Analysis of the contextual factors for developing national oer policy

Analysis of the contextual factors for developing national OER policy

Hye-Kyung YANGKERIS

Republic of Korea

Hye-Kyung Yang An exploratory study of developing a national OER framework

Contents

1. Rationale and Background 1. Rationale and Background

2. Research Outline 2. Research Outline

3. National OER Framework 3. National OER Framework

4. Application of case countries 4. Application of case countries

5. Conclusion and the way forward 5. Conclusion and the way forward


Rationale and background

An exploratory study of

developing

a national

OER

Policy framework


Research Outline

Methodology• Literature study

OER policy issues and priorities (UNESCO, OECD)

national ICT policy framework (KERIS)

international statistical data (GER, DOI, E-readiness, ARWU)

• Exploratory synthesis and interpretation

• Verification of Framework

Three exemplary case countries : India, Netherlands, Korea

Policy document (OECD, Country Reports)

Study visit (India)


Research Outline

Scope and Limitation of the study

• National level issues

• ICT policy and higher education policy

• Factors and Components of OER policy

• Verification : limited countries with national OER policy


ICT development stage : ISI- DOI

Regions DOI less than 0.50 DOI more than 0.50

Arab States 15 4

Central Asia 9 -

Central & Eastern Europe 7 13

East Asia & the Pacific 15 7

Latin America & the Caribbean 24 9

North America & Western Europe - 23

South & West Asia 8 -

Sub-Saharan Africa 42 1

Total number of countries 120 57


GER in tertiary education

RegionsGER≤ 15% 15%

<GER≤30%30% <GER≤45%

45% <GER≤65%

GER >65%

Arab States 4 7 5 2 -

Central Asia 1 3 2 2 -

Central & Eastern Europe - 2 6 3 7

East Asia & the Pacific 5 6 2 2 3

LA & C 6 9 7 2 2

NA & WE 2 - 2 9 9

South & West Asia 6 1 - - -

Sub-Saharan Africa 30 2 - - -

Total number of countries 54 30 24 20 21


GER and DOIy = 0.0055x + 0.2435

R2 = 0.6021

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0

GER

DO

IGER and ISI-DOI


GER and ISI-DOI

Group1 :

higher GER > 65% and

lower DOI<0.50

CEE (Ukraine)

Group2 : higher GER > 65% andhigher DOI >= 0.50

CEE (Russian Federation, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Hungary, Estonia)

EA&P (New Zealand, Korea, Australia)

LA & C (Argentina)

NA&WE (Italy, Spain, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, USA, Greece, Finland,

Monaco, Iceland)

Group3 : lower GER < 65% and

lower DOI < 0.50

AS (14), CEE (4), CA (8)

EA & P (10), LA & C (19)

SWA (6), SSA (31)

Group4 : lower GER < 65% andhigher DOI >= 0.50

AS (Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain)

CEE (Turkey, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Czech, Poland)

EA & P (Japan, Brunei, Macao, Malaysia)

LA & C (Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, Chile)

NA & WE (Malta, Switzerland, Austria, France, Portugal, Israel, Ireland, UK,

Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Cyprus)

SSA (Mauritius)


Contextual Factors and OER policy

Category Group1 Group2 Group3 Group4

GER High High Low Low

DOI Low High Low High

OER policy options

Access of OER

Quality of HE

Equity of OER

Quality of HE

Access of OER

HE expansion

Equity of OER

HE expansion

OER policy components

Infrastructure

QA

Legal-Framework

Organization-Structure

QA

Interoperability

Sustainability

Infrastructure

Organization-

Structure

Organization-

Structure

Interoperability


Policy Issues and OER Components

OECD UNESCO/IIEP KERIS this study

Promote lifelong learning

Issue guidelines

Policies

Awareness raisingPolicy Organizational -

StructureCapacity Development HRD

Digital learning resourcesQuality AssuranceAccessibility

InfrastructureQuality -Assurance

InfrastructureEducational- Content

Copyright legislation

Copyright Legal -FrameworkOpen access

Open content license

FundingFinancing, Sustainability Sustainability

Public-private partnerships

Open content standardsStandardizationInformation -Service

Interoperability


OER Components and Contextual FactorsContextual Factors

Lower DOI Higher DOI Lower GER Higher GER

Infrastructure

-Build backbone network

-Rural area ICT penetration

-Community learning centers

-Price policy for education

-Broadband development

-Upgrade infrastructure

-Technical support- -

Organizational Structure

-OER policy with national e-strategy

-PPP-

OER policy with

distance learning-

Legal Framework

- - --Copyright guideline

-Open license policy

Quality Assurance

- - -

-Quality guidelines

-online peer review

Sustainability - Public funding mechanism - Public funding mechanism

Interoperability -

-National OER repository

-Open Source S/W

-National standard

- -


Policy Framework and case countries

Countries India Netherlands Korea

Contextual factorsLower DOI &Lower GER

Higher DOI &Lower GER

Higher DOI &Higher GER

Sector-policy Factors Access & Equity ExcellenceExcellence

Quality

OER Components

Infrastructure Organization Structure Interoperability

Organization Structure Sustainability Legal framework

Interoperability Quality Assurance Organization Structure

Interoperability Quality Assurance

Sustainability

Major emphasis of OER policy

Expand networkBuild OER partnership

Standard Platform

Leadership of OUNLBusiness Model

Competitive Prize

National StandardCopyright Guidelines

Business Model


Conclusion and the way forward

ConclusionThe suggested national OER policy framework seems to be valid based on the analysis of the three case countries.

Implication of the study• Contextual factors of national OER policy• Sector priorities and OER policy• Relevant policy components

The way forward• OER policy with many interrelated issues• Simplifica tion of more complex interplay of factors• Further empirical verification of different country cases• Exploration of supplementary variables

Date post:	01-Jul-2015
Category:	Education
Upload:	the-open-education-consortium
View:	1,069 times
Download:	0 times