to production, the flexibility of podcast recordings as project documentation tools was confirmed. In many cases, documentation and reflection of important project events could be recorded promptly and guests could be more easily integrated.

Compared to the written project documentation, which was also carried out in blog format, a joint reflection on the basis of discussion is to be regarded as a more open format. Written feedback can also be given synchronously (but mostly asynchronously), but the written level limits the exchange about any open and unclear formulations or trains of thought that can be dealt with directly in a conversation. Audio recordings can also be edited, but as long as it does not hinder the course of the conversation, our podcasts could always be recorded as a continuous conversation.

Through this "live" conversation one also had to go to a somewhat different level of reflection than if one could edit one's own thoughts several times purely in writing, with a certain distance. A linguistic formulation in a conversation makes it possible to formulate a thought openly or to describe experiences openly. This would also be limited in a certain way by the written level, since one can write and work on one's texts in peace, and thus possibly formulate them somewhat more cautiously. Likewise, emphasis was placed on openly addressing problematic situations in the planning or implementation phase, which is not always usual in written project documentation.

However, linguistic documentation and reflection also presents some challenges. The written format offers a familiar way of working, especially when describing planning projects or methods and events. However, as soon as you talk about a method or event in a voice recording, you must always keep in mind that people may not have the same background information in front of them, so it takes practice for listeners to explain certain project events accordingly before you discuss thoughts and reflections on them.

Finally, however, it is important to note that as an external or interested person, you cannot obtain information about a project solely through a project podcast. A podcast offers an excellent opportunity to cover the level of reflection of the project work and to let stakeholders have their say. However, a podcast only unfolds its full effect with supporting written accompaniment, such as a project blog, scientific publications and other used material.


text:
OERlabs Openbook/Project (Podcast)

=Methods, "rules" and work processes= The project-related podcast is called "Bildungsshaker" and is published on our website. For accessibility we provide the transcripts of the episodes. The Bildungsshaker podcast uses the sound file "Shakerrhythm" by Acrobaticks, which is released under CC0 license. Technically, our podcast is realized with the open source software Podlove and Audacity. Everyone can subscribe to our podcast.

All episodes of our podcast can be found on our website. The podcast is published under a CC-BY 4.0 license, exact license information can be found under each respective episode.

title: OERlabs Openbook/Project (Podcast)


text:
OERlabs Openbook/Field Notes (Podcast)

=Podcast conception= The first steps of development of the educational shaker podcast took place within the framework of internal project discussions on project documentation. The whole project team was familiar with the usual formats of project documentation, e.g. reports, blog, etc. The project team also had broad experience in media production, including podcasting. The decision to document and reflect on the project with the help of a podcast was ultimately based on two factors: First, the flexibility provided by audio recordings was an important driver, because with the help of portable recording devices, such as a smartphone, episodes can be easily organized and performed with a wide variety of guests. On the other hand, a linguistic reflection of project steps offers a more open or personal outward effect, which can be advantageous for a project that is characterized by openness. These preliminary considerations initially led to an overview of the concept:

title: OERlabs Openbook/Field Notes (Podcast)


text:
OERlabs Openbook/Headnotes (Student Participation)

Headnotes
There is much writing about student participation and in view of the supposed change of studies towards education it is not uncommon to complain about it. From this perspective, participation in research on open educational resources (OER) or in a practical and development project closely related to teaching and university development (such as the OERlabs) alone is positive, students are (further) socialised in higher education and science and involved in research.

With a view on OER, there is an excellent opportunity to discuss where and in which places student participation is necessary and possible. First of all, it should be clarified what is meant by participation in connection with OER. Will students be more involved in teaching than usual if, for example, they design teaching materials, implement them digitally and make them accessible to a worldwide group of interested people? Do students make their studies their own if they can and should pursue their own questions, topics or conspicuous phenomena in connection with their studies? What is the social connection between teaching and study when teaching is opened up in/with/by media and the study inevitably breaks away from a specific subject?

If students (almost) completely develop topics themselves, as was the case in the project examples of independent research work in the so-called Humboldt Year at Zeppelin University in Friedrichshafen and in the Bachelor's thesis in the educational sciences course at the University of Cologne, it is a matter of the didactic implementation of what was done in early concepts of university under education through science (cf. Huber, 1993 ). Therefore, the way in which students are involved in OER research, e.g. through term papers, final module examinations, freelance research projects or final theses, is related to an older, not least higher education didactic discussion about research-based learning, because:

Since the 1970s, research-based learning has been discussed programmatically, since the 1990s mainly conceptually and in connection with education through science about forms and possibilities of student participation in studies (or based on them). Many of these discussions have focused on when it is possible to speak of research-based learning, or rather of learning in the format of research. (Wildt, 2009 ) Older texts advocate that research-based learning is only made possible if the entire research process is experienced with all its highs and lows. More recent texts also focus on parts of the research process, e.g. asking questions, moments of conception, operationalisation or criticism (e.g. of data and findings). The background to this is, among other things, the broad reception of different concepts of research-based learning in universities and colleges, which has been observable for almost ten years and leads to the successive re-structuring and classification mentioned above.

Thus, one may well be of the opinion that courses with a close thematic connection to the OER debate lead to situationalism in learning and to "more" participation. However, they are not more or less involved in teaching and learning through OER, but through a specific teaching concept. OER then offers a (current) opportunity to deal with a media-related phenomenon from a student perspective and in different, partly pre-structured forms or formats. In this way, practices become visible, for example, how people deal with OER in contexts relevant to them. In addition to (action) practices and their specific ways of appropriation, social references can be established if deeper (social) structures of power and domination (e.g. in the educational organisation university) are sought beyond the phenomenon. Both project examples have dealt with this in different ways.

On the basis of the student findings on the reproduction of social inequality in and with OER, the question arises as to whether the opening of individual courses to society (e.g. through cooperation with different partners or participatory teaching concepts) will achieve the desired success in terms of comprehensive student participation in studies, teaching and research. Another question to be asked is how reflection on practical action and its consequences or implications can be guided. Thus reflection does not necessarily take place, but sometimes also requires a (didactic) space. Not least for this reason, the relationship between research and problem orientation in connection with teaching concepts with and for OER should be (further) debated if experiences in various formats contribute to a better understanding and grasp of phenomena such as OER (and others) from a student and teacher perspective.


text:
OERlabs Openbook/Power relations in higher education (Student Participation)

Power relations at universities: An introduction against the background of OERlabs
In the future, current and future teachers at the University of Cologne will have to deal more closely with open educational resources and the associated practices in both studies and teaching. This is the declared goal of the BMBF-funded OERlabs project. In order to achieve this, no committees or task forces should be set up which would develop a concept for implementation without the involvement of those affected. The OERlabs team has deliberately opted for a multi-stakeholder dialogue in which people from different stakeholder groups and hierarchies can exchange ideas and discuss. In this way, it should be possible to introduce OERlabs into everyday university life on a sustainable basis at the macro level.

Even if hierarchies and backgrounds should not play a role in a format such as multi-stakeholder dialogue, the question arises as to whether this can really be ignored in reality. Students know their professors, university employees, the dean or the rector. Is it therefore possible to hide both one's own role and that of others during a few hours? Can it be avoided that the person who occupies the highest position within a hierarchy steers the group discussion in such a way that the result corresponds to their wishes? Can it be ruled out that only this person is addressed because he has the greatest power to solve problems?

The bachelor thesis on this topic therefore examined the question of whether power positions and means are played out during the multi-stakeholder dialogue, which actor relationships arise and whether these change. The starting point was OERlabs' multi-stakeholder dialogue. Since persons from different hierarchies of the university were present at this multi-stakeholder dialogue, the discourse could be empirically examined and used to answer the question.

Of opportunities for participation and power relations in the organisation of the university
If decisions regarding changes are to be made in an organisation or institution, task forces, committees, round tables, etc. can be convened or external consultants called in. However, this results in organisational groups which are given responsibility for an entire organisation or institution and which are then to implement a change. If a plan has been worked out, it is imposed on the system and the employees inside are to submit and implement what others have decided for them. This can quickly lead to fear spreading and own experiences and internal know-how remain unused. So it can happen that the faculty first evaluates the decision negatively, because it was not included in the decision-making process and it is not clear whether it can be implemented at all on all levels.

Participation is therefore regarded as one of the "classic" success factors in change management. In principle, motivation is increased by involving employees and resistance is reduced. If a change is imminent, it should be pursued from within, if possible, in order on the one hand to increase the efficiency of the organisation and on the other hand to humanise the working world (cf. Lauer, 2014).

A central question concerning the behavior of individuals, however, is the question of power. Koch (2007) According to the journal, joint action is inconceivable without the exercise of power. As a rule, the actors pursue two objectives: The attainment of power with the aim of reaching as far up as possible on the hierarchical levels and the exercise of power with regard to the leadership of social groups. The development of power requires a consensus between the powerful and the less powerful and thus also has a collectivist facet (cf. Koch, 2007). In order to break up existing power relations, an internal stakeholder analysis was carried out for the multi-stakeholder dialogue of OERlabs. Participants from various fields, such as students, professors, young academics, deans and representatives of university institutions, took part. But to what extent could power relations actually be broken up? Which ones can be observed and described in the project?

Discourse analysis to investigate the balance of power in the OERlabs
In my bachelor thesis, I examined the first date of the multi-stakeholder dialogue at OERlabs to determine which power positions are played out during the four-hour kick-off event, which actor relationships emerge and whether these change in the course of the afternoon. For this purpose, a knowledge sociological discourse analysis was carried out with the help of the dialogue recordings.

In the group examined, persons from the stakeholder groups Stud, Young Scientists (WN1, WN2) and representatives of university institutions (UE) were present, one of whom held a managerial position and was therefore anonymised with Mgmt.

Overall, it can be emphasized that despite different hierarchical positions within the investigated group, none of the stakeholders has asserted its will against the resistance of the other participants. This may be due to the fact that the format of the multi-stakeholder dialogue is designed to bring together different hierarchies and that it was clearly communicated to the OERlabs that hierarchies should not play a role. Or also because of the definition work that took place at the beginning, in which each participant had to interpret the thoughts of the other persons and explain them to the next person. This "warm-up exercise" was intended to minimise fears regarding the different power relations in the university environment, which could have a positive effect on the discourse within the small groups afterwards.

As mentioned before, collective action is inconceivable without the exercise of power. Thus in the observed group no obvious exercise of power was carried out, e.g. by coercion, but nevertheless forms of power were used which can be called manipulative power and are difficult or not fully recognizable by the participants. The means of manipulative power are e.g. power through reward, identification power, expert power or information power. Depending on the objectives of the actors, different means of power were used. Thus Mgmt mainly used the power of identification, which is based on a position within the group and the esteem in which he is held. WN2 often used expert power, which can be used when knowledge is superior to that of others. This power helped the stakeholders to influence others.

WN2 has, for example, achieved a position through the use of this means of power that allows it to carry out actions without consulting the group members, who however represent the entire group.

Mgmt was equally successful with his strategy, as many of his thoughts were written down without resistance or after a short discussion. He could distribute tasks without compulsion. The fact that he involved most of the group members in decisions brought him a lot of esteem.

In the group analysed, it was found that two stakeholders with different objectives had used different means of power. Thus, Mgmt pursued the goal of group leadership, while WN2 had the goal of reaching the top at the hierarchical level. It could be seen that Mgmt chose his words from the beginning in such a way that he was appreciated and given a position in the group which made him attractive and allowed the other group members to identify with him. This can be seen in sentences like 'Yes, if that's okay with all of you? Maybe a very stupid, trivial quality' or 'No, I think it's very nice'. So shortly after the beginning of the dialogue he can fall back on the power of identification. It helps him to lead the discourse of the group in the direction which he considers the right one.

WN2 acted differently. She did not express herself cautiously like Mgmt, but wanted to rise up in the group and take the leading role. She is familiar with the topic and therefore often uses the means of expert power. This can be seen in sentences such as 'But honestly, English teachers are already doing that now', 'The innovation would be if a teacher could [...] competently teach me what I can learn from it now' or 'I'm not saying that I think the whole thing is right'. She was successful because she hardly allowed any objections and was therefore not contradicted.

While the leadership position within the Group was negotiated between Mgmt and WN2, the other stakeholders increasingly receded into the background. Again and again, discussions took place almost exclusively between the leaders of the discourse, which is why the remaining members of the group were excluded. In addition, questions, suggestions or ideas from these individuals often ended in discussions between the dominant stakeholders. Two notable actor relationships thus emerged: The ones who guided the discourse and those who followed. The development of the relationships can be connected with the fact that there was no clear ranking within the group. This point naturally contradicts the approach that hierarchies and thus ranks should not play a role in multi-stakeholder dialogue. Nevertheless, in the analysed group it was found that Mgmt and WN2 fought for their position within the group. This competition neglected the remaining members. While the discourse-directing members used means of power, little or no use was made of them in the group of those following the discourse.

The actor relationship remained in place until the end. It was no longer possible to completely pick up the following discourses, but a discourse developed which mainly took place between two group members. What is striking here is that those following the discourse had not joined forces to form the antithesis to WN2 and Mgmt. They accepted that they dominated the group and that they themselves only participated in part of the discussion.

Finally, the questions asked at the beginning can be answered: No positional power was played out, but means of power of manipulative power were used, which better control those persons who stand higher within the hierarchical structures and were thus able to steer the group result in their favour. The result was an actor relationship that determined the discourse, including the person with the highest hierarchical position in the group. This relationship developed very quickly and could not be dissolved until the end. Consequently, the remaining members of the group were increasingly excluded from the discourse.

Next steps
In order to obtain more precise results, the further dates of the multi-stakeholder dialogue would also have to be analysed. Among other things, it should be examined how the leading stakeholders and the leaders behave in a different group composition. Another point would be the clothing of those present, as it has been shown that people from higher hierarchies were dressed differently. It is therefore interesting to examine whether the participants' clothing would also have an effect on their behaviour. Is a person wearing a jacket more respectful than a person wearing a hooded sweater? Is it more likely that a person wearing a jacket belongs to a higher hierarchy? What would be the results of combining clothing with age and gender? However, a discourse analysis alone is not enough. Instruments such as observations would have to be combined with discourse analysis.

Even if not all power relations could be dissolved in the first step of this form of dialogue, it makes sense in my opinion to take all stakeholders on board. In the following dates the groups were put together differently and ideas and thoughts could be taken up (again) with the knowledge from the previous dates. If, however, it should turn out in the subsequent appointments that the same people are always the leaders and the guided ones, one should consider oneself as an organizer in my opinion to intervene actively and to prevent this by regular speaking time or similar. Otherwise even the best prepared multi-stakeholder will not lead to more valuable results than a dialogue among the same stakeholders. This kind of investigation helps to find out whether the multi-stakeholder is really an enrichment or whether only the beautiful appearance of the other approach dazzles.


text:
OERlabs Openbook/Expert questionnaire OER (Student Participation)

=Promoting openness in the university context? by Juliane Ressel=

Reflections about my research work with and about Open Educational Resources
Almost a year ago, as part of the Humboldt Project at Zeppelin University - a student research module linked to and supported by a teaching chair - I first became involved with Open Educational Resources (OER). Due to my specialization, I approached the OER phenomenon at German universities from an (educational) sociological perspective.

From the results of the partially standardized and narrative interviews, in which I was allowed to ask actors of the OER debate about their individual approach to OER, a discrepancy between the knowledge about and the experiences with OER could be worked out as an interesting impulse for the current debate: Although the actors who professionally deal with OER in the course of research or administration are genuinely better acquainted with the phenomenon and can demonstrate a corresponding professional or scientific knowledge, a third of the interviewees have never used or created OER. The same applies to me and presumably many other students: Receptive media use dominates the university context; knowing something about OER does not automatically mean changing (remixing) existing OERs or even producing new ones.

Following this point of view, not everything can be problematized with a group of actors who have to gain OER competences while the others already have them, but it is asked how each deals with OER individually. If from now on no distinction is made between OER experts and laypersons, a differentiated investigation of the potentials of OER in the higher education landscape is absolutely necessary in order to create greater awareness and acceptance for OER and, in a further step, to win teachers and learners for the use of OER: Assuming the primacy of technology and its power to change per se is clearly not enough here. But in which direction would the debate have to shift if OER were nothing special any more, i.e. if the medium itself no longer made the difference?

Such a change of perspective enables a reflected position in the current OER debate and puts the individual actors, their individual dispositions of perception, evaluation and action, as well as the framework conditions constitutive for university practice, in the foreground. Bourdieu's Habitus Theory (cf. Bourdieu 1982; 1979 ), expanded with the figure of the medial habitus established in media pedagogical discourse (cf. e.g. Kommer 2010 ), and asked:
 * 1) How does the media habitus of the individual affect the creation and use of OER?
 * 2) Which structural framework conditions are conducive to open teaching and learning spaces with OER?

OER will be explicitly examined as an object for discussion and as an occasion for rethinking or even changing everyday routines in studies and teaching. The focus will be on the underlying social (action) practices in order to understand the importance of an open attitude - according to Wiley (2010) constituted by the central values "sha-ring, giving, and generosity" (p. 20) - and to sensitize the participants to the associated open practices of cooperation and sharing in teaching and study. Because: A glance at the relevant literature on the beneficial and inhibiting factors of knowledge sharing reveals parallels to the framework conditions currently being discussed in the current OER debate.

This reveals the real challenge in the debate about open educational practice: an open attitude of the actors towards OER and thus towards collaboration and cooperation in the context of higher education. The media habitus of the teachers affects the creation and use of OER to the extent that the incorporated disposition systems of individual patterns of perception, thought and action guide and limit the actions of the teachers in relation to OER. It requires a reflection of these attitudes and positions in order to deal constructively with such media challenges. Legal and organisational prerequisites in particular are among the conducive framework conditions. So that not every teacher has to be an expert in licences from now on, information and support offers can lead teachers towards a sovereign, creative handling of free licences and open educational offers. In addition, a clear positioning of the universities on the topic of OER, support tailored to the needs of the addressees through non-monetary incentive systems and the development of social practices through a culture of sharing are beneficial. The aim is to create and design physical and symbolic spaces in which teachers and learners can engage with OER in their own work. These exemplary starting points can sensitize for the self-evident handling of OER and test open practices in the university context.

=References=


text:
OERlabs Openbook/Field Notes (Student Participation)

Research-based learning and participation of students in research and design in the OERlabs
As a student, how can I participate in research and in the design of schools and universities? One possible answer to this question is learning by research. According to Reinmann (2009), this always takes place "when students carry out their own research work [...], when they participate in a research project by taking on a single task [...], when they are instructed and practising research [...] or when they can at least follow a research process (genetic learning)" (Reinmann 2009, p. 8 ).

All this happens in a social community and as a social process (cf. Huber 2007, p. 32 ). In all variants of research-based learning summarised by Reinmann (2009), students are actively involved in scientific action and the learners themselves are active as researchers (cf. Reinmann 2009, p. 9. Examples for the implementation of this principle can also be found in the different settings of the OERlabs.

But what does research-based learning do for students and to what extent can this principle contribute to increased student participation in research and in the design of universities?

Based on my experiences from the seminar "Design and Production of Digital Learning Materials", I will try to answer these questions in the following. A decisive aspect here are the many freedoms offered to the students, e.g. in the form of free choice of topics and groups. In this way, individual interests and focuses can be followed and the different strengths and previous knowledge of the participants can be brought in. Although the students still receive input, support and certain time allowances, they have to learn to deal with the associated autonomy through the otherwise very open design. For example, it is difficult to focus on a suitable question or topic and not to get bogged down during the work process. The students also learn to negotiate different views and opinions appropriately and to deal with criticism and changes. This exchange does not only take place within the own project group, but also regularly with all seminar participants and the teacher. Thus the students not only receive individual feedback and suggestions from different perspectives, but also have the opportunity to view the work of other fellow students. Such examples of scientific work, which originate from a group of peers, are Hofhues, Reinmann and Wagensommer (2008 ) is important for students to be able to assess and reflect on their own work.

These differ from passed exams in that they are not merely the reproduction of given content, but the production of something specific, individual and possibly non-existent in form, whether theoretical or practical. In this way, the students expand the role of the learners, become producers and authors themselves, and thus also part of science and research.

This idea of integrating students into research was also taken up in the presentation of the results by inviting a jury of various experts in addition to the seminar participants. As a student you get the chance to get feedback from outside the seminar context and to take your project out into the world as a first step. Especially in connection with OER, the students are encouraged to prepare their projects from the very beginning of the seminar so that they can later be shared online and distributed under a Creative Commons license. In this way, students can have a direct influence on the design of school and university, point out previous weaknesses, offer solutions/improvements and share their ideas of good teaching or good materials with others. By this opening of the university context into the "real world", the students feel, from their own experience, also a stronger application and professional reference and feel more seriously taken in their projects than if it is only a matter of mere existence or an abstract note.

This principle of taking students seriously and involving them directly in research and university design was also taken up by the OERlabs in the multi-stakeholder dialogues and students were deliberately invited as equal stakeholders. Such events and spaces, which make such an exchange of all university members possible by negotiating problems, questions and topics together from different perspectives, are very productive not only for the students, but for all participants and should be further promoted with regard to student participation.


text:
OERlabs Openbook/Headnotes (OpenLab)

OERlabs, OpenLabs, labs und (learning) workshops - an approach of explanation
It is possible that the question of the "labs" will shape the OERlabs project like no other. We are constantly asked, in different contexts, what the OERlabs mean to us or how we can breathe life into the labs in the participating organisations (i.e. universities, schools). It is therefore no coincidence that at an early stage of the project we investigated different laboratory concepts in more detail and turned to the concept of labs primarily as a metaphor: Too different are the ideas of laboratories in the subjects, too diverse are the opinions that exist about learning in laboratory format. If we speak of labs in English, we are by no means referring to the direct translation as a laboratory. Rather, various ways of interpreting the Lab concept are addressed, based on the actors themselves.

Looking back on the OERlabs project, the decision to use the concept of lab metaphorically proves to be effective: in this way, the communicative negotiation (not to be confused with communicative validation) about the design of labs acquires its own value. For example, it becomes natural or even normal to deal with didactic, organizational and not least technical questions (in the sense of problems) and to find answers to the questions (in the sense of problem solving) oneself. Not least for this reason, the answers to one's own questions must be different: They can be found again in small but feasible OER solutions, in seminar and teaching concepts, in free educational offers and in utopias of tomorrow's education. The differences between the University of Cologne and the TU Kaiserslautern, which are obvious after the project period, can also be explained with this metaphorical access to practice.

At the same time, we don't want to conceal this, these negotiation processes require the ability to engage subjectively with them and to deal with one's own ideas and expectations of teaching and education. However, under the pressure of performance and time in the current education and science system, this becomes a challenge for most participants. Accordingly, we have asked all actors to do something with the lab metaphor, namely to deal with the indeterminacy of education in the context of OER. We assume that this constant debate characterizes what is possibly publicly understood as 'digital education' and manifests itself in the form of open practices in teaching and learning. In principle, however, we also make it possible in such a way that diverse (not only didactic) scenarios can become OERlabs. The latter is not least important for the systematic integration of all university actors (i.e. teachers, students, administration) and also shows how participative university development is linked with ideas of didactics and vice versa.

So far we have not found out whether the mentioned connections and open questions of school or university development are easily registered in concepts for laboratories and learning workshops. Our interpretation of existing concepts is that they are usually initiated in favour of didactic innovation, i.e. pedagogical (university) school development. This goes hand in hand with ideas regarding good teaching, whether with or without media, which are also effective at the level of the overall (higher) school (Hofhues & Schiefner-Rohs, 2017 ). So we know that especially the currently popular term "laboratory" obscures the view that the discussion about laboratories and learning workshops has a much older and especially the term "laboratory" a considerable scientific tradition. If concepts of a scientific laboratory experiment are adopted unquestioningly, at least that which is more closely understood in pedagogy and didactics in a (learning) workshop is lost: Especially in teacher education, learning, teaching and research workshops have a longer tradition, although they mainly address the transfer of the (pedagogical-didactic) method repertoire into practice as well as individual processes of appropriation (e.g. of learning materials). The latter are of importance when the OERlabs serve as a mirror for specific routines of action.

It is therefore decisive that the OERlabs in the educational sciences were set up less as a form of gaining knowledge than as a metaphorical or symbolic code "to create alternative spaces of knowledge acquisition" (on possible laboratory concepts in the specialist sciences see Hofhues & Schiefner-Rohs, 2017, ). This distinguishes the observable practices of action as well as OERlabs' procedures from those of laboratories which were described by Knorr Cetina (1988) as "local contexts of action [...] which are specialised in a limited way in certain production processes" (ibid., p. 84). Therefore, at least four laboratory forms can be recognized in the OERlabs:

 * OERlabs as a physical place to confront expertise.
 * OERlabs as places of encounter.
 * OERlabs as a symbolic space for appropriation and open educational practices.
 * OERlabs as a training and innovation space for Third Space actors:

The trends towards "more" laboratories must be viewed just as critically as the hopes for "more" media use in teaching itself (Schiefner-Rohs & Hofhues, in Druck ). It could be helpful to reconstruct the meaning of the laboratory concept in the subjects and disciplines and then to ask how laboratories fit into the structure of the discipline, the degree programme and the university. It is undoubtedly also important to initiate these discussions before initiating the laboratories - not afterwards.

In addition, general didactics and pedagogy offer explanatory approaches that are sometimes even sobering in view of the goal perspective of academic teaching and learning at universities: Quite a few of them contribute to the fact that laboratory concepts in university and media didactics are rather one-sided and, against the background of a trend towards schooling at universities, unquestioned, trend-setting and euphorically adopted.

After all, laboratories in general and OERlabs in particular serve not only the acquisition of knowledge, but (also) professional enculturation (Wansleben, 2007, p. 282). If this reflection on teaching and practical developments is not possible during studies, laboratories and (learning) workshops remain the result of formal lesson planning. In teaching practice, they become largely predetermined places of learning and lag behind the creative possibilities of media educational spaces. A rogue, who suspects behind this fad in university and media didactics the further naturalisation of academic teaching and learning after Bologna.

title: OERlabs Openbook/Headnotes (OpenLab)


text:
OERlabs Openbook/Project (OpenLab)

University of Cologne
Kick-off of the OpenLabs at the UzK, questions and thematic focuses

The two OpenLabs we run are open events and complement the multi-stakeholder dialogue at the UoC.:

Methods, "rules" and work processes
Like the MSDs, the two OpenLabs events take place in the rooms of the University of Cologne. In comparison to the MSD, they take 2 hours (from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.) and are primarily aimed at students. The OpenLabs, like MSD, attach great importance to openness and are connected to the Chatham House rule so that the information received can be freely used without revealing the identity of the other participants. The round of introductions with expectations of the participants is a good method to ask the previous experiences. For the Introduction to the topic, the Presentation is used, which should also describe the scenario. The participants who are not teacher students should be able to take the teacher's perspective through such an introduction. For a better perception of information and storage of contents, we recommend that our participants make notes. Core contents will be made as transparent as possible and the events will be moderated. The first OpenLab will be moderated by our scientific staff. The second OpenLab takes the form of a workshop and is led by an external expert (André Hermes, teacher and media consultant). The two events aim to bring theory into practice by focusing on OER's search, the practice of licensing and the avoidance of typical mistakes. The two events offer space for exchange, open questions, criticism and possible fears around the topic "OER".

Participants
The OpenLabs focus primarily on (teaching) students. For this reason, students of teaching professions and other disciplines (e.g. media cultural studies, intermedia) are invited to attend the events. In addition, the research assistants of "school is open", a research assistant of the TH Köln from the field of social work and our colleagues from the TU Kaiserslautern will be present. The participants will be made aware of our events through our website, Twitter, Facebook and mailing lists of the UzK institutes.

Technical University Kaiserslautern
Thanks to the good cooperation with the University Library (UB), the OpenLabs offer can take place in the Central Library of the TUK. It is centrally located on campus and in the immediate vicinity of the Mensa and the Regional University Computer Centre Kaiserslautern (RHRK). The large lecture halls of the TUK can be reached on foot in less than five minutes. These general conditions are important because we want to appeal to those who have made a last-minute decision and keep opportunities open for students with a full lecture plan. The room (see Fig.1) offers all interested persons an opportunity to work, a meeting place and networking with like-minded people and is open to all members of the TUK.

Announcing and opening the OpenLab
Since the room is not used by us alone, it is necessary to publish fixed opening hours in the form of pre-determined dates. These, together with brief descriptions of the OpenLabs, can be accessed via the project homepages, the junior professorship and the university library. In addition, posters, flyers and student addresses in courses draw attention to the possibilities of OpenLabs. The opening of the OpenLabs room will be accompanied by a launch event announced throughout the university. In the OERlabs project, we used the cocktail shaker metaphor to draw attention to the adaptation potential of open educational materials through remixing. Accordingly, at the kick-off event, visitors were offered non-alcoholic cocktails in an informal atmosphere. This will not only draw attention to the project and the space, but will also highlight the functions of the space.

Room for networking
The OpenLabs start with the central goal, which is to produce ones own OER material or to remix existing material. Therefore, the space and the concept are designed in such a way that visitors receive the information and support they need to be able to work on their own material according to their needs. However, the room offers the opportunity to get to know each other, ask questions and discuss during the appointments. An exchange or discussion about advantages, disadvantages and applications of free educational materials is just as welcome as thoughts about the way of working in the OpenLabs. The resulting suggestions can be important for the visitor or for a specific organizational unit. For the University Library, OpenLabs is a source of information in the context of its own development away from a knowledge repository. While we benefit from the UB's experience in addressing students on bulky topics.

Room for information
The UB has collected freely available literature on OER and published it together with a QR-Code as a poster, which gives a good overview of possible starting points and topics of one's own discussion with OER. In addition, the desired work can be accessed immediately. This range is supplemented by printed material on display. Practically oriented information material, such as how podcasts are to be implemented, and theoretical discussions on licenses and copyright are represented. The room is also available for informal conversations for those interested in OER. Thus the room not only supports the visitors but also us by crystallizing good information material and finding suitable topic entrances. Information material such as the copyright sketch note or the already mentioned compilation of the UB of freely available publications on OER find further use elsewhere.

Room for work
The tables in the room can be set up as needed to meet the needs of group or individual work. All participants have access to pin boards, flip charts and magnetic boards and can spread out with their digital equipment. In addition, participants without their own hardware can access the PC pools of the UB and the RHRK. This includes a powerful notebook that enables video editing, for example. We and the participants have a small budget available to print prototypes or finished material, such as sketch notes, in different quality and quantity if required.

Room for support
Regardless of whether the participants want to play around with their idea or just want to know what OER means - our tutors are personally available for all questions and suggestions about OER during the lab appointments and can also be contacted by e-mail. Questions that cannot be answered on site will be researched by the tutor or suitable contact persons will be found. The aim is not to relieve the participants of any work, but to point out useful sources and other OER communities and to promote participation in networks. The mutual support of the participants among each other and the contribution of own OER experiences is expressly desired. Support is also provided in the form of suggestions for material production and for finding one's way around in the broad OER online offering. In this way, participants can develop and pass on their own repertoire of tips and tricks.

title: OERlabs Openbook/Project (OpenLab)


text:
Transportation Systems Casebook/NYC Fare Payment System

NYC Fare Payment System
This case reviews the Introduction of the New York City transit system’s new fare payment system. It is the collaborative work of Aleksandr Grinshpun and Lukas Camby, graduate students enrolled in George Mason University's Transportation Policy, Operations, and Logistics Program at the time of writing. The following casebook explores the key actors, policy challenges, and history associated with NYC Fare Payment System in the context of its integration into America's public transport. It was produced as an assignment for George Mason University's Introduction to Transportation Systems graduate course, taught by Dr. Jonathan Gifford.

Summary
In New York City, the earliest form of fare collection for public transit started with the nickel in exchange for a ticket. As all the transportation modes expanded and centralized, fares increased, and new technologies such as turnstiles and tokens had to be introduced to create operating efficiencies and cut costs. Some fare payment utilities were easily adopted, while others are more difficult to implement. One of the more recent fare payment technologies initiated in the 1990’s was MTA’s MetroCard. These plastic cards featured a metallic strip similar to a credit card that could be swiped at a fare collection point and could also be reloaded at fare machines. This system was proposed as an alternative to the token-based system that past New York City transit companies and operators had used from the 1950’s to the 1990’s without having to ever completely overhaul the entire system. A new digital system was favored. The institution of the MetroCard in 1993 was to facilitate ridership data in an attempt to improve operations.

It was a huge shift for transit users at the time. Jack Lusk, a senior vice president with the MTA, told the New York Times in 1993 that “this is going to be the biggest change in the culture of the subways since World War II, when the system was unified… we think the technology is working just fine. But it may take riders some getting used to.” It would take an additional 4 years until May 14th, 1997, when the entire bus and subway system accepted MetroCard. Cubic Transportation Systems designed the magnetic-stripped, blue-and-yellow card to respond to a swipe-based system. The MetroCard works in the following manner: each MetroCard is assigned an exclusive, everlasting ten-digit serial number when it is manufactured. The value on the card is stored magnetically. While each transaction on the card is recorded in the Automated Fare Collection (AFC) Database. After money is loaded onto the card and it is swiped through a turnstile, the value of the card is read, a new value is written, the passenger goes through, and the AFC is updated with that transaction. Although this system was novel at the time of introduction, it quickly became notorious for its technical limitations. Only a few years after the system was introduced newer technology became available that allowed for contactless payment cards to be used. WMATA in Washington, DC introduced SmartTrip in 1999 as one of the first contactless smartcard systems used for paying transit fares in the United States. Most recently, on May 31,2019, the MTA launched a pilot program of its new tap-to-pay system, known as OMNY, that is intended in due course to take the place of swiping a MetroCard. The fare technology will roll out incrementally, allowing transit officials to overcome obstacles as they work toward fully retiring the MetroCard in 2023. With OMNY, riders can bypass lines to refill their Metro cards and simply tap their contactless bank cards or mobile wallet app on their smart phones to pay the fare.

Annotated List of Actors
●	Public Transit Users

●	MTA vice president Jack Lusk (1993) ●	Cubic Transportation System (MetroCard)

●	Mayor David Binkens (1990-1994) ●	Mayor Rudi Giuliani (1994-2001) ●	Mayor Michael Bloomberg (2002-2013) ●	Mayor Bill de Blasio (2013-present) ●	Accepted on the following public transportation providers:

○	Rail:

■	AirTrain JFK

■	New York City Subway

■	PATH

■	Staten Island Railway

○	Bus:

■	Bee-Line

■	Hudson Rail Link

■	MTA Regional

■	Nassau Inter-County Express

○	Other:

■	Roosevelt Island Tramway

●	Technology Companies

○	Apple Pay

○	Samsung Pay

○	Google Pay ●	Financial Institutions

Timeline of Events

 * 1) At inception, private companies organized rapid transit routes and surface lines. Abraham Brower established New York City's first public transportation route in 1827. It was a 12-seat stagecoach called "Accommodation," that operated along Broadway from the Battery to Bleecker Street.
 * 2) As of 1831, Brower had added the "Sociable" and horse drawn "Omnibus."
 * 3) In 1832, John Mason organized the New York and Harlem Railroad, that used a street railway powered by horse-drawn cars with metal wheels running on metal track.
 * 4) As early as 1855, 593 omnibuses traveled on 27 Manhattan routes and horse-drawn cars ran on street railways on Third, Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth Avenues.
 * 5) Before any underground excavation commenced for the "official" underground subway in 1900, under the management of the Brooklyn Rapid Transit Corporation (BRT), the City of Brooklyn was serviced by a series of elevated railway lines referred to as "Els".
 * 6) From 1870 to 1873, Alfred E. Beach created a 312-foot tunnel under lower Broadway and ran a subway car operated by "pneumatic pressure."
 * 7) In 1872, the Interborough Rapid Transit Company (IRT)  began operating the first El in Manhattan along Ninth Avenue.  The elevated lines accommodated efficient rapid transit service, with frequent trains, a cheap fare, and swifter travel time than street traffic.  However, these wooden cable cars powered by steam, were prone to mechanical malfunctions such as; snapped cables, engine problems, and track fires.
 * 8) Nearing the end of the 19th century, the adoption of electricity on trolley cars, led to the replacement of horses for propulsion.
 * 9) New York City's first ‘official’ subway system opened its doors for business in Manhattan on October 27, 1904.
 * 10) Until May 10, 1920, to pay for their fare Subway customers purchased tickets which cost $0.05.
 * 11) IRT service expanded to the Bronx in 1905, to Brooklyn in 1908, and to Queens in 1915.  Also in 1915, the BRT began subway service between Brooklyn and Manhattan.  Shortly after, the Brooklyn-Manhattan Transit Corporation (BMT) absorbed the BRT.
 * 12) Trolley bus lines, also called trackless trolley coaches, used overhead power lines to serve Staten Island in the 1920s.
 * 13) Beginning in 1930, for three decades, Brooklyn's surface transit were also reliant on trolley bus lines.  However, by 1956 and 1960, motor buses had become the dominant form of New York City public transit, replacing trolley cars and trolley buses.
 * 14) The first city-run subway service began service in 1932, when the NYC's Board of Transportation completed construction of the Eighth Avenue line and created the Independent Rapid Transit Railroad (IND).
 * 15) Post the purchase of the BMT and IRT in 1940, NYC's Board of Transportation became the sole owner and operator of all the city’s subway and elevated lines.
 * 16) Towards the late 1940’s, the city also acquired three other bus companies that operated in Queens and Staten Island.
 * 17) From 1920 through 1948, turnstiles were introduced for fare payment collection as a cost-cutting initiative in response to post-World War I inflation.
 * 18) In 1948, turnstiles started accepting dimes once the fares were increased by 5 cents.
 * 19) On June 15, 1953, the New York State Legislature formed the New York City Transit Authority (now MTA New York City Transit) as a separate public entity to manage and operate all city-owned bus, trolley, and subway routes.
 * 20) Since turnstiles couldn't handle two different coins, tokens replaced coins in 1953, when the fare rose to 15 cents.
 * 21) In 1970, NYCTA released a larger version of the classic Y token in 1970 to accompany a fare increase to 30 cents.
 * 22) In 1979, for the anniversary of the Subway, the Diamond Jubilee token was unveiled. The commemorative token had a fare value of 50 cents.
 * 23) In 1980, the city introduced the Solid Brass NYC token, which featured an updated design.
 * 24) 1986 brought a new token called “bull’s eye,” and “fare rose to $1 a trip.”
 * 25) In 1995, the MTA introduced the symbolic “Five Boroughs” token, the last token before the MetroCard, which was phased out in 2003. This token was valued at $1.50.
 * 26) In 1993, the MetroCard was introduced.
 * 27) When WMATA launched SmartTrip in 1999, it was the nation’s first contactless smart card for transit.
 * 28) On May 31,2019, the MTA launched a pilot program of its new tap-to-pay system, known as OMNY, that is intended to replace swiping a MetroCard. The fare technology is expected to be released in phases, allowing transit officials to identify complications and find solutions prior to fully retiring the MetroCard in 2023.
 * 1) Towards the late 1940’s, the city also acquired three other bus companies that operated in Queens and Staten Island.
 * 2) From 1920 through 1948, turnstiles were introduced for fare payment collection as a cost-cutting initiative in response to post-World War I inflation.
 * 3) In 1948, turnstiles started accepting dimes once the fares were increased by 5 cents.
 * 4) On June 15, 1953, the New York State Legislature formed the New York City Transit Authority (now MTA New York City Transit) as a separate public entity to manage and operate all city-owned bus, trolley, and subway routes.
 * 5) Since turnstiles couldn't handle two different coins, tokens replaced coins in 1953, when the fare rose to 15 cents.
 * 6) In 1970, NYCTA released a larger version of the classic Y token in 1970 to accompany a fare increase to 30 cents.
 * 7) In 1979, for the anniversary of the Subway, the Diamond Jubilee token was unveiled. The commemorative token had a fare value of 50 cents.
 * 8) In 1980, the city introduced the Solid Brass NYC token, which featured an updated design.
 * 9) 1986 brought a new token called “bull’s eye,” and “fare rose to $1 a trip.”
 * 10) In 1995, the MTA introduced the symbolic “Five Boroughs” token, the last token before the MetroCard, which was phased out in 2003. This token was valued at $1.50.
 * 11) In 1993, the MetroCard was introduced.
 * 12) When WMATA launched SmartTrip in 1999, it was the nation’s first contactless smart card for transit.
 * 13) On May 31,2019, the MTA launched a pilot program of its new tap-to-pay system, known as OMNY, that is intended to replace swiping a MetroCard. The fare technology is expected to be released in phases, allowing transit officials to identify complications and find solutions prior to fully retiring the MetroCard in 2023.
 * 1) In 1979, for the anniversary of the Subway, the Diamond Jubilee token was unveiled. The commemorative token had a fare value of 50 cents.
 * 2) In 1980, the city introduced the Solid Brass NYC token, which featured an updated design.
 * 3) 1986 brought a new token called “bull’s eye,” and “fare rose to $1 a trip.”
 * 4) In 1995, the MTA introduced the symbolic “Five Boroughs” token, the last token before the MetroCard, which was phased out in 2003. This token was valued at $1.50.
 * 5) In 1993, the MetroCard was introduced.
 * 6) When WMATA launched SmartTrip in 1999, it was the nation’s first contactless smart card for transit.
 * 7) On May 31,2019, the MTA launched a pilot program of its new tap-to-pay system, known as OMNY, that is intended to replace swiping a MetroCard. The fare technology is expected to be released in phases, allowing transit officials to identify complications and find solutions prior to fully retiring the MetroCard in 2023.
 * 1) In 1993, the MetroCard was introduced.
 * 2) When WMATA launched SmartTrip in 1999, it was the nation’s first contactless smart card for transit.
 * 3) On May 31,2019, the MTA launched a pilot program of its new tap-to-pay system, known as OMNY, that is intended to replace swiping a MetroCard. The fare technology is expected to be released in phases, allowing transit officials to identify complications and find solutions prior to fully retiring the MetroCard in 2023.
 * 1) When WMATA launched SmartTrip in 1999, it was the nation’s first contactless smart card for transit.
 * 2) On May 31,2019, the MTA launched a pilot program of its new tap-to-pay system, known as OMNY, that is intended to replace swiping a MetroCard. The fare technology is expected to be released in phases, allowing transit officials to identify complications and find solutions prior to fully retiring the MetroCard in 2023.
 * 1) On May 31,2019, the MTA launched a pilot program of its new tap-to-pay system, known as OMNY, that is intended to replace swiping a MetroCard. The fare technology is expected to be released in phases, allowing transit officials to identify complications and find solutions prior to fully retiring the MetroCard in 2023.

History of NYC Public Transit Fares
●	$0.05 (1904– July 1, 1948) ●	$0.10 (July 1, 1948 – July 1, 1953) ○	Bus fare: $0.07 from 1948 until 1950 and $0.10 from 1950 till 1953

●	$0.15 (July 2, 1953 – July 5, 1966 )

○	Bus fare: $0.13 from 1954 till 1955 and $0.15 from 1956 till 1966; 5th Avenue Bus line fare raised to 15 cents on January 1, 1954

●	$0.20 (July 5, 1966 – January 3, 1970 )

●	$0.30 (January 4, 1970 – December 31, 1971 )

●	$0.35 (January 1, 1972 – August 31, 1975  (MSBA/Long Island Bus from 1973) In December 1973, the MTA started trialing a program in which passengers could pay a single one-way fare to take round trips on the subway, buses, and railroads on Sundays.  Since this resulted in higher ridership, the MTA extended it through the beginning of 1975. ●	$0.50 (September 2, 1975  – June 27, 1980 )

●	$0.60 (June 28, 1980 – July 2, 1981 )

●	$0.75 (July 3, 1981 – January 1, 1984 )

●	$0.90 (January 2, 1984 – December 31, 1985 )

●	$1.00 (January 1, 1986 – December 31, 1989 )

●	$1.15 (January 1, 1990 – December 31, 1991 )

●	$1.25 (January 1, 1992 – November 11, 1995 )

●	$1.50 (November 12, 1995 – May 3, 2003  )

●	$2.00 (May 4, 2003  – June 27, 2009 )

●	$2.25 (June 28, 2009 – December 29, 2010 )

●	$2.25 base fare (December 30, 2010 – March 2, 2013 )

●	$2.50 SingleRide MetroCard ticket fare ●	$2.50 base fare (March 3, 2013 – March 21, 2015  )

●	$2.75 SingleRide MetroCard ticket fare ●	$2.75 base fare (March 22, 2015 – present) ●	$3.00 SingleRide MetroCard ticket fare

Policy Issues
●	Too old or too new? Since the system used technology that has only been tried in a few other places, the MTA is being extremely ambitious with the OMNY project. They are also putting a huge amount of confidence that the technology will work seamlessly. Contactless smartcard systems are now the standard method of paying for transit fares in many parts of the world and many people have long been perplexed about why the New York City transit system has used a system that feels very obsolete by comparison as it was developed using early 1990’s technology. The root of the problem is that New York switched from tokens to electronic reloadable fare cards a little early, before the technology developed further just 5 years later to allow for a contactless system adopted by WMATA. Although WMATA’s SmartTrip system is not without its problems, it is still a very reliable system that has completely replaced the disposable farecards that the Washington Metro used beforehand. While the system was cutting edge at the time of its installation, the technology of fare payments advanced very quickly and obsolescence by the late 2000’s was inevitable.

●	Misuse of Technology As with all new technologies, the public is concerned that their personal identifying information (PII) may be put at risk in a contactless fare system. Policymakers will have to ensure that appropriate data security measures are in place and evolve as new cyber threats emerge. Furthermore, an aversion to government-operated technology systems among the general public may give rise to skepticism over this method of payment. Although this phenomenon is already taking place with the MetroCard, the fact that contactless fare payment may cross over ridership information with PII may be worrisome to certain users.

Additionally, fare evasion/insufficient funds will continue to be an issue with contactless fare technology. Systems will need to ensure collection of fares prior to boarding or the beginning of a trip to avoid freeloading off of the system. Non-collection of fares may put a burden on MTA’s bottom line.

●	Advertising on Metro Cards Metro cards have long been used for advertising. Pilot programs that started in the early 2000’s undertaken to see how effective advertisements were for the Metro cards. The program was expanded in 2012 when the entire card was put on offer for advertisement space, this created a frenzy of companies placing logos and messages on New York City farecards. While advertising on transit is far from a new idea, the concept of placing advertisements on transit fare cards has rarely been done on a large scale before. The benefits of this program include added revenue from a larger cohort of advertisers and much greater flexibility of ad selection and variety than compared to using physical wraps on trains. This policy however has been criticized for creating some confusion amongst transit riders about the need for consistency in the appearance of the cards. Some have also questioned why some cards have ads while others don’t and that the fare remains the same regardless it the card has an ad or not. While the new system will feature new cards with the OMNY logo, it is yet to be seen on whether the new cards will feature ads.

●	Lack of connectivity with other transit systems in the region such as, NJ transit. While the OMNY program is going to be compatible with all services operated by MTA including the subway, local buses, express buses, LIRR, and Metro-North. Compatibility with these extra services will be added in stages as OMNY begins its proving ground operations with the subway. But one notable transit agency in the region that will not be participating in ONMY is New Jersey Transit which operates NJ Transit Rail and many local and express buses that serve urban and suburban communities in Northern New Jersey. They will be using a different system developed by Conduent of Florham Park, NJ. This lack of connectivity will be notable given how most large urban areas have favored developing a single smartcard payment system that works amongst all major transit providers in an area such as WMATA for the Washington, D.C. area. While the need for connections and compatibility has been addressed within MTA, the concerns over lack of coverage with the services outside the state of New York have been a cause of concern. Advocates want the system to be as integrated with all services in the region as it can be, and as things are currently developing, a commuter from New Jersey may have to maintain 2 cards in their wallet so that both NJ Transit services and MTA services can be used conveniently. The issue has existed for a while as NJ Transit has long had their own train and bus tickets.

●	Half- priced fares and Access-A-Ride New York City has instituted a system of reduced fares in recent years for enabling low-income people to use the subways in a more affordable fashion. The programs issues special Metro cards for those who qualify by submitting a request to the MTA. The introduction of the new OMNY system has been met with concerns from some advocates that the new system is inherently disadvantageous to low income subway user in that it will make it more difficult to have access to these kinds of benefits when the new system becomes dominant. MTA has not yet specified how it plans to keep these benefits going once OMNY is fully installed and operational.

●	The issue of cash users. Although the new system will dispense reloadable smartcards from fare machines that accept cash, OMNY has been criticized for being another example of how technological change is making cash users feel like they are a burden. OMNY will feature credit card payment options both online and at physical fare machines that will be universally accepted. MTA has not provided details on how the new cards will be distributed to those who wish to continue to use cash to pay for their fares. WMATA in the D.C. area faced early criticism for SmartTrip cards being only available in a few select stations and that the cards cost $10 a piece. The MTA of New York will almost certainly suffer similar criticisms once these new machines that dispense OMNY cards are put into service.

Narrative of the Case
New York City’s public transportation fare payment has evolved with the demands of an expanding system. However, one could argue that fare payment technology has not kept pace with the ridership volume created by that expansion. The earliest form of fare payment was five cents in exchange for a ticket to board. In the 1920’s turnstiles were introduced to lower costs associated with operating public transit. Since turnstiles were unable to accept multiple coins for payment as fares increased, tokens became the currency to board public transit. However, tokens are unable to provide ridership data that the MTA urgently craved. Collecting data would allow for knowing “the exact location and time that every rider entered the station or boarded a bus.” In theory, this data would allow for better planned routes serving the ridership population when needed at a reduced operating cost. As such, the magnetic strip MetroCard was introduced in the early 1990’s. These Metro cards are still in use today. In May 2019, MTA launched its new tap-to-pay system, known as OMNY, that is intended to replace the MetroCard.

Unfortunately, some technologies are more adaptable than others. For example, the exchange of coins for tickets is straightforward. The later iteration of exchanging coins for tokens is also a concept that is easy to implement. Turnstiles were also easily accepted by the public. On the other hand, transitioning from tokens to the MetroCard provided challenges for both users and the MTA. The AFC made frequent errors in tracking values held on Metro cards. Turnstiles often were not able to read the cards and users found ‘hacks’ to game the system and gain free ridership.

The introduction of the new payment system for the New York City subway has been touted as a crucial step forward for the public transportation system of America’s most populous city. As other cities around the world have been aggressively adopting new technologies into their operations, the MTA has taken key notice. With the introduction of other fare payment systems that use contactless cards in the united states and some systems introducing smartphone based payment systems, the New York City subway system’s fare payment technology has become notably outdated by comparison in recent years. The system is in desperate need of an update as eventually the Metro card system will become incompatible with other technologies and the existing system would need the be maintained through contractors that no longer make the required components and software making the system much more expensive to operate. The fare payment system update is also a great way for the MTA to tout the continued advancement and upgrading of the system, as the subway has long struggled with a perception of widespread infrastructure woes due to the age of the system and has tried to find innovative ways of solving these pressing problems and restoring rider satisfaction for a city as globally important as New York.

In order to restore ridership and give the public greater satisfaction when using public transit, MTA is converting to a OMNY, a contactless fare payment system, wherein riders will be able to bypass lines to refill their Metro cards and simply tap their contactless bank cards or mobile wallet app on their smart phones to pay the fare. Metro cards, which are 25 years old, “run on OS2,” an obsolete operating system deemed “‘no longer supportable’” by MTA leadership. User experience is also expected to improve, with leaders aiming to facilitate “‘end-to-end connectivity’ across” multiple modes of MTA-offered transit. This contactless feature is supposed to support saving riders their most valued commodity - time.

From a technical standpoint, an update is a must. But an update is not without consequences for the riders who are used to the current system. The new system has such a heavy reliance on the latest technology of fare collection that some who are used to the relative simplicity and familiarity of Metro cards may be somewhat apprehensive about adopting the new system. While the benefits from the installation of the new system will only become apparent as the new fare and turnstile machines are implemented. Lessons Learned

As with all new technologies, there is an evolution throughout the birth, growth, and maturity stages. One can say that the implementation of the MetroCard was like implementing developed technology in an age that favored more innovative data tracking and management systems. It is also quite surprising that the most-used transit system in the United States has taken over 20 years, or well into the maturity stage, to adopt contactless fare payment technology. While newer metropolitan transit systems, such as WMATA in Washington, DC, were able to leverage such technology from their inception, NYC’s MTA was forced to retrofit older existing technology and infrastructure. The introduction of the OMNY fare payment system for New York City is one of the most notable developments in the story of American public transportation. The technological developments that have led New York City to this point in fare collection have been extensive and pose a unique challenge for a city where more than 1 billion rides are made on public transit within the city limits annually. With the scale of this new payment system’s implementation comes a multitude of challenges that have to be addressed and solved both before the system is designed and before it is fully tested, proven, and completely operational. Discussions about the adoption of new technology on a systemwide scale have been made within the wider New York City community, as have how these decisions will affect the way New Yorkers pay their transit fares decades to come. But some of the most important lessons have come from how the technology has already progressed and discussions about ensuring fairness in an urban space as complicated and multifaceted as New York. How an agency balances the pros and cons of a technical update like this is the key issue that can be observed from this development and what it does for the people who actually use the transit system. Does it increase efficiency over the long run? Is it a technical burden for all those involved? Is a city like New York truly ready for a system like this? Are we able to foresee the consequences and potential shortcomings to this technology? Is OMNY being truly embraced by city leadership the way MetroCard was? These questions and the lessons we can gain from the New York City experience will set a precedent for other large cities as they move from old fare collections systems to newer ones.

Discussion Questions
●	How does fare payment matter for transit users? ●	Does technological change make fare payment harder or easier? ●	How can transit agencies learn from the experience of MetroCard to make informed decisions on when to make updates to fare payments? ●	Do you think that MetroCard was a victim of its early success and age? ●	How does fare payment technology evolve further beyond contactless smartcard and smartphone based payment technologies? ●	Is New York City the ideal proving ground for a system like OMNY?

Assigned Readings
Spivack, Caroline. “A Guide to OMNY, the MTA’s New MetroCard-Replacing Fare System.” Curbed NY. Curbed NY, May 22, 2019. https://ny.curbed.com/2019/5/22/18617849/nyc-subway-mta-omny-contactless-payment-system. “NYC Subway History: The Story of Fares, Tokens & Cards,” Living In | CitiHabitats.com, June 6, 2018, https://livingin.citihabitats.com/nyc-subway-history-the-story-of-fares-tokens-cards/.

“Mta.Info | Facts and Figures,” Mta.info, n.d., http://web.mta.info/nyct/facts/ffhist.htm.