3/7/2016 1/19 View this email in your browser FebruaryMarch 2016 Connect with us through the following channels Facebook Twitter Website Slideshare Recent Blog Posts Following the money for OER: reflections on the ROER4D SP11 research project... read more. Curation and Dissemination a Central Theme at ROER4D Impacts of OER Workshop... read more, Welcome to the FebruaryMarch 2016 edition of the ROER4D Newsletter. The year has got off to a productive start with the highlight being the meeting of the group of OER Impact studies for a workshop 1113 January in Colombo, Sri Lanka. Meanwhile the first set OER Adoption projects are busy compiling and submitting their research reports. We are also looking forward to Open Education Week which runs 711 March and wish all researchers and practitioners well for any events they are running to discuss and promote open education. As well as short updates of key events and a roundup from many of our subprojects, we are delighted to publish a feature article by IDRC Program Manager Dr Matthew Smith entitled “Open is as Open Does”. Impact Studies Workshop The Impact Studies Lead Researchers and ROER4D Network Hub members led by Deputy PI Assoc Professor Patricia Arinto, Prof Gajaraj Dhanarajan and PI Assoc Professor Cheryl HodgkinsonWIlliams met in Colombo, Sri Lanka in early January. The hosting institution, The Open University of Sri Lanka (OUSL), has published an article reviewing the workshop on its website which featured a series of photographs including the attendance of The High Commissioner of Canada to Sri Lanka, Ms. Shelley Whiting. Michelle Willmers’ blog post reflects on the workshop and in particular how the project’s curation and dissemination activities are designed to improve the findability and ROER4D Newsletter FebruaryMarch 2016
Transcript
3/7/2016
1/19
View this email in your browser
FebruaryMarch 2016Connect with us through thefollowing channels
Facebook Twitter Website
Slideshare
Recent Blog Posts
Following the money for OER:reflections on the ROER4DSP11 research project... readmore.
Curation and Dissemination aCentral Theme at ROER4DImpacts of OER Workshop...read more,
Welcome to the FebruaryMarch 2016 edition of theROER4D Newsletter. The year has got off to aproductive start with the highlight being the meeting ofthe group of OER Impact studies for a workshop 1113January in Colombo, Sri Lanka. Meanwhile the first setOER Adoption projects are busy compiling andsubmitting their research reports. We are also lookingforward to Open Education Week which runs 711March and wish all researchers and practitioners wellfor any events they are running to discuss and promoteopen education.
As well as short updates of key events and a roundupfrom many of our subprojects, we are delighted topublish a feature article by IDRC Program Manager DrMatthew Smith entitled “Open is as Open Does”.
Impact Studies WorkshopThe Impact Studies Lead Researchers and ROER4DNetwork Hub members led by Deputy PI AssocProfessor Patricia Arinto, Prof Gajaraj Dhanarajan andPI Assoc Professor Cheryl HodgkinsonWIlliams metin Colombo, Sri Lanka in early January. The hostinginstitution, The Open University of Sri Lanka (OUSL),has published an article reviewing the workshop on itswebsite which featured a series of photographsincluding the attendance of The High Commissioner ofCanada to Sri Lanka, Ms. Shelley Whiting. MichelleWillmers’ blog post reflects on the workshop and inparticular how the project’s curation and disseminationactivities are designed to improve the findability and
Latest TweetsRT @igor_lesko: Participating inor organizing events during Open#Education Week? Take photos,share them with#openeducationwk &: https:/…RT @SarahGoodier: Looking forshareable&adaptableteaching&learning content?Browse #OpenUCT: #UCT's openrepositoryhttps://t.co/X7zAUxJ1Z…It’s Open Education Week! Bestwishes to colleagues whoresearch, practice and exploreOpen Education around the world!#OpenEducationWkRT @opencontent: Draftconference themes for#OpenEd16 are online! Reviewand send feedback before March10. #makeityourshttps://t.co/jzM…RT @ICDEOP: Development of aScale to Measure Faculty Attitudetowards OERhttps://t.co/CK0QfAMsI2@SanjayaMishra et al @COL4D@ROER4D #oer
reuse of ROER4D’s research. In addition a number ofImpact Studies researchers responded to an invitationto share their experiences with Freda Wolfenden fromSP10.1 remarking:
“I found the workshop highly enjoyable, deepeningconnections and stimulating my thinking particularlyaround what it means to be engaged in OpenEducational Practices as an education professionalworking in the challenging conditions of the globalsouth. The informal format encouraged peerinteractions and detailed interrogation of each other’swork, prompting me to revisit aspects of my ownproject to open the possibility of comparative analysiswith other projects.”
SP10.7’s Sheila Bonito echoed some of thesesentiments as she reflected on how listening to theprogress of others was motivating:
“The meeting was very productive and insightful. Itallowed me to think clearly about the contribution ofeach subproject to OER impact and to further enhanceour research implementation. Reviewing the work ofother subprojects gave me insights on our ownproject's conceptual and methodological issues.Sharing each others' milestones serve as motivation toget on with the research project implementation.”
Lastly, SP10.4’s Lauryn Oates echoed the importanceof the network:
“Being part of the ROER4D network is so valuable forus because we are the only organization in Afghanistanworking on open educational resources, and I think wewould feel more isolated without this network, whichalso allows us to learn from the OER experiences ofour colleagues in other countries, like South Africa,Pakistan, and the Philippines”.
ROER4D at ConferencesA number of ROER4D members and projects will bepresenting at conferences in March and April 2016.Deputy PI Patricia Arinto will be the keynote speaker at
the 3rd ELearning and Distance Education Conference(ELDEC) in Lahore, Pakistan from 1415 March 2016
Henry Trotter and Sukaina Walji from the ROER4DNetwork Hub will be attending the OEC GlobalConference 1214 April in Krakow, Poland. They will bejoined by Glenda Cox (SP4) and Lauryn Oates(SP10.4) who are also presenting.
Feature: Open is as Open DoesMatthew Smith, IDRC Program ManagerAs someone who thinks about and funds research onopenness in developing country contexts, I’ve oftenwanted to ditch the word altogether. It is such a valueladen term, with so many potential meanings thatpeople attribute whatever meaning they like to it – oftenwith great passion. Then we end up in endless debatesregarding effectively arbitrary definitions. Given that anyapplication of “open” to a new social innovation (likeopen educational resources or open government) isreally just a social convention, can we really say thatone definition is the right one?
I am pretty sure this debate will continue forever –unless, perhaps, we can begin to think differently aboutit. As a program officer at Canada’s InternationalDevelopment Research Centre (IDRC), a research fordevelopment funder, I have seen interesting emergingfindings that call into question standard assumptionsabout openness – and this has important implicationsfor research. But before we get there, let’s visit onerecent debate.
Stephen Laster, the Chief Digital Officer at McGrawHillEducation, wrote a piece entitled The Future ofEducation Isn’t Free. It’s Open. He argues thatopenness is a technical feature whereby “technology orcontent [...] can integrate painlessly with otherresources.” David Wiley of OER fame, wrote a rebuttaltaking issue with Laster’s definition. While agreeingstandards are critical, Wiley argues that a “consensus”definition of openness is “free plus permissions”. Inother words, openness is a legal characteristicproviding 1) free access, and 2) a formal grant of
permissions that “provides users with free andperpetual permission to engage in the 5R [Retain,Reuse, Revise, Remix, and Redistribute] activities”.
At IDRC, we have recently supported research on theadoption and impact of OER in the Global South,alongside other research on Open Science, Open Data,and Open Innovation, which is showing that requiringthat narrow, technical or legal definitions are used mayactually hinder our ability to really understand theimportant stuff, i.e., the “open practices” sharing,reuse (5R’s), and collaboration that these legal andtechnical characteristics are intended to enable. OERby themselves don’t do anything – they don’t have animpact just sitting in the cloud or on someone’sRaspberry Pi. It is only when they are used in particularways that change can happen – and it is this changethat motivates most people interested in “open” in thefirst place. Critically, what the research suggests is thatopen standards and/or legal permissions are neithernecessary nor sufficient for some people to treat thematerial as open in practice (i.e., engage in the 5Rspractices) to make or do something useful or valuablewith that technology or content. This is true particularlyin developing country contexts without active copyrightenforcement or culture.
What the research in the developing world is revealingover and over again is that “free with permissions” canhappen through social rather than legal means – it maybe based on norms rather than law. This is not a newrealisation:
“‘Legal commons,’ are commons established by law, orwith support in the legal system. An example is thecase of open content licensing. By voluntary action,and aware of the legal implications, content producerslicense their works under terms that will allow for thebuilding and management of a commons. … A socialcommons, by definition, is not generated by intellectualproperty regimes, such as copyright law … In situationswhere intellectual property enforcement is eitherimpossible or counterproductive, people frequentlybehave toward protected content as if it were part of acommons, and as if intellectual property regimes did not
exist, or simply did not matter.” (Mizukami & Lemos2010)
So, why should we care?From a definitional standpoint, the legal element is justone of several potential (alongside social and technical)enablers of the “permissions to engage in the 5Rs” thatWiley mentions that are at the heart of openness. Whyshould we elevate just one of the enablers to the levelof the definition?Unfortunately, however, the consensus definition canbe problematic or even detrimental, for several reasons:
1) It can limit or distorts our understanding ofreality.
If we are bound to an openness construct thatnecessarily includes legal openness, we end upmissing out on a whole world of open practices aroundsocially “open” (but not necessarily legal) content. Froma research and policy perspective, it is useful tounderstand this whole ecosystem (legal and illegal) ofaccess and use.
When we were setting up the ROER4D project, therewere many debates about which definition of OER wewould take. The legal (and widely accepted at the time)definition won the day – mainly on the strength of thearguments of the lawyer in the room as well as thosethat wanted to ensure that the research fit into the largercommunity of OER research.
Turns out that this perspective meant that we had ablind spot for a lot of really important practices that werehaving a developmental impact. One of the clearfindings emerging from the ROER4D project is that inpractice the line between closed, free, and openeducational resources is often unclear, if it is eventhere.
For example, in Karnataka, India, an online communityof practice of teacher educators create, share, adapt,reuse and redistribute educational content. However,research undertaken by Gurumurthy Kasinathan of ITfor Change found that only ~7% of the educational
content that is created and shared has an explicitcopyleft license. How do we benefit by excluding theother 93% from the world of open education or OER?Aren’t the sharing, reuse, and other open practicespredicated on the content and technology what is reallyimportant here? The presence or absence of acopyright license effectively makes no difference tothese teacher educators.
This similar pattern has been found in many differentcontexts – particularly at the level of small classroomswhere intellectual property oversight is not feasible atscale. For example, research by Laura Czerniewicz inSouth Africa indicates that in many contexts studentsand educators can’t successfully distinguish between‘open’ and ‘closed’ educational resources. (It should besaid, however, that in many cases universities in thedeveloping world are becoming increasingly worriedabout being sued for copyright infringements. Suchenforcement crackdowns do happen on occasion,reducing access to educational materials, particularlyfor marginalized populations).
The same finding also emerged from the Open DataResearch network. For example, a recent synthesispiece that looked at 17 case studies of open data indeveloping countries found that, “Very few datasets areclearly openly licensed, and there is low understandingof what open licenses entail. There are mixed opinionson the importance of a focus on licensing in differentcontexts” (Davies, 2014).
Conversely, there are cases where a government mightput data online with an open license, but neverpublicizes it, effectively hiding it from public view, “someof them even hope that the data will not be discoveredin this pile” (Janssen et al 2012).
From strict interpretation of open as legal, the latterwould be considered open data (although it isn’t open inany real sense) while the former would not be opendata (although there may be real use of that data).
In other words, scoping the concept of openness aslegal permissions is an arbitrary boundary that doesn’t
reflect reality, i.e., the practice of openness. A poorlyscoped concept can also lead to arbitrary groupingsthat distract from the real issue at hand. For example,Hilton’s review of OER impact literature included theCarnegie Mellon University’s Open Learning Initiative(OLI). While from the legal definition perspective theOLI’s materials are “open”, it is misleading at best toinclude it in a study on the “impact” of OER. Ratherthan its openness visàvis a copyright designation, theimpact results from its interactive learning design.Consider the title of the 2012 paper Hilton cites titled,“Interactive Learning Online at Public Universities:Evidence from Randomized Trials”. If openness isreally free + permissions, and the free + permissionshave no contribution to the impact, is this really animpact of an “open” resource? (If you argue that theimpact is just because of increased access, then theimpact results from just being free.) My guess is thatthis is glossed over due to the desire to show that OERcan be as good as non OER – and therefore are acheaper alternative – which is true. However, I believethis is a disingenuous argument for two reasons: 1) theselection of educational resources for any onecomparison is (and always will be) arbitrary. Forexample, one could always select a low quality OERand compare it to a highquality ER and find theopposite result; and (more importantly) 2) this approachmisses out completely on why open advocates likeWiley tout openness: the 5Rs open practicesthemselves.
2) The consensus definition takes a fairly blackorwhite, in or out approach – and might miss out on thebenefits of moving towards open.
Strict adherence to free + permissions sometimes candeter people from engaging in open practices in the firstplace by raising technical and legal barriers. Evidencefrom the research on open data in developing countriesprovides stories of officials, “realising the challenges inmoving from closed data, to fully machinereadable andopenly licensed data, may be deterred from starting iftheir early steps towards openness are criticised as‘not open’, rather than recognized as steps on the waytowards openness” (Davies, 2014). This approach can
also be seen on the technical side. For example,consider how for some pdfs aren’t open or pdfs are badfor open government.
In the education space this can be most easily seen inthe free versus open debate. Consider how MOOCsgenerate a lot of debate because in many cases “open”in MOOC means “free” but doesn’t include permissions.This makes MOOCs not only a misnomer but also athreat to OER. The argument is based on theassumption that “before long the general public will feelthat ‘free’ is good / innovative enough, and no one willcare about ‘open,’ permissions, or licensing." (Wiley2012)
I’m not sure that assumption has been proven yet – andthe opposite might just be true. You could have made asimilar argument about America Online (AOL) in the90s – which tried to create a walledgarden at the startof the Internet. Turned out the when most people got ataste of the broader Internet, they moved on. Indeed,this might also be the case here. Just getting yourhands on free stuff might move you to want to reuse,republish, etc., which, it seems, is already happeningaround the world with stuff that is freely available,although technically open. Perhaps free is a steppingstone towards open. This would make for a reallyinteresting research study.
Furthermore, especially in developing country contexts,free content, like MOOCs, might be enough for manysituations, bringing great benefits. Similarly, publishingin pdfs might make life more difficult – but in somecontexts something may be better than nothing at all.For example, EngagneNY, a common core curriculum,has had hundreds and thousands of downloads,despite it consisting of pdfs. From a developmentperspective, perhaps we should appreciate when andwhere free is sufficient to bring the desired benefits –and where pushing for more openness is necessary.
In conclusion: a more open open?My argument is the following: 1) we care aboutopenness because of the practices the permissionsallow, not because of the permissions themselves, 2)
that the ‘consensus’ definition gives primacy to only oneof several potential enablers of the expression of theseopenness practices (missing out on social openness),and as a result 3) doesn’t reflect a lot of the reality ofpractice on the ground.Definitions, however, are critical – particularly forresearch. So what can we do?
One alternative approach would be to take a groundedtheory approach to the open definition. In other words,we build up a definition based more on what ishappening in practice, rather than preconceived theoryabout open. Given the evidence emerging from IDRCsupported research, the conclusion would be to focuson openness in practice, what that looks like, how to doit well, and its benefits – regardless of legal or technicalstatus. I see this as the logical evolution of openness:First we define it (arbitrarily), then we research it, andthen based on the new evidence, we redefine it.
The proposed definition above is not to argue thatcopyleft licenses or technical openness are not highlybeneficial or necessary in many contexts. It’s just that itis an empirical question as to the extent the differenttechnical and legal characteristics help encourage openpractices in different contexts. We should be asking: fora given context, what are the different configurations oflegal, technical, financial and social characteristics thatare necessary to enable the types of open practices weare interested to achieve a particular goal? Constrainingopenness to be dependent upon a legal or technicalcharacteristic risks misses out on this nuance.
One of the potential benefits of this approach is that itcould be a more inclusive and welcoming notion thatmight bring more people into the fold. Perhaps then wecan see free offerings and technical interoperability, asstepping stones to increased openness rather than athreat. Then we can really embrace the goal of “a moreopen, collaborative future [where] we can accomplishour goals by putting students and educators in a betterposition to achieve theirs” as Wiley wrote.
In this newsletter we feature news from nine of our subprojects.
Subproject 2 early findings releasedSubproject 2 OER Differentiation in the Global South which is led by Prof José Dutra de Oliveira Neto andsupported by regional coordinators Ms Judith Pete(Kenya) and Prof Daryono Daryono (Indonesia,) hascollected some 5,588 responses from 28 educationinstitutions in nine countries in South Asia, Africa andLatin America and is currently analyzing data withsupport from statistician, Dr George Sciades. Earlyfindings suggest that the two key motivators of openeducational resource adoption across these GlobalSouth regions are to reduce the cost for students and tohelp other educators and students.
Another question explored was whether students usedany kind of licences when creating, modifying orremixing educational resources. The findings suggestthat across the countries surveyed, with the exceptionof Indonesia, most students did not use any kind oflicence. The research team considers this as anindication of the need to increase awareness of theOER movement and the value of open licences inparticular as the current students are the futurecreators of OER. More findings will be released soon!
Subproject 3 releases Attitudes towards OERscaleThrough a systematic process of scale development,the Subproject 3 research team lead by Dr. SanjayaMishra has been able to release the Attitude towardsOpen Educational Resources (ATOER) scale as aconcrete output of their research project. The scale has17 items within two constructs: Awareness and Sharingand the reliability of these scales has been established( The reliability Coefficient Cronbach’s alpha for thescale is 0.897 andfor the subscales, 0.893 and 0.715for Sharing and Adaptation, respectively). This scalemight be useful for other researchers in the field tounderstand faculty attitudes towards OER. When usedin an institutional context, it would help identify thepsychological predisposition of faculty memberstowards OER, and institutions can accordingly plan
suitable interventions, including capacity buildingmeasures to improve attitudes towards OER, and helpmainstreaming of OER. A detailed paper about thepsychometric properties and methodologies adopted indeveloping the ATOER scale has published in theOpen Praxis journal.
SP4 team preparing to present and communicatefindingsThe momentous news from Subproject 4 is that leadresearcher Glenda Cox just submitted her PhDdissertation at the University of Cape Town (UCT). It istitled, “Explaining the relations between culture,structure and agency in lecturers’ contribution and noncontribution to Open Educational Resources in a HigherEducation Institution.” She will hopefully hear positivenews soon from the external examiners and doctoraldegrees board at UCT, so that she can put on thegraduation gown and claim her doctorate.
Glenda’s PhD research inspired the focus of SP4’sresearch, though it deals with a number of differentissues, and at different institutions. But this research isnow wrapping up as well now that the SP4 team hassubmitted its final report to the ROER4D Network Hub.For Glenda and researcher Henry Trotter, the researchand writingup process of the report was a joy.
In addition, Glenda and Henry are preparing to presentsome of their ROER4D research at an upcoming UCTTeaching and Learning Conference in March. Then, inApril, Glenda and Henry will go to Krakow, Poland tothe Open Education Global Conference where Glendawill give a presentation on her dissertation research,while Henry’s “OER Adoption Pyramid” that was centralto SP4’s analysis will be the subject of a researchposter to be presented at the conference.
SP5 extends OER cocreation model inprofessional learning communities to neighbouringStateSubproject 5, led by Gurumurthy Kasinathan from ITfor Change, explored whether and how a bottomupapproach, in which teachers 'embedded' within a'community of learning' actively cocreate contextualeducational resources, can support effective OER
models. The findings of this participatory resourcecreation action research study with 67 mathematics,science and social science teachers from the state ofKarnataka, South India, suggests that OER adoptionmodels are possible to establish through suchcommunities.
On becoming aware of SP5’s research and earlyfindings, the neighboring state of Telangana’s EducationDepartment evinced interest in developing a similarmodel, and requested IT for Change to conductworkshops for its mathematics and science teachers tocreate OER. During December 2015, the IT for Changeteam conducted capacity building workshops forteachers to create digital OER in these two subjects.The OER created are currently being assessed by thestate education department officials. IT for Changeintends to continue discussions with the Telanganaofficials to create state wide professional learningcommunities within which a smaller group can beformed to build an OER accesscreatecuratesharingmodel. OER developed and shared during the SP5project were shared with the teachers in Telangana asexemplars for their resource creation initiative.
During December 2015, Gurumurthy also presented apaper “Domination and emancipation a framework forassessing ICT and Education programs” at the sixthAnnual International Conference of the ComparativeEducation Society of India, which had the overall themeof “Education: Domination, Emancipation and Dignity”.The paper argues that such effectiveness of ICTprograms in education could be studied with referenceto the extent to which they supported or constrainedteacher agency and autonomy, and these in turn wereinfluenced by two axes of program structure: 1) Natureof program implementation (centralized versusdecentralized) and 2) Nature of program ownership(public ownership versus private ownership). The paperdraws on available data on ICT in education projects tosuggest that ICT enabled education programs thatsupport public (local) ownership and have decentralizedimplementation seem to be more effective in eliciting thesupport and participation of teachers, whereascentralized implementation and private ownership
approaches seem to limit teacher engagement, which isassociated with program ineffectiveness. The SP5project which supports a decentralised approach toOER was discussed as an example of a program thathad public (local) ownership and decentralizedimplementation.
In November, two of the teachers in SP5’s actionresearch study for OER creation participated in anational level workshop for creation of OER for ICTlearning. They demonstrated to the workshopparticipants how to use different free and open sourceresource creation tools to develop student learningmaterials. One of these teachers was selected by theKarnataka Education Department as one of the state'scandidates for the “National Award for the best teacherin the use of digital technologies”. In her presentation tothe jury the teacher demonstrated various OER whichshe has created and used for classroom teaching.
SP 10.3 research suggests educators’ positive viewof the open and massive aspects of MOOCsSubproject 10.3 examines the educational practices ofeducators offering Massive Open Online Courses(MOOCs) and whether and how their practices changein terms of openness. The project team, based at theUniversity of Cape Town (UCT), has used an activitytheory heuristic to locate educators’ activities in context(some examples of this approach are in a posterrepresentation here). They are studying educators infour MOOCs and for each MOOC they interview theeducators at three time intervals; before, immediatelyafter and six months after the MOOC has run. Atpresent they have completed all the interviews for thefirst and second MOOCs and report that educatorshave taken a positive view of the open and massiveaspects of the MOOC mode of teaching. The leadeducators have all expressed a desire to either createanother MOOC or incorporate a MOOC mode ofteaching, via video for example, into their formalpractices in facetoface classrooms, and desire furtherthat the learning materials be made public. What thisstatement of intention yields practically remains to beseen, but clearly a positive view of open teaching andlearning has characterised the lead educators’responses to questions after their involvement in a
MOOC. All of the lead educators have noted that theMOOC, in particular its openness (understood aslacking entry requirement and fees), has served theireducational objectives well.
The SP10.3 team is also engaged in sharing theproject’s methods and findings. In March 2016 assistantresearcher Michael Glover will present the findings ofthe first MOOC at three time intervals at the UCTTeaching and Learning conference. In May 2016,Project leader A/Professor Laura Czerniewicz willpresent the findings on the second MOOC’s leadeducator’s practices the 2016 Networked LearningConference where the paper will be published in thepeer reviewed conference proceedings article.
SP 10.4 attending and presenting at OpenEducation Global Conference 2016The SP10.4 team led by Dr Lauryn Oates will bepresenting at the Open Education Global Conference inApril 2016 and have also had a paper accepted. Theyshare their paper’s Abstract as follows:
The Darakhte Danesh (‘knowledge tree’) OnlineLibrary is the first open educational resource (OER)initiative in Afghanistan, established to enhance teachersubjectarea knowledge, access and use of learningmaterials, and to foster more diverse teachingmethodologies in order to improve learning outcomes inAfghan classrooms. This paper describes ourexperience developing this local language digital library,building its responsiveness to our audience of users aswe progressed, customizing both the interface and theresources for Afghanistan’s education environment. Weinnovated methods to devise relevant local content,localized usability, developed different access modelsto reach different populations of users, integratedimpact measurement, and opted to openly licensematerial in the library’s collection. By making digitaleducational content open from the first introduction ofdigital repositories of learning objects in Afghanlanguages, we have an opportunity to establish theprinciple of openness and to promote open practices inteacher professional development in Afghanistan.
Orientation sessions for teachers in Kabul showingthem how to use the DD Library, conducted by AbdulRahim Parwani, before the team began measuring theiruse of the resources in the library
The full paper will be shared following the conference.
SP10.5 data collection in progressThe Subproject 10.5 project team is investigating theimpact of OER on Secondary and Tertiary Education inPakistan. Data is being collected from both secondaryschools and from tertiary institutions.
In terms of secondary schools the first phase of theproject involved data collection from the administratorsof a sample of 500 secondary schools spread all overPunjab to shortlist schools where OER were beingused by students and teachers. A detailed analysis ofthe responses enabled the shortlisting of 32 schoolswhere there were examples of digital/OER resourcesbeing used by students and teachers in differentsubjects and grade levels with almost equal proportionsof boys and girls. The data from the school departmentindicated that there are approximately 8300 studentsstudying in grades 9 and 10 in these schools. However,the actual data collection revealed that the figures to beincorrect as many of the students listed were notattending school or had dropped out. The datacollection process is complete, and data has beencollected from 5904 students in grades 9 and 10 and 59teachers who were using OER in these schools. Theresults of the Administrator’s survey of schools will beshared at the eLearning and Distance EducationConference to be held in Lahore, Pakistan 1415 March
The next phase will see data collection from a sampleof 36 universities spread all over Pakistan. Data will becollected from all the first year students of Engineeringand Technology, Physical, Social and ManagementSciences, Arts and Humanities and 15 faculty memberswith equal representation from each discipline. Initiallyfaculty members were contacted to request theirstudents to fill in the questionnaire online but due to lowstudent responses, data is now being collected throughsending representatives to universities who get theforms filled by the students. Thus far, data has beencollected from students of 11 universities with 1414forms having been completed. The data collectionprocess is planned to be completed by the first week ofApril 2016.
SP10.6 – Progressing with Integrating OER inTeacher Education in Sri LankaSubproject 10.6 is progressing well at the nine Centresof the Open University of Sri Lanka (Colombo, Kandy,Matara, Anuradhapura, Batticaloa, Jaffna, Badulla,Kurunegala and Ratnapura). The research team, led byProf Shironica Karunanayaka and Prof Som Naidu, hasbeen actively engaged with Stage 3 of the OERIntegration Intervention programme. A series ofevaluation workshops were conducted at all ninecentres during January and February 2016, duringwhich changes in teachers’ perceptions and practiceswere captured via a variety of strategies includingsurveys, concept mapping, lesson plan observations,focus group discussions and selfreflections. Further,the participant teachers have commenced writing“stories” of their journey in “Integrating OER in teachingand Learning”, reflecting on shifts in their perceptionsand perspectives about OER and open educationalpractices, and impacts on their students.
Teachers attending the Evaluation workshops JanuaryFebruary 2016
Shironica and Som are also progressing with the OEPImpact Evaluation Index, an instrument that is beingdeveloped to capture the perceptions, perspectives andpractices of educators as they engage with theadoption and integration of OER in their teaching andlearning and how these change over time.
SP 10.7 commences data collectionSubproject 10.7’s research is premised on the ideathat if OER in selected courses were proven costeffective, there would be a stronger case for steeringthe university into developing OERbased coursematerials that are affordable, accessible, andappropriate to the country and the region. Based at theOpen Philippines Open University (OPOU) and led byAssoc Prof Sheila Bonito, the study explores the impactof OER on the cost and quality of course materials inpostgraduate distance education courses in the fields ofhealth, education and development. The specificresearch questions are:
1. What are the costs of developing coursematerials using OER?
2. What are the factors that affect the cost of OERbased course materials?
3. What are the indicators of quality in coursematerials?
4. What is the impact of using OER on the quality ofcourse materials?
5. What is the costeffectiveness of using OER?
The study has commenced data collection with athorough review of all course materials in 24 coursesfrom health, education and development. Every coursemodule was checked in terms of resources andlearning activities to determine their quality. Qualitywas measured according to: 1) disciplinal fitness ofresources selected; 2) alignment of resources withcourse objectives; 3) variety of resources by type ofmedia catering to different types of learners andfacilitating scaffolding of learning; 4) resource use andlearning activities fostering engagement andcollaboration. Faculty members and students were
asked to complete a survey asking them about thesedimensions to determine the quality of the coursematerials. Course authors are due to be interviewedabout the process of development of the materials todetermine cost. The research team hopes to finish datacollection by end of March 2016 and start analysis offindings by April 2016.
Research into educational expenditure in SouthAfrica (SP11) comes to a closeSubproject 11 entitled “Public funding for basiceducation in South Africa: Are open educationalresources being funded?” submitted its final researchreport earlier this month, bringing this oneyear,exploratory project to a close. Led by Sarah Goodier,the study aimed to develop an understanding of thefunding allocation of government money intoeducational resource acquisition, development anddissemination in basic education in South Africa (theequivalent of K12 primary and secondary educationsystem in the United States).
As claims have been made about the potential costreductions that come with using OER, this study aimedto investigate whether any public funding was beingchannelled specifically into OER; and, if so, whether itis possible to calculate any potential cost savings thathave been realised thus far. To do this, the projectconsisted of two phases: 1) a desk review anddocument analysis; and 2) interviews and case studies.The first phase of the project was dedicated to a deskreview and document analysis process in which officialinformation sources on South African basic educationwere reviewed to develop a conceptual understandingof funding allocations the South African governmentuses for educational resources. The second phase ofthe research was comprised of an interview process, inwhich requests were submitted to various members ofthe South African Department of Basic Education andProvincial Departments of Education in order touncover additional information.
Looking forward, the results of the study will be madeavailable in the project’s final output scheduled to bereleased in 2016/2017. The SP11 referencesspreadsheet containing the educational expenditure
reference for the project has been made available as atab of the ROER4D bibliography and may be useful forother researchers working in this area.
The ROER4D website turns two!The current iteration of the ROER4D website is twoyears old, and as part of a review of the effectivenessof the website and preparation for entering thedissemination of findings phase of the project, theROER4D Communications Advisor Sukaina Walji hasbeen working with the Network Hub team to conduct areview and analyse the different current and anticipatedneeds users of the website have. This activity has beensupported by the ROER4D Evaluation Advisor SarahGoodier who, as part of the ongoing evaluation work,monitors the Google Analytics for the website. This hasprovided a broad baseline of website access analytics,including which pages are most popular and wherethese hits are coming from, from the launch of thewebsite to the current analytics data. Sarah hascreated a short process report on how ROER4D hasgone through the process of setting up this facet of theevaluation, including the data collection process whichmay be useful to other projects interested in collectingand analysing Google Analytics data. As a result ofthese activities, a number of design changes will beimplemented focussing on moving the website from onewhich informs users about what the project’s researchplans are to one which communicates the findings,outputs and tools according to regional and thematicclusters while maintaining informative and dynamicaspects such as the blog. While the general look andfeel of the website will remain the same, the navigationand menus will be restructured as well as a new Homepage and subproject pages layouts. Watch this space!
