1 Project acronym: OPAL Project title: Open Educational Quality Initiative Work Package 3 ‐ OEP Innovation and Quality Monitor Deliverable D3.1 – Scope of Desk Research and Case Study Identification Due date of deliverable: 15 th April 2010, Actual submission date: 16 th April 2010 Start date of project: 01/01/2010 Duration: 24 months Organisation name of lead contractor for this deliverable: UDE Project co-funded by the European Commission Dissemination Level PU Public RE Restricted x CO Confidential
Transcript
1
Project acronym: OPAL Project title: Open Educational Quality Initiative
WorkPackage3‐OEPInnovationandQuality
MonitorDeliverableD3.1–ScopeofDeskResearch
andCaseStudyIdentification
Due date of deliverable: 15th April 2010, Actual submission date: 16th April 2010
Start date of project: 01/01/2010 Duration: 24 months
Organisation name of lead contractor for this deliverable: UDE
Project co-funded by the European Commission
Dissemination Level PU Public
RE Restricted x
CO Confidential
2
Deliverable Fact Sheet
Deliverable Version: 1 Deliverable Type: Summary of qualitative case studies of OEP Current Release Status: Restricted to a group specified by the
consortium – ROUGH DRAFT Final Release Status: Restricted to a group specified by the
consortium Work package: WP3 Organization Responsible: OUUK Primary Contributor: OU Deliverable reviewers:
Change Log
No. Date Sections Change Author/ Editor 1 5/4/10 TOC and initial sections by PM. Case studies by
GC, UE, PM, TC and AS. Detailed OpenLearn narrative TC and AS. Analysis of case studies GC. Development of dimensions of OEP GC and UE
Gráinne Conole, Ulf Ehlers, Paul Mundin, Teresa Connelly and Andreia I. dos Santos
2 12-16/4/10 Ongoing refinement of the document. Addition of case studies as they were received. Logical reordering of the structure. Refinement of the dimensions of OEP in light of comments and feedback and as more case studies were received.
Grainne Conole, Teresa Connolly and Paul Mundin.
3 16-22/4/10
UDE (Ulf Ehlers, Thomas Richter, Patrick Veith)
4 22/4/10 Gráinne Conole 5 29/4 Inclusion of comments from Aalto, OU and Nick
to be revised by partner in charge of the deliverable to be reviewed by the appointed partners for approval of the project coordinator
Deadline for action: date
3
Executive summary: This deliverable is the output from OPAL Work Package 3, Deliverable 3.1 ‘Scope of Desk Research and Case Study identification’. The purpose of the deliverable is to identify from a primarily European Union geographical (but with some world-wide coverage) perspective, examples or case studies of good practice in, and success factors for, Open Educational Practice (OEP). From these case studies an initial set of dimensions has been extracted which support achievement in quality and innovation through OEP. These dimensions are being used as the basis for the development of a quantitative survey instrument to gather a broader body of evidence on OEP. The case studies were analysed to:
1. Evidence the quality of OEP in the EU.
2. Identify methods, concepts, and practices used by institutions to enhance OEP quality
3. Identify the factors influencing the quality and innovation potential of OEP and the perceived level of quality of Open Educational Resources.
4. Map out actors, initiatives, practices, tools and concepts in the EU landscape (with some world-wide coverage).
The report is divided into the following sections:
Section 1: Contextual background to the work
Section 2: Methodology and Definitions
Section 3: Survey of OEP case studies
Section 4: Factors influencing the quality and innovation potential of OEP
Section 5: Conclusions
There are two appendices:
Appendix A: Case Study Template
Appendix B: Description of Case studies
4
Table of Contents Abbreviations ......................................................................................................6
1 Introduction and Background: Open Educational Practices ...................................7
1.1 OPAL: providing support to opening educational practices in Europe and beyond ............................................................................................................7
1.2 Scope and structure of this document ..........................................................8
1.3 Introduction to Open Educational Resources as the Background of Open Educational Practices ...................................................................................... 11
2 Definition and Methodology for the Review of Open Educational Practices........... 16
Appendix A: Template (V3) for collecting case studies for:.................................... 67
OPAL Work Package 3 – Deliverable 3.1 ‘Desk Research and Case Study Identification’ .................................................................................................... 67
Notes on the use of this template: ...................................................................67
Template Sections for completion: ...................................................................67
Appendix B: OER Case Studies............................................................................ 70
United Kingdom ....................................................................................................70
UNESCO UnitedNationsEducational,ScientificandCulturalOrganisation
WP WorkPackage
7
1IntroductionandBackground:OpenEducationalPracticesIn this document the current state of the art of open educational practices issummarised. Thework reported here sets the scene for the largerOPAL initiativewhichwillprovidetools,guidelinesandsupporttothecommunityoforganisations,individualsandpolicymakerswhoareconcernedabouttheuptakeOERusageandhowitcancontributetoimprovingqualityandinnovateeducationalscenarios.
1.1 OPAL: providing support to opening educational practices in Europe and beyond TheoverallaimofOPAListoimprovetheeffectivenessofteachingandlearningbyenhancing the quantity and quality of Open Educational Resources that can beincorporated into higher education and further education provision. The centralvision of the OPAL Initiative project is that articulation and use of the OpenEducational Practices (OEP) that surround OER will lead to better quality andinnovation in thedevelopmentanduseofOER, i.e.a focusonOEPwill lead toaniterativeimprovementinOEP.
‘AsaprojectpromotingOpenEducationalPractice,theOPALprojectfostersEU policies in the field of social inclusion and is consistent with theorientation of several intertwined EU policies, and in particular aims tocontribute to theachievementof the Lisbongoals, the i2010 initiative, andtheBolognaprocess.’(OPAL,2009)
TheobjectiveoftheOPALprojectwillbetofosterOEPinHEandAEwithimprovedquality and innovative educational practices, and to establish a EuropeanConsultativeGroupwhichwillworktowardsfeedingaqualityandinnovationagendainto existingOER initiatives, and to elevate the projects results onto a EU level ofperception.ItwillstudyandanalysetheuseofOEPfromaholisticperspectivetakingintoaccounttheviewsoftheOEPgovernancecommunity.Itwill:
1 ItextendsthemodelofOERwiththeconceptsofqualityandinnovationintotheconceptofopeneducationalpractices (OEP)whereOERareused in innovativeeducational scenarios to raisequality forHEandAE.Researchandexperiencesshow that theuptakeofOERdemands a cultureof sharing, valuing innovativeandsocialnetworkbasedformsof learning,andencouragingnovelpedagogicalmodels. The OPAL project combines OER with the concept of quality and
8
innovation toOEP, practiceswhich support the (re)use andproductionof highquality OER through institutional policies, promote innovative pedagogicalmodels,andlearnerempowerment.
2 It is focussingon innovationandqualitythroughOEPandthusaimstohaveanimpact on the use of OER in the fields of HE and AE. Existing approaches forfosteringtheuseofOERhavemadeachievementsbyfocusingonbuildingaccesstoresources(e.g.MERLOT,MITOCW,StanfordiTunes,theOU’sOpenlearn,RiceUniversity,OpentrainUNESCO,OERWIKIUNESCOetc.),andlicencemodels(e.g.creativecommons.org). However, there are a number of cultural barriers(including:alackoftrust,fewexamplesofexistingsharingcultures,andalackofacceptanceor thevisiontoseethepotentialofOERforeducation) thathindertheup‐takeofOER,OERuseandbetteraccess.TheOPALprojectwillaimtobuildtrustbyestablishinganEUenvironmentforQualityandInnovationthroughOEPinthefieldsofHEandAE.
3 TheOPALprojectaimstobuildanEUmulti‐stakeholderenvironmentwhichwilltake into consideration the OEP governance community in order to embedquality and innovation, concert European activities, and provide a Europeaninterface to international initiatives.While existingOER initiatives gather largeproviderinstitutionsofhighreputationmostlyfromoutsideoftheEU,theOPALproject proposes for the first time to create an EUmulti‐stakeholder group oforganisations, learners, policy makers and professionals to promote OEPsustainably.
1.2 Scope and structure of this document ThisdeliverableistheoutputfromOPALWorkPackage3,Deliverable3.1‘ScopeofDeskResearch andCase Study identification’. Thepurposeof the deliverable is toidentifyexamplesorcasestudiesofgoodpracticein,andanalysefromthemsuccessfactors for, Open Educational Practices (OEP). While the scope of the fundedinitiativeisaEuropeanone,theOPALinitiativeunderstandsitselfasbeingabridgetootherregionsoftheworldandintentstoincludeevidencefromotherregionsoftheworldastoshareEurope’sexperiencesandlearnfromothers.
From these case studies an initial set of dimensions has been extracted whichsupportachievement inqualityand innovationthroughOEP.ThesedimensionsarebeingusedasthebasisforthedevelopmentofaquantitativesurveyinstrumenttogatherabroaderbodyofevidenceonOEP.Thecasestudieswereanalysedto:
The document will start by tracing the origins of the Open Educational Resource(OER) movement and provides a definition for the term OER. However, it goesfurther todescribesthe ‘practices’ thatsurroundthedevelopmentanduseofOERand provides a starting definition for the term Open Educational Practices (OEP),whicharethecentralfocusoftheOPALproject.
ThisreportaimstodefineaholisticOEPframeworkonthebasisofexistingresearchand to identifyanddescribeexistingcasesofgoodpracticesofOEP.Thesewillbeusedtoextractasetofinitialdimensionsofoutstandingachievementsofqualityandinnovation throughOEP. Itwillbea ‘living report’, iteratively refininga setofOEPdimensions, focusing in particular on what constitutes success factors and goodpractice. The document will feed into the next set of OPAL activities, namely astakeholderconsultationwhichwilltakeplaceintheCloudworkswebsitethatwillbeusedas theweb‐basedOEPMonitoringEnvironment (WorkPackage3,Deliverable3.2), inwhich thevalidation consultationswith the communitywill be carriedout,andfeedbackfromtheconsultationswillbecollected.Communitystakeholderswillbe invited to share their views on the study result, which will be continuouslypresented and refined. The information will be a comprehensive presentation ofassumptions,methods,andexperience.TheCloudworkscloudscapewebaddressis:http://cloudworks.ac.uk/index.php/cloudscape/view/2019.OPAL, by definition, is a community‐based project, adopting an ongoing iterativeapproach to OPAL outputs. Ongoing consultation with the broader stakeholdercommunity is important. This means that the project builds on experiences fromdifferent relevantOER practitioner communities andwill feed its results back intothese communities. The consultation processes of the research team and thecommunities are of the utmost importance and are the interface for thematicdiscussion and exchange in order to aggregate the useful, and separate out theoverhead, from the reports and information gathered. The following consultationwillbeconducted:
• Two thematicdiscussionswillbeheld in theCloudworks socialnetworking siteforeducators,eachlastingtwoweeks.Thesewillbemoderatedandsynthesisedat key points. Stakeholders from relevant OER communities will be invited todiscussthekeyconclusionsoftheproject.
• At the beginning of each week, a moderator will post a statement and thenfollow up the reactions of stakeholders to it. At the end of each week, themoderatorwillsummarise(weave)thediscussionsoftheweek.
The output of this deliverable will provide a direct input into the following OPALprojectWorkPackages:
10
• Work Package 3: a) International Standardised survey on open educational
practice, b) research design for in‐depth interview panel with OEP championinstitutions
The case studies addressed the completeOEP governance community. The resultsandrecommendationsofthecasestudies(viathisdocument)willbemadeavailableon theCloudworksweb‐site (http://cloudworks.ac.uk/) to community stakeholdersfor wider consultation and validation. Cloudworks is a social networking site forsharing and discussing learning and teaching ideas. It combines many featuresevident in other tools, such as blogs, wikis, forums and enables the collectiveimprovementofthematerialonthesiteinanumberofways:collectiveaggregationof links and references, tagging, etc. Cloudworks forms a natural follow on to theextensive consultationonOER thathasalready takenplace in theUNESCOwiki; itwillbuildonandlinktothissiteinacomplementaryway.Theconsultationwilldrawonanumberofexistingwell‐establishedcommunities,suchas:Table 1: OER communities and networks
In addition theoutputs from thedesk research and case study identificationworkarebeingusedtoextractasetofinitialdimensionsofoutstandingachievementsofquality and innovation in the field of OEP, which will be used an input to WorkPackage3
1.3 Introduction to Open Educational Resources as the Background of Open Educational Practices This section provides a brief introduction to the concept of Open EducationalResources (OER). This includes a brief description of the emergence of the OERmovement,adefinitionofthetermandanoverviewoftheOERlandscape(includingkey initiatives and stakeholders). This concept is returned to in more detail atrelevantpointsinthedocument.
• Open Educational Resources (OER) are teaching and learning materials madefreely available for use and repurposing by teachers and learners. The term is
• A learning activity consists of a set of tasks a learner undertakes, eitherindividually or in a group, using a specific set of resources (whichmay includetools)toachieveasetofintendedlearningoutcomes.
• Learningdesign is a research areadevelopingmethods, tools and resources tosupportteachersinmakingpedagogicallyinformedbetteruseoftechnologies.Itisalsoworthnoting that related to this is the term ‐Opencourseware (OCW),which means free and open digital publication of high quality educationalmaterials,organizedascourses.
The OER movement reflects the growing interesting in recent years in makingeducational content freely available. Terms such as ‘open content’ and ‘openeducational resources’ have gained currency, and there is now a well‐establishedinternational community of those interested in producing, using and researchingOER. Conole andMcAndrew (2010) provide a summary of the emergence of thefield,highlightingthekeymovementsandreports,whichissummarisedhere.
ThetermOpenEducationalResources(OER)wasfirstusedbyUNESCOatits‘ForumontheImpactofOpenCoursewareforHigherEducationinDevelopingCountries’in2002. However it is worth noting that MIT had already used the termOpenCourseWare with their initiative in 2001. Alternative labels include ‘opencourseware’, ‘open learning resources’, and ‘open teaching/learning resources’(UNESCO2002,p.24).CommissionedbytheHewlettfoundation,Atkinsetal.(2007)the report provides a comprehensive review of the development of the OERmovement,describingmanyofthemajorinitiativesinthefieldandsomeofthekeyachievements. A complementary report emerged at around the same time,commissionedbyOECD(2007).Bothreportsgiveagoodoverviewof thefield, themotivations and aspirations behind theOERmovement, aswell as a reflection onsome of the challenges associatedwith this area. Liyosh, Kumar and Seely Brown(2008), through an edited collection, consider thewider notion of ‘openness’ andwhatitmightmeaninaneducationalcontext.TheHewlettFoundationdefinesOER1as:
‘Teaching, learning,andresearchresourcesthatresideinthepublicdomainor have been released under an intellectual property license that permitstheirfreeuseorre‐purposingbyothers.’
WhilsttheOECDdefinethemas:
1 Definition on the Hewlett website, http://www.hewlett.org/Programs/Education/OER/
13
‘Digitised materials offered freely and openly for educators, students andself‐ learners touse and reuse for teaching, learning and research.’ (OECD,2007:133)
‘OpenCourseWare Consortium is a collaboration of more than 200 highereducation institutions and associated organizations from around the worldcreating a broad anddeepbodyof openeducational content using a sharedmode.’
The Cape Town Open Education Declaration4 argues that the OER movement isbased on ‘the belief that everyone should have the freedom to use, customize,improve and redistribute educational resources without constraint’. It focuses onthreesuggestedstrategiestoremovingcurrentbarrierstotheuseofOER:i)teacherand learner engagement with OER, ii) general policy to publish openly and iii)commitmenttoopenapproachesatinstitutionalandgovernmentlevels.
TheOERmovementhasbeensuccessful inpromotingthe ideathatknowledgeisapublic good, expanding the aspirations of organisations and individuals to publishOER. However as yet the potential of OER to transform practice has not beingrealised. There is a need for innovative forms of support for the creation andevaluation of OER, as well as an evolving empirical evidence‐base about theeffectiveness of OER. However, recognition of the importance of investment andeffort into promotion of the use and uptake of OER is evident is the prominencegiven to OER developments in a recent major report on Cyberlearning,
2 http://www.ocwconsortium.org/about-us/about-us.html 3 See http://www.jisc.ac.uk/fundingopportunities/funding_calls/2008/12/grant1408.aspx for details of the call and associated documentation 4 http://www.capetowndeclaration.org/
14
commissioned by the National Science Foundation (NSF, 2008). One of the fivehigher‐levelrecommendationsintheconclusiontothereportisto‘adoptprogramsandpoliciestopromoteOpenEducationalResources.’
Researching Open Educational Resources raises issues in how to address globalconnections,andthereuse,designandevaluationofworldwideeffortstoworkwithlearningresourcesthatareavailableforfreeuseandalteration.
‘OER is not only a fascinating technological development and potentially amajor educational tool. It accelerates the blurring of formal and informallearning, and of educational and broader cultural activities. It raises basicphilosophicalissuestodowiththenatureofownership,withthevalidationofknowledgeandwithconceptssuchasaltruismandcollectivegoods.Itreachesinto issues of property and its distribution across the globe. It offers theprospectof a radically newapproach to the sharingof knowledge, at a timewhen effective use of knowledge is seen more and more as the key toeconomicsuccess,forbothindividualsandnations.Howparadoxicalthismayturnouttobe,andtheformitwilleventuallytakeareentirelyunforeseeable.The report offers some preliminary handles for understanding the issuesraised.’(OECD,2007:9)
Openprovisionof coursematerials has becomeamore extendedmovementwithmany universities adopting the approach. However the diverseOER projects havenot receivedmuchresearchattention toestablishhowbest tomove fromexistingprovision to better structures for open operation. UNESCO (2002) identified fourelements that have to be considered when talking about Open EducationalResources:
• The vision for the service ‐ open access to the resource, with provision foradaptation
• The purpose ‐ to provide an educational, non‐commercial resource“ (UNESCO2002,p.24).
The main properties of OER are: free access ‘enabled by information andcommunicationtechnologies’anda‘non‐commercialpurpose’(UNESCO2002,p.24).OER is intended to make “high‐quality educational material freely availableworldwideinmanylanguages”.(KellerandMossink,2008).
McAndrew,Santosetal. (2009)arguethatdespitesometerminologicaldifferences(Hylén, 2006) openeducational resources are largely digital assets (music, images,words,animations)puttogetherintoalogicalstructurebyacoursedeveloperwhohasattachedanopenlicensetoit.Inotherwords,thecontentisopenlyavailable(itcanreadilybefoundordiscovered),isopenlyaccessible(itisinaformwhichotherscantakeitaway)andopenlyre‐usable(theusercaneasilymodifyitandisallowed
15
under the license to do certain things with it without having to ask the creator’spermissionfirst).
16
2 Definition and Methodology for the Review of OpenEducationalPracticesInordertofindelementsofwhatconstitutesopeneducationalpracticesanumberof cases from the broader field of open educational practices were identified,researchedandanalysed.Thissectiondiscussesthecasestudiesthatwerereviewed,alongwithadescriptionofotherrelatedOERinitiativesandprojects.Thepurposeofthereviewwasto:• InterrogatetheseexamplestoidentifyelementsofexistingOEP
• Identify the state of the art in open educational practice articulate whatconstitutesOEPandinparticulargoodpractice
• Extract theassociateddimensionsofOEP inordertoprovide input into furtherresearchactivities.
Thissectionthussetsout topresent theevidencecollected fromarecentdesktopstudyofOpenEducationalResourcesprojectsandtheirworkingpractices.Examplesfromthecasestudiesaregivenwhereappropriateinadditiontoevidencegatheredfrom the contemporary OER literature. Bringing this information together andthrough its examinationmayalsohelpdetermine thepathway towardsnotonly aholisticOEPconceptbutalsotheestablishmentofanOEPframework.
2.1 Methodology We began with a working definition of OEP (see Section 2.2.) to help define thescopeof thedesk researchandguide the reviewof case studies. To identifyopeneducationalpracticeswelookedatarangeofOERcasesstudies.Anumberofcriteriawereusedinchoosingthecasestudiestobereviewed:
i) Wellestablished:WeincludedasignificantnumberofOERinitiativesthatwerewell established,whichwere likely to have amoremature set ofassociated practices and an understanding of the barriers and enablersassociatedwithOER
ii) Coverage of key areas: examples that provided evidence along the keyareasofinterest(policy,quality,innovation,barriersandenablers,etc.)
iii) Geographical coverage: as much as possible a reasonable geographicspread,withaparticularemphasisonexamplesfromEurope
iv) Educational sectors:exampleswhichwere fromboth the fieldofhighereducationandfromthefieldofadulteducation.
Acase study templatewasdrawnupoutlining thedata tobecollected (AnnexA).This included background and contextual information, aswell as headings aroundthe key areas of interest. The template was validated within the consortium.Collectionof thecasestudieswasdividedamongst thepartnersaccording to their
17
areas of expertise. Appendix B ‘OER Case Studies’ lists the case studies. The casestudieswerethencollatedandanalysedtodrawoutkeyfeatures.AnevolvingsetofOERdimensionswasthenderived(seeSection3inthisdocument).Thedimensionsprovidedthebasisfortheinputintothedevelopmentofthequantitativesurvey.
The scope of research extends to higher education (HE) and adult education (AE).WhereasHEreferstothetraditionalHEsegments,inclusionoftheAEsectorwidensthis territory / target group considerably and refers largely to the segment of"ongoing,furthereducation",butalsopostdegreeandnondegreerelatedprovision.Thehighereducationsector includes:allEuropean(+selectedbeyond)UniversitiesandHEinstitutions(privateandpublic)offeringeducationalprogrammes/coursesforstudents, corporations, and professional training, etc. The adult education sectorincludes:allformsofnon‐vocationaladultlearning,whetherofaformal,non‐formalor informal nature (taken from the glossary of terms of the Lifelong Learningprogramme: http://ec.europa.eu/education/programmes/llp/glossary_en.html). AEthereforereferstoallEuropean(+selectedbeyond)adult‐learninginstitutions.Thisgoes beyond university education and includes also community colleges, adultlearning centres, providers for professional training, and further education foradults.Adulteducationisalsosponsoredbycorporations,labourunions,andprivateinstitutes. The field now embraces such diverse areas as vocationaleducation,training (VET) designed to advance individuals' general proficiency,especially in relation to their present or future occupations. The field does notnormallyincludedegreeawarnesstrainingfortheprofessions(VET).
2.2 A working definition of Open Educational Practice Thissectionhelpstoclarifywhat isand isn’t inscope intermofOEP. Itprovidesanumber of illustrative examples that help to clarify the relationship betweenOERandOEPandastartingpositiononthenatureofOEP.ThisisguidedbyabstractionfromthecasestudiesofOER/OEPundertakenaspartofDeliverable3.1andwillactasinputtothequantitativesurveybeingcarriedoutaspartofDeliverable3.2.It isworthnotingthatweareawarethatOERispartofabroaderspectrumaroundthenotion of openness andopenpractices: such as open sourcework, open researchinitiatives and more generally open dialogic practices evident in web 2.0environments.WeintendtobecognisantofthisbroaderlandscapebutfocusinthisworkspecificallyonOERandassociatedpractices.
A database or repository of open educational resources is not open educationalpractice.Thepureusageoftheseopeneducationalresourcesinatraditionalclosedand top‐down, instructive, exam focussed learning environment is not openeducationalpractice.However,ifOERareusedtocreateresourceswhicharemorelearner‐centred than the ones existing before, if learners are involved into thecreationofcontentwhich is takenseriouslybytheteachers/facilitators, if teachersare moving away from a content centred teaching to “human resource” basedteaching, if learning processes are seen as productive processes and learningoutcomesareseenasartefactswhichareworthsharinganddebating,improvingandreusing,thenOERmightimprovethelearningprocessandthenwetalkaboutopeneducationalpractices.
• Therectorofahighereducationinstitutionwhoisinitiatinganinstitutionwideopeneducationinitiativesinwhichteachersareaskedtocreate,find,adaptandshare OER in an institution wide OER repository, and in which educationalstrategiesandmodelsarecollectedandsharedamongstteachers
• The teachers who are encouraging learners to produce, share and validatecontent
• Or the learners who are using open available content to create knowledgelandscapesonstudy topicswhichbetter fit theirneeds than theavailable textbook“onesizefitsall”style.
Conole(2010)suggeststhatOpenEducationalPractices(OEP)areasetofactivitiesand support around the creation, use and repurposing of Open EducationalResources (OERs). It also includes the contextual settings within which thesepracticesoccur.Thereforetherearethreeimportancedimensionstothis:
• The stakeholders engaged with creating, using or supporting the use of OER.Thesecanbefurthersub‐dividedintothoseinvolvedin‘creationanduse’ofOERandthoseinvolvedin‘policyandmanagement’aspectsofOER,namelythe:
o Creators‐createtheOER,andcouldbeeither‘teachers’or‘learners’
o Users‐UsetheOER,andcouldbeeither‘teachersor‘learners’
o Managers‐ProvidetheinfrastructuretosupporttheOER(technicalandorganisational)andthetools/supporttocreate/useOER
• OEParedefinedaspracticeswhich support the (re)useandproductionofhighquality OER through institutional policies, promote innovative pedagogicalmodels, and respect and empower learners as co‐producers on their lifelonglearning path. OEP address the whole governance community, policy makers,
19
managers, administrators of organisations, educational professionals andlearners
• There is little consideration of how OER are supporting educational practices,andpromotequalityandinnovationinteachingandlearning
Inadditiontheproject’saimedtoincludethenotionofbothinnovationandqualityintheuseofOER.Anattempttointegrateboththestructuraldefinitiongiveaboveand the intent to emphasize thequality and innovation aspects is captured in thefollowinggeneraldefinition:
2.3 Overview of the Selected Case Studies of the OER and OEP Landscape The case studies reviewed during the desk‐based research are listed below bycountry/geographic region. Appendix B lists the thirty‐four case studies in moredetail. Furtherdetailsoneachcasestudyareavailable in the individual casestudytemplates. The dimensions of OER that were extracted from the case studies arediscussed in Section 3 of this document. The case studieswere chosen to give aspread in terms of covering both the HE and AE sectors, geographical local andrepresentative of the different types of projects/initiatives possible (i.e. differenttypes of consortium, different focus, spread of subject areas, models of QualityAssurance,etc.).
3.AnalysisofOpenEducationalPracticesonBasisofSelectedCasesThissectiondescribestheanalysisofaEurope‐widecasestudycollectionoutlinedinthe previous section. Stakeholders identified through the case studies are listedalongwiththeirprinciplerolesintermsofOEP.Asetofeightdimensionshasbeenabstractedfromthecasestudies,whichcanbeusedtoanalyseanddescribeOpenEducationalPractices (Section3.2).Finally, thedocumentprovidesamoredetaileddescriptionofeachofthedimensions,alongwithspecificexamplesdrawnfromthecasestudies.Thepurposeofthereviewwasto:
3.1 OEP stakeholders The stakeholders of open educational practice are the ‘open educational practicegovernance’ community. These are those actors who are involved into openeducationalpracticesfromallperspectives,beitthepolicymakingcomponentinthefieldofeducationinwhichnational,regionalorlocal(communal)policiesareshapedandimplementedtostimulatetheuseofopeneducationalpractices,productionand
23
distributionoflearningmaterials,themanagementoradministrationofeducationalorganisations, teaching or providing learning environments, or learning in learningenvironmentsinwhichopeneducationalresourcesareusedtoimprovequalityandaccess of learning. We are focussing on higher education institutions and oneducationalorganisationsinthefieldofadultlearning.
For all stakeholders our aim was to enquire how open educational resources areused (created, found, used in teaching/learning, shared, and adapted) to improvequality and innovation of the learning environment. All the above stakeholdercategories can either be involved as individuals, as part of communities (onlineorface‐to‐face)orasmembersofinstitutionsleadinginitiativesinthefieldofOEP.ThefollowingstakeholderswerecitedinthecasestudiesasbeinginvolvedwithdifferentaspectsofOEP:
3.2 The OEP dimensions identified As described previously, OEP is defined as the full set of practices around thecreation, use and management of OER. This includes the tools that are used tosupport thisprocess, the resources themselvesandanyenabling frameworks.OEPcovers the full spectrumof policy, research andpractice aroundOER and involvesalmost all stakeholders involved in supporting andmanaging learning provision ineducationalsystems.OuraimthroughanalysisoftheOERcasestudieswastogainabetter understanding of the type and scope of OER that has been undertaken todate. To articulate the different approaches that had been adopted, what hadworkedandwhathadn’t.Eachcasestudywascompletedaccordingtoapre‐definedtemplate.Analysisofthecasestudiesleadtothegenerationofasetof‘dimensions’orthemesacrossthecasestudies,whichprovideacommonframeworkwithwhichtocompareandcontrastthecasestudies.ThefollowingeightOEPdimensionswereidentified:
Thesedimensionscomeoutoftheanalysisof34collectedcasestudiesandcanbeusedasdimensionsandcategoriesfortheanalysisofopeneducationalpracticesonthedifferenttargetgrouplevels.AsoutlinedaboveOpeneducationalPracticescanbe influenced by actions, rules and regulations on all levels of stakeholderinvolvement.Thefollowingtablegivesanoverviewofhowthedimensionsinfluence
25
the actions of four aggregate groups of stakeholders; policymakers,managementandadministrators,educationalprofessionalsandlearners.
Table 3: The relationship between stakeholders and the OPE dimensions
The following section discusses the specific evidence for each of the eightdimensions of OEP that came out of the analysis of the Europe‐wide case studyanalysis. This section is discussed under the eight dimensions against the fourheadings outlined in the table: policy environment, organisational environment,educational environment and teaching and learning processes. The evidence fromthecasestudiesisdiscussed;anindicationofwhichcasestudiesdemonstratedeachtypeofevidence is given. It isworthnoting that the four levels arehierarchical innature, therefore some of the dimensions indicated at a higher level can beconsidered to infiltrate through to the lower levels. This is taken as given. Forexampleanationallevelpolicyinitiativewillnaturallyhaveadirectimpactoneachoftheotherlevels,althoughtheimpactmightbeofadifferentkind.Forexampleanew funding initiative at a national level might lead to new OER activities andinitiativesatanorganisationallevel,changesinattitudesandteachingpracticeattheeducationallevelandfinallyanimprovedstudentsexperienceforthelearner.
3.2.1 Strategies and policies Atthepolicyenvironmentthemostevidentdimensionsarestrategiesandpolicies.Strategies include: i) the national level engagement or support, ii) adopting a
26
national‐level initiative to pool expertise, gain criticalmass and develop a vibrantcommunity(suchasNDLRinIreland,BCCampusinCanada,WIkiwjsinHolland),andprovisionofacoherentnationalfocus,throughtherepositoryandassociatedeventsandsupportmechanisms(NDLR,Wikiwjs,SCORE,KoolieluandTigerLeapactivities).
Policy makers implement policy around OER through key white papers (see forexample theNSF cyberlearning report from the states,NSF, 2008), via inclusion instrategy document (see for example the UK HEFCE elearning strategy), throughfunding calls (see for the international work supported by the William and FloraHewlettFoundationandtherecentcallintheUKjointlyfundedbytheHEAandJISC)or through acting as a front to promote OER initiatives (for example the publicsupportoftheDutcheducationministerfortheWikiwjsinitiative).
Policies includehavinginplaceanational levelpolicydrive.ForexampleintheUK,there has recently being a joint national funding initiative funded by JISC and theHEA,which focuses onmaking a significant amount of existing learning resourcesfreely available online and licensed in such away to enable them to be used andrepurposedworldwide.Notice that the focushere ison ‘existing’materials, ratherthan on the actual creation of OER, which is a significant shift from earlier OERfundedinitiativessuchasthosesupportedbytheHewlettfoundation.IncontrasttosomeoftheseGovernmentornationalleveldirectivesinEurope,inBrazilthereisnopublicpolicyinplaceforOERattheHElevel.
iv) Linking to national or broader policy agendas For example the OpenERproject links to the Lisbon agenda, feeding through Dutch governmentobjectivesinthisarea
v) MainstreamingOERworkintoinstitutionalbusinessprovision.Thiswasacoreobject of theOpenLearn initiative in theUK and is nowbeing instantiated.Manyotherinitiativesareseeingtheimportance’sofbuildinginsustainabilityand embedding into core processes as an essential part of their overallstrategy.
3.2.2 Quality Assurance models ArangeofQualityAssurance(QA)modelswasevidentacrossthecasestudies.Thesedepended on a number of factors; the type of institution and their learning andteachingculture,thebalanceofimportanceofthe‘value’ofteaching(incomparisontoresearchactivitiesintheinstitution),thedegreetowhichOERactivitieswereseenas research activities in their own right, the level of e‐learning maturity of theinstitutionandtheextenttowhichtheyhadengagedwithOERworkpreviously.
QA models range from lightweight, user‐defined models to strictly controlledhierarchicalmodels.Anexampleofalightweightanduser‐drivenmodelcamefromtheSouthamptonUniversitycasestudyandtheiredshareproject.Theyprovidedtheoption of either open‐web sharing or institution‐only sharing, according toacademicswishes.TheOERaremadeavailableassimpleassets(suchasPowerPoint,word,PDFfiles);i.e.standardformatsthatacademicsareusedtoproducingintheireverydaypractice. In termsofQAandadherence to standards this is verymuchalightweight approach, no adherence to IMS CP or LOM is required. OpenExeter isanother example of quality control driven by academics, although interestingly itdoesadheretoIMSstandardsandisSCORMcompliant.ItisinterestingtonotethatSouthampton and Exeter would both view themselves as ‘research‐focused’institutions, where the academic view is still privileged; hence such lightweight,academic‐driven approaches are to be expected. In fact, this does appears to bequiteacommonapproachadoptedbymanyof thecasestudies;certainlysomeofthemorerecent,smallerinitiatives.
Incontrasttotheselightweightmodels,theOpenLearninitiativeisagoodexampleof a top‐down controlledQAmodel,with clearly articulatedquality processes andidentifiedroles(authors,editors,technicalsupport,qualityassurers,etc.).AgainthiscanbeseenasbothaconsequenceoftheuniquepositionintheUKasalarge‐scaledistanceeducationalinstitution(whichawellestablished,Fordish‐productionmodelfor course production and presentation) and due to the fact the project receivedconsiderablefundingfromtheHewlettfoundationforOpenLearnandhencewasinabetterpositiontosetupmorerigorousandcomplexrolesandprocesses.
Other case studies canbe seenasexamples alonga spectrum from lightweight tomore controlled QA models and a number of examples of the QA practices areevident from across the case studies. These practices include: the use of peer‐reviewingasameansofassuringquality(forexampleintheGITTAproject,Estoniaschool projects), defining criteria for peer‐production and open content (the AVOproject) and more organic and community peer‐review based, relatively linearquality assurance models where quality assurance checks and processes areembedded into the workflow for production of OER, annotation through experts
An example of a relatively linear quality assurancemodels is theOpenER project,whereauthorsarerequiredtoproduceandsubmitcontent,whichisthenchecked,convertedandrechecked.EducaNext isanexampleofamoreorganic,community‐basedmodels,wheremembersareabletocommentonpublishedcontentorrunacomplete course evaluation. KELDAmed is another example, which includesannotation by experts, who then also are available to help the users through thelearningmaterials.
CampusContent have multi‐level reviews where experts review the material andthen learners can further improve shared understanding of theOER through theirownannotations.Podcampus isan interestingexampleofa lightweightQAmodel,where contributions are provide from experts. Another community‐based modelscan be seen in the CCCOER/CCOT initiative enables educators to share reviews ofmaterialsandalsolookatandcommentonthereviewsofothers.TheCCOTreviewsaredoneagainstasetofpre‐definedcriteria.Theseincludesub‐dimensionsaround:accuracy, importance or significance, pedagogical effectiveness, completeness ofdocumentation,easeofuseforteachersandlearners,inspirational/motivationalforlearners,robustnessasadigitalresource.Anotherinterestingmodelisthatadoptedby eLibary, which involvedmultiple stakeholders, who can contribute to both thedevelopmentandimprovementoftheresourcesinavarietyofdifferentways.
3.2.3 Collaborative and Partnership models Some OER initiatives involved more than one organisation and a number ofcollaborative(non‐contract)andpartnership(contractual)modelshaveemerged.Insome cases these include different types of academies (universities, technicaluniversities, colleges), in other cases they focus on specialist areas, each led by asenioracademicinthatfield.
TheTRUEprojectconsistedof14suchspecialistareas,eachledbyasenioracademicinthatfield.Eachspecialist leadergatheredandcollatedmaterialsfromcolleaguesin various universities. Resources included: syllabus details, reading lists, lectureslides, seminar/workshop materials, problem sets and worksheets, studenthandouts,assessmentschemes,pastassessmentsandmodule/unithandbooks.
The AVO project has a dozen organizations and tens of experts involved andoperates through thenationalnetworkeOppimiskeskus, theAssociationof FinnisheLearning Centre. Ope.fi is aimed at teachers in Finland and focusing on learningmaterials that would otherwise not be published – i.e. materials that are not ofinterest for the commercial publishing companies,materials that are not likely tohave large enough audience in order to make publishing worthwhile from theeconomicspointofview.
29
LeMill is an international web community of teachers and other learning contentcreators for finding, authoring and sharing open educational resources. LeMillprovidesreusable learningcontentresources,descriptionsofteachingand learningmethods, and descriptions of teaching and learning tools. There are also teachingandlearningstoriesavailable.Contentcanbefoundin13languages.
In Canada the BCcampus OER initiative has been implemented in 25 institutions,through amulti‐institutional partnership,which involves staff frommore that oneinstitution.Atthemomenthowevertheseresourcesareonlysharedamongstthis25institutionsandarenotavailablemoreopenly.
An interesting example of a partnership mode is that between OpenLearn andUnisulVirtual, who chosematerials from the existing platform for translation intoPortuguese. Materials were analysed by UnisulVirtual tutors and chosen on theirsuitabilityintermsofrelevance,clarityanddepth.
3.2.4 Tools and tool practices Arichrangeoftoolsandtoolpracticesemergedfromthecasestudies,exploitingthefullpotentialofnewtechnologiestosupportthesharingandcritiquingofresources.InsomecasesinstitutionalLearningManagementSystems(LMS)havebeenadapted,inothercasesamorespecialiseddigitalrepositoryhasbeencreated.Moregenerallyweb2.0tools(suchaswikis,blogs,socialnetworkingsites,etc)arebeingusedinavarietyofways to fosterandpromote thecommunityofpracticearoundtheOER.Notsurprisinglyingeneralthereisstrongsupportforadoptingopenpractices.Mostprojects subscribe to some form of creative commons licensing, in particular useattribution,non‐commercial,share‐alike.
ConnexionswasmentionedacrossanumberofthecasestudiesasavaluablesystemforsharingandeditingOER.SimilarlytheEduCommonscontentmanagementsystemhasbeenusedasanOERplatformbyanumberofprojects (forexampleOpenER).OpenLearnusedtheopensourcelearnermanagementsystemsMoodleforhostingtheirOER,whereasothersusedcommerciallyavailableLMS(forexampleNDLRusedBlackboard). Rather than create a separate platform, UnisulVirtual, choose to usethe specially adaptedplatformOpenLearning created.OpenExeter chose touseoftheirexistingInformationTechnologyInfrastructureLibrarysystem,whereasU‐NOWdevelopedaconventionalwebsite.Someused relatively lightweightpackaginganddistribution of OER (using Word files in ZIP and PDF formats), whereas othersadoptedanXML‐based framework.Gitta forexampleusedeLML (eLessonMarkupLanguage).Anumberof thesites incorporatedordevelopedspecialised repositorytools to enable different types of search (for example AKLEON, Koolielu andWaramu)orKELDA(anannotateddatabase).
Web2.0toolswereusedinavarietyofways.ZUM‐Unityusedforumsandblogsasameans of exchanging ideas. In contrast, a number of projects chose wiki‐basedsystems – sometimes for storage and sometimes to promote discussion and
30
community building (for example the Unesco wiki, WIkiwjs, ZUM‐wiki andSkriptenforum, eLibrary).MatheVital used a repository plus awiki for annotation.MorespecialisedOERsuchaspodcastshaveeitherbeendistributedviaspecialisedpodcasting platforms (as in the case of Podcampu) or via iTunes (for example theOUUKandtheOpenSpiresprojectatOxfordUniversity).ELibaryusedVoice‐Over‐IPand instant messaging. Other standard available web tools such as Twitter andYouTubehavealsobeenusedasameansofdistributinginformationatthevariousOER initiatives. CCOTused the social networking siteNing to promote communityengagement. The AVO project includes SOMETU, which is also NIng based andprovides a forum for peoplewhoare interested in thepotential that socialmediaoffersforlearning.Itisdescribedatoolthat‘notonlyhelpsexpandone’sknowledgebut promotes business, eDemocracy, citizen activism and leisure activities in thedigitalage’. TheKoolieluportal isbuiltontopofElgg–anopensourcee‐portfoliosystemMorerecentlyanumberofprojectshavebeenusingtheCloudworkssiteasameansofsharinganddiscussingOERissuesandpractices(forexampleOpenExeter,Olnet, the Hewlett grantees and NROC). AVO is also exploring the use of VirtualWorlds(alongwithmobiledevices,blogs,wikis,andothersocialmediatools).FinallyanumberoftoolshaveemergedtosupportvisualisingOER,bothintermsofmakingtheir inherent designs explicit (CompendiumLD) and to support visualisation ofargumentationaboutOERissues(CompendiumandCohere).
At the educational environment level in addition to the above a number of otherfactors emerged. There were some good examples of use of voting andrecommendationstoolstoenhancecommunityengagementandsharedconsensus,and syndication formats like RSS and RSS aggregators to distributemetadata andprovideaccesstocontent.Blogs,wikisanddiscussionforumshaveallbeenusedasspaces todiscussOER/OEPand toco‐createasharedunderstandingand thereareexamplesoftheuseofsocialnetworkingsitesandfilesharingservices(suchasFlckr,SlideshareandYoutybe).Collectivelythereisevidencethatthesetoolsenablepeercritiquing and commenting, which is leading to an improved shared collectiveunderstanding.Community‐basedtagging‐useoffolksonomiestocreatemetadataand tagging – has becomemore important as users have shifted away from pre‐definedmetadatacategories.
Adoptingopenpracticesis,perhapsnotsurprisingly,fairlycommon.TheemergenceoftheCreativeCommonslicensefourorfiveyearsagowasamajorbreakthroughinterms of providing a means for projects to label the level of attribution and thedegreeofsharingtheywantedontheresources.Mostofthecasestudiesreviewedfrom the UK, for example, use attribution, non‐commercial, share‐alike. Howeversome projects were not comfortable with the share‐alike option, meaning thatrepurposingoftheOERwasnotpossible.Moregenerallyintermsofadoptingopenpractices there are a range of approaches – for example some projects havedeliberatelychosentouseopensourcetools(suchasMoodle),whereasothershaveopted for bespoke systems or commercially available products. Likewise projectsdiffered in their attitudes to adherence to open standards ranging from full to nocompliance.IntheBCcampusproject,OERdevelopershaveachoiceoftwolicensingoptions: Creative Commons Share Alike‐Attribution Canada Licence or the BCCommonslicence(90%havechosenthelatter).
31
3.2.5 Innovations InnovationsevidentincludedtheuseoftoolsspecificallyforcreationanduseofOER(Connexions,OpenLearn,andeduCommonsareparticularlynoteworthy),aswellasexamplesofinnovationintheapplicationofweb2.0practicestocreationanduseofOER (such as use of blogs, wikis, open repositories, RSS feeds, and social bookmarking).
Examplesof goodpracticewere seen inanumberof cases in thedevelopmentofcommunities around OER, such as the NDLR Communities of Practice approach,EducaNextand LeMill. Someworkhasbeendonemore recently tohelpmake thedesign of OER more explicit and application of the principles from pedagogicalpatterns works, for example work as part of the Olnet initiative (Conole et al.,forthcoming)andthereisclearlymorepotentialforaligningresearchunderstandingsfromthefieldofpedagogicalpatternstothedesignanduseofOER.
Therewerealsoexamplesofgoodpracticeintermsofsupportmechanismsthathadbeenputinplaceforstaff–suchastrainingmaterials,events,andworkshops.Seefor example the NDLR programme of activities, the Campus promo kit and thematerials produced byUnisulVirtual. The AVO project appears to be innovative interms of trying to harness web 2.0 practices. Its stated outcomes are thedevelopment of ‘new networks and forums to facilitate web 2.0‐learning culture,handbooks and toolkits for teachers, decision‐makers and citizens about socialmedia,patternsforsocialnetworkingandopencontentproduction,roadshowsandonline‐conferences,hands‐onworkshopsandseminarstotrainuserstoapplydigitaltoolstotheireverydayactivities’.AnotheraspectofAVOthatcanbeconsideredasinnovativeisthatitcollectsactorsandactivistsofOEPinFinlandintoanationwidenetwork. Estonian initiatives are taking care of interconnections with otherrepositories. Learning materials stored in Estonian Koolielu can also be searchedthrough the European Learning Resource Exchange portal. UnisulVirtual made anonline course available via the OpenLearn platform, but complemented this withlocaltutorsupportpaidforbytheuniversity.
Otherinnovationsincluded:provisionofeasymechanismstoexchangebothcontentand information about related OER activities (EducaNext), effective application ofopensourceprinciplesandlicences(EX.UnisulVirtualandtheUniversityofLeicestercase study), use of simulation environments to provide learners with very visual,quasi‐hapticapproachtoabstractingdata(MatheVital),making lessonsavailableatmultiple levels for different types of learners and the generation of solution‐orientatedcasestudies(Gitta),thecreationofnewnetworksofpeerlearningforexperts of different fields (AVO) and an impressive student‐led initiative, wherestudentssharecollectionsofminutes,notesandscriptswhichtheytookinlecturesandseminarsinuniversities.
3.2.6 Skills development and support A range of mechanisms has been used to overcome academics’ initial concernsabout OER and to help with skills development and support. These include:mechanismstofosterandsupportcommunityengagement,provisionofcasestudiesof good practice and exemplars, running of parallel events and workshops, and
32
provisionofspecifictrainingmaterials.ForexampletheCampuspromokitincludesmarketing materials, guidelines and tutorials on OER, an open textbook adoptionworksheet,OERneedsassessmentsurvey,policiesandmodels.TheNDLRandLeMillbothadoptaCommunityofPracticeapproachandaimtofacilitatethedevelopmentof CoP around the OER to provide mutual peer support and in particular theestablishmentofdiscipline‐basedCoP.
Gettingstaff‐buyinandsupport,andmakingitrelevanttothememergesagainasakeyissueatthislevel,butalsoimportantisensuringthatthereisacriticalmass–ofresourcesandofpeople‐tosupportandsustainthesetypesof initiatives. Itthis isnotpossibleonaninstitutionallevel,partnershipmodelsonnationalorinternationallevel are analternative approach. Languageand culture issues are alsobarriers touptakeandadoption.Thiswasevident inparticular in case studieswhich involvedtranslationofmaterialssuchasUnisulVirtual,whohadtohirestafftotranslatetheOER and to discuss themwith lecturers, for adaptation and localisation purposes.ThishasalsobeencitedasanissueinTurkey,wherethenumberofnewuniversitieshasdoubled since2003and there is recognitionof thevalueand roleofOER,butonlyiftheyareavailableinTurkish.TheAVOprojectaimstostrengththeproductionofopencontentthroughthedevelopmentofhighqualitymaterialsbytrainingandnetworkingkeyexperts.
3.2.7 Business models/sustainability strategies Anongoingcriticaldiscourseagainst theOpenEducationalResourcesmovement isthe issueofhow itcanbemadesustainable in the longer termandwhatbusinessmodelsmightbeappropriate. Untanglingwhichmodelsareactuallybeingused inpractice is complex, as a number of models might be used in conjunction andprojectsmaychangethebasisof theirbusinessmodelover time.Forexample it iscommonforprojectstostartthroughsomefundinginitiativeandthentomovetoanalternativemodeloncethatinitialfundingfinishing.
Downes(Downes2007)providesausefulcategorisationoffundingmodelsforopensourcetypeinitiatives:endowmentmodels(wheretheprojectobtainsbasefunding),membershipmodels (where a coalition is invited to contribute a sum), donationsmodels (whererequestsaremadefordonations),conversionmodels (where initialfreely made material ultimately leads to some element of paying consumer),contributor‐paymodels(wherethecontributorpaysforthecostofmaintainingthecontributionandtheprovidemakesitfreelyavailable),sponsorshipmodels(suchascommercial advertising), institutional models (where the institution assumesresponsibilityfortheinitiative),Governmentmodels(directfundingviaGovernmentagencies), and partnership or exchanges (where the focus is on exchangingresources).
Inthecasestudiesreviewed,amixtureofthesemodelsisevident.ForexampletheOpenLearn initiallyfittedtheendowmentmodelthroughfundingfromtheHewlettfoundation, but now is supported internally and hence fits under the institutionalmodel primarily.However becauseof theongoing rangeof spinoff initiatives andpartnershipsitcouldalsobeconsideredtofitinwithanumberoftheothermodelstosomedegreeaswell(endowment,conversion,andpartnership).
33
AllofthecasestudiesunderthecurrentHEA/JISCOERprogrammeareessentiallyamix of endowment and institution, as although the are receiving funding for thework there is a requirement that there is institutional support and ongoingcommitment to the work. The business model of UnisulVirtual was one of‘independentinvestment’;thatis,theydidnotusepublicfundingmoneytopromotetheir OER initiative, but used university funds to implement it. Their aimwas tomainstream OER into their usual university practices. However, their model ofmakingmaterial available viaOpenLearn supported through localpaid tutors is anexample of institutional investment. BCCampus could be argued to be amix of aGovernment model (as it received government aid) but also fits under thepartnershipmodel.
The lack of clarity of individual businessmodels is perhaps not surprisingly, as inreality projects will probably adopt a number of strategies in conjunction. Forexample many initiatives have reported that making some of their educationalresources freely available has lead to direct revenue returns in terms of learnersthen signing up for paid courses (hence an example of the conversion model).FurthermoremanyofthepioneeringearlyflagshipOERprojectsnowboastarangeofspin‐outinitiatives,consultancyworkandrelatedresearchprojects.Encouraginglythere seems to be a general recognition of and commitment to OER work as isevidentinthenumberofinstitutionswhoarepreparedtosignupforsomeelementatleastoftheinstitutionalmodel.
3.2.8 Barriers and enablers ManyoftheprojectshaveincorporatedformalevaluationmechanismsandsohavebeenabletodocumentboththebarriersandenablerstotheuptakeandadoptionofOER. Some of the barriers and enablers are technical (for example a lack ofinteroperability between platforms) but others are more to do with cultural ororganisationalissues.
For example in some instances there is evidence of users accessing OER but notrepurposing them. A commonly cited barrier is academics reluctance to provideresources under a Creative Commons share‐alike license. And more generallyacademicshaveoftenbeenslowtoseethebenefitofOERandhavebeenconcernedabouttheinvestmentintimeneededforcreationanduseofOER.Asignificantissueisthelackofexperienceofusingweb2.0technologiesandgiventhatmostOERaredeliveredandrepurposedthisway,thisispotentiallyasignificantbarrier.
ThePocketprojectaimedtoexploretheissuesthatinhibitusersfromdownloading,uploading and repurposing material from OpenLearn. The project identified anumberofbarrierstotransformationandmaderecommendationsforimprovement.
As a means of overcoming barriers caused where Internet access is slow orexpensive theeGranaryproject sets upmirror sites forOER.A goodexampleof aproject that has attempted to address users’ self‐motivation is the Westminsteruniversity case study,where they usedMultimedia Training Videos as ameans ofpromotingtheirOERandexploringthepotentialthatweb2.0toolshavetoofferaspedadogicaltools.AnalternativestrategyistoseetheOERworkaspartofabroader
Open.fiadoptsadifferentapproachtogettingteacherengagement.Inadditiontoitscore offering, i.e. the digital learningmaterials, the portal offers awide variety ofmaterialsforsupportingteachingandlearning,itorganizescompetitionsandthemedays (e.g. European Spring 2010, intellectual property rights day with EuropeanCompetition)andincludeslinkstoEuropeansitessuchaseTwinning.
The collaborative approach adopted by the e‐library project (involving elibraryvolunteers,students,scientistsandemployees)isstatedasbeingagreatmotivatorand helps teach the stakeholders involved to work in teams and gives themexperienceofusingnewtechnologies).
Therearefourmaintypesofbarriersandenablers:technical,economic,socialandlegal andexamplesof all four typeswereevident in the case studies. This sectiondrawsextensivelyon twomain reviews covering this topic (Centre for EducationalResearch and Innovation, 2007; Open eLearning Content Observatory Services,2007).
Technicalissues
Not surprisingly there are a number of technical barriers associated with thedevelopment and use of OER, although arguably as technologies improve andinterfacesbecomemoreintuitivesomeofthesetechnicalbarriersarebecominglessof a problem. As OER are made available over the web, access to the web is aprerequisite.Thiscanbeasignificantbarrierthereforeincountrieswhereaccessislimited or there is no broadband (Centre for Educational Research and Innovation2007)p.59).Inadditiontherearetechnicalissueswithconvertingprintmaterialintodigital format (Centre for Educational Research and Innovation 2007) p.91). TherearechoicestobemadeintermsofwhethertousePDForXMLformatsandtherearedecisionstobemadeintermsoftheextenttowhichmetadataisaddandwhattypeofmetadatawill bemost appropriate. TheMITOCW chose PDF as the documentformatfortheircourses,howeverPDFhaslimitations.ForexamplethePDFformatinhibits reuse, as it is not possible to dissect and reconfigure the resource easily.HTMLorXMLformatsoffergreaterflexibility,butrequirehigher levelsoftechnicalskills. Nonetheless many initiatives have opted for these formats, recognising theincrease flexibility they provide and in particular the easywhichwith they can berepurposed or transferred to different technology platforms (Atkins, Brown, andHammond(2007)p.26‐27)
Technical drivers are associated with the ease of use, cost and availability oftechnologies. The Centre for Educational Research and Innovation (2007: 59)suggests the following mechanisms for overcoming technical barriers: increasedbroadbandavailability,increasedharddrivecapacityandprocessingspeedscoupledwith lowercosts,greaterprovisionandvarietyoftechnologiestocreate,distributeandsharecontentandprovisionofsimplersoftwaretools forcreating,editingandremixinganddecreasedcostandincreasedqualityofconsumertechnologydevicesforaudio,photoandvideo.
35
Duringthelasttenyearstherehasbeenanenormouschangeinthewayknowledgeiscreatedandcommunicated.Socalled‘web2.0’technologieshavetransformedthewayinwhichweinteractwitheachotherandaccessandusedigitalmaterials.Thewide availability of broadband networks allows learners and educators tocommunicate a thought, a message or even learning material almostinstantaneously.AtthepresenttimethereisalsotherapiddevelopmentofmobiletechnologiesusingOERcontentandareoftenrelatedtolocation‐basedservices.
This change in the broader technological landscape is timely and is an importantdriverintermsofOEP.TheJISCintheUKhasbeenoneoftheleadersintermsofthedevelopment of digital content infrastructures – both in terms of the technicalarchitecturerequiredaswellasanunderstandingofhowtopopulateandmanagedigital repositories (Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, 2007: 61).Otherlarge‐scalecommercialoperationsarealsointerestedinworkinginthisspace.ForexampleGoogleispilotingaprojectforthefreehostingofeducationalmaterial,forexamplelargeopencollectionsofscientificdata,showsthatthedevelopmentofaccess and of course preservation of access is going on (Aitkins, Daniels, Brown,Hammond and Allen, 2007: 26). Copyright tools are also becoming easy to use.Creative Commons now offers the ccPublisher tool for licensing and have evendevelopedadd‐onsforMicrosoftOfficeandOSpendantOpenOffice(OpeneLearningContentObservatoryServices,2007:98).
Economicissues
There are significant resources associated with the creation and management ofOER.Thesearebothtechnicalandhumancosts.TheCentreforEducationalResearchlistanumberofcosts:
• InvestmentinappropriatehardwareandsoftwaretodevelopandshareOER.It’sworth adding that this might be provision of new hardware or software oradaptationofexistinghardwareorsoftware
• Costsassociatedwithdevelopingtheresources
• Costs needed to sustainOER initiatives in the long run (Centre for EducationalResearchandInnovation2007)p.59).
TheexactnatureofthecostswilldependonhowsophisticatedtheOERinitiativeis.Even with the most rudimentary and streamline example there will be costsassociated with: someone capturing the content, digitising it, checking for andresolvinganycopyrightissues,andputtinginplacesomequalityassurancecheckonthefinalproduct.(CentreforEducationalResearchandInnovation2007)p.90)Withmore sophisticated initiatives that are either larger in scope or more complex intermsofthenatureoftheconsortiuminvolvedandthescaleoftheinitiative,thereare additional costs incurred. These initiatives are likely to need more complexworkflows, differential of roles for the different activities involved, and invariablysomeelementofprojectmanagement.Makingtheresourcesavailableinavarietyofformats(forexampleinprint,onphysicalmediasuchasharddrives,DVDsandUBDdrives, as well as over the Internet) will also add to the costs and creates anadditionalburdenintermsofversioningcontrol.However,providingOERinavariety
36
of formats is particularly important in termsof social inclusion and as ameans ofaddressing the issues of access for thosewith poor Internet provision (Centre forEducationalResearchandInnovation2007)p.90).Asdiscussedabove,ifmetadataisneeded there will be an additional cost; particularly if metadata specialists areemployed (Open eLearning Content Observatory Services (2007) p.82). Manyacademics lack the necessary skills needed to create OER and to add appropriatemetadataandhencetheremaybeanadditioncostintermsofup‐skillingthem.Itisessentialthereforethatthereisappropriatetrainingavailableaswellaseasytousetools which help to create rich metadata, especially for those persons who areunawareofthesignificanceofmetadataanditsfunctioningoodOEP.
Asdiscussedintheprevioussectionthereareavarietyofbusinessmodelscurrentlybeing trialled around the development and sustainability ofOER initiatives, but asyet there is no one clearmodel that is guaranteed towork. In the last few yearssignificant funding has been made available by a number of public and privateparties, notably theWilliam and Flora Hewlett Foundation. However, this scale ofinvestment is unlikely to continue and indeed the recently funded JISS/HEA OERprogramme placed the emphasis on making available existing digital resources,rather than funding for the creation ofOER. There aremanyOERprojects in thepipelinewhichcannotbefullyfundedbysuchparties,andthismodeloffunding isnot sustainable. Therefore alternative fundingmodels will need to be developed;modelsbasedonmembership feesorpayment forconsultancyservicesassociatedwith theOERhavebeen suggested (OpeneLearningContentObservatory Services(2007 p.64). Donation and sponsorship models have also been suggested and asdiscussed in the previous section, Downes (2007) provides a detailed critique andexamplesofninemodels,alongwithsomeoftheprosandconsofeach.
TheCentreforEducationalResearchandInnovation(2007:59)identifyfiveformsofeconomic enablers,which are either the result of recent technological advantages(suchasthe lowercostofbroadband Internetconnectionsor increasedavailabilityoftoolsforcreating,editingandhostingcontent)orcanbeconsideredasstrategiesor approaches to adopt (for example providing opportunities to reduce coststhrough co‐operation and sharing or articulation of new business models forsustainability).
The increasingly ubiquitous nature of the Internet provides opportunities fordistance, online collaborations that would not have been possible in the past.Therefore it is now possible to have large‐scale, multi‐partner initiatives co‐constructing and manipulating resources online. Clearly such collaborations havecostbenefits,‘bysharingandreusing,thecostsforcontentdevelopmentcanbecut,therebymakingbetteruseofavailableresources’ (CentreforEducationalResearchandInnovation,2007:64).However,thisofcourseisbasedontheassumptionthatthe institutions involved are willing to share theirmaterials with each other. Thismeansconsequentsharingandcreationofresourcesbyallinstitutions.Thisisattheheart of the OpeCourseWare Consortium, which involves over 120 institutionsworldwide.AnotherperceiveddriverrelatestouseofmarketingofhighqualityOERasameansofattractingnewstudents:
37
‘thereisaneedtolookfornewcostrecoverymodels,newwaysofobtainingrevenue,suchasofferingcontentforfree,bothasanadvertisementfortheinstitution, and as away of lowering the threshold for new students, whomay be more likely to enrol – and therefore pay for tutoring andaccreditation–whentheyhavehadatasteofthelearningonofferthroughopencontent’.(CentreforEducationalResearchandInnovation,2007:65).
Socialissues
A number of social or cultural barriers are evident. Firstly, academics may bescepticalastothevalueofinvestinginthecreationofOER.Secondly,theymaylackthenecessary skills (either technicalorpedagogical) to createoruseOER. Thirdly,there are cultural obstacles in terms of sharing or using resources developed byotherteachersorinstitutions’(CentreforEducationalResearchandInnovation2007:59‐60).Fourthly, thereareusuallynorecognitionsystemstorewardacademics forengagingwithOERinitiatives.Indeedquitethereverse,involvementcanbeseenasa distraction from doing more important activities such as research (Centre forEducational Research and Innovation 2007: 60). Fifthly, academics may beapprehensive about taking part in such initiatives, feeling a loss of control andownershipovertheirteachingmaterialsandconcernsaboutpossiblemisuseofanyOERtheyproduce.Finally,forsomethereissimplyalackofinterestinpedagogicalinnovation;teachingisseenasaroutinepartoftheirrole,withresearchasthemainpassionanddriver.
Culturalobstaclesarealsoanissue.Firstlytherearelanguagebarriers.AsignificantproportionofOERhavebeenproducedinEnglish.ThisisamajorbarriertouseforthosewhereEnglish isnottherefirst language.Anumberoftheflagship initiativeshave translated their materials. MIT is, for example, attempting to counter thisbarrierbytranslatingitscontentintodifferentlanguages,aswellaspublishingnewcontent. Similarly, OpenLearn materials are now available in a range of differentlanguages and indeed as one of the case studies testifies are actually working inclosepartnershipwithotherinstitutionstogobeyondsimpletranslationofmaterialsbut to provision of additional support at the local level. Even if the resources aretranslated, (which has an associated cost), theremay be subtle language nuancesthatchangethemeaning.Secondly,therearesignificantregionalvariationsintermsofculture,religionandcustoms.Sowhatmaybeokinonecontextwillbeculturallyunacceptable in another context. Similarly examples and case studies usedwithinOERtoexplainparticularteachingpointsmaybetoocontextuallylocatedandhencenot travel well to other cultural contexts (Open eLearning Content ObservatoryServices(2007)p.2)
Motivationandincentivesareimportantfactorsintermsofgettingstaffbuyinandengagement and hence the lack of any visible reward system is likely to be anobstacleforthedeploymentofOERinteachingandlearning:
‘ToestablishacredibleacademicrewardsystemthatincludestheproductionanduseofOERmight, therefore,be the singlemost importantpolicy issuefor a large‐scale deployment of OER in teaching and learning’, (Centre forEducationalResearchandInnovation2007)p.67)
38
Understandably, teachers are generally reluctant to share their resources, unlessthey can see a benefit. Articulating the benefits or putting in place appropriatereward mechanisms are two important strategies for getting staff buy in (OpeneLearning ContentObservatory Services (2007)p.22). As touched on briefly abovethere are a number of other complex factors at work in terms of academicreluctance.Somearenotinterestedinteachinginnovations,whereasotherslackthenecessary skills. Use of OER requires a change in mindset, away from didactic,teacher‐centredpedagogicalapproachestothoseinwhichtheteachers’roleismorearound orchestration and facilitation of the learning (Open eLearning ContentObservatoryServices(2007)p.40).Furthermore, insuchpedagogicalmodelswheretheteachers’roleisnolongeraroundthecreationanddisseminationofknowledge,there is the potential for learners to be more actively involved in the design ofcurriculaandthecreationofknowledge(Yuanetal.2008:20).
The Centre for Educational research and Innovation has identified the followingsocialenablers:thealtruisticmotivesofindividuals,opportunitiesforinstitutionstoreachouttonewsocialgroups,increaseduseofbroadband(andhenceexperienceofworkinginonlinedigitalspaces),thedesireforbothteachersandlearnerstohaveinteractivity in learningmaterials, an increasedwillingness to share, to contributeandtocreateonlinecommunities’(CentreforEducationalResearchandInnovation,2007:59).Altruisticmotivesareoftenbasedonthenotionthatsharingknowledgeisagoodthingtodo (Ibid:64).Peopleshouldhaveeasy/equalaccess toeducationalresources and this access should be atminimal cost to the individual. Indeed thisideaof peoplebeing educated for freehas its roots in theUnitedNationsHumanRights. Opportunities to reach out to new social groups can have two differentinterpretations. Firstly, targeting new groups, especially people who are not yetinvolvedinhighereducation.ThisalignswellwiththegeneralincreasedprominenceonlifelonglearninginpolicyrhetoricatEuropeanlevelandwithinindividualmemberstates. This also has potential positive publicity benefits ‘It is good for publicrelations and it can function as a showcase to attract new students’ (ibid: 64‐65).Indeedthere is someevidencetosupport this,MITreport thatabout35%of theirnewstudentsstatedthattheychoseMITbecauseofhavingfirsthada lookatMITOCW(ibdi:52).
Freely available OERmight suggest that therewill be an increasedwillingness forusers (both teachers and learners) to share, contribute and participate in socialcommunities.However,this isnotalwaysthecase. Individualsmayprefertoshareonly within a closed community of peers (ibid: 104). OER initiatives need to besensitive to their end users and the degree to which they are comfortable inparticipating in open spaces. Many initiatives have taken this on board and havecreated safe, closed spaces that can be user controlled in terms of access. At theotherendof thescale,openweb2.0practicesofferadifferent setofadvantages,enablinguserstobepartofaworldwidecommunity.Inaddition,web2.0toolscannow be appropriated to enable individuals to create their own Personal LearningEnvironment(PLE)oftoolsandservices(customisingtoolssuchaspersonalweblogs,social networking tools, social bookmarking, online content sharing, personal filerepositories,ande‐portfoliosforpersonaluse).
39
Legalissues
ThefollowingarethefourmainlegalissuesassociatedwithcreatingandmakingOERavailable:copyrightissues,ownership,IntellectualPropertyrightsandpermissiontouse. Many resources may be context‐bound due to copyright issues so it is notpossibletoadaptthesourceto localprerequisites.Thisbarrierseemstobeoneofthemost crucial ones.Without thepermissionof the copyrightholder it is strictlyprohibitedtocopy,reproduceorchangeresources.Thedefaultrule isthatalluseswhich are not expressly permitted by the copyright owner are strictly prohibited.OneofthemainfocusesofOERliesinsharing,usingandadaptingofresourcesandwiththerestrictionsconcerningcopyrightthewholemodelwouldnotbeapplicable.However,sincethe foundingof theCreativeCommons licensingscheme,copyrightissuesarelessofaproblem.Anotherinhibitor ismaterialderivedfromcommercialsources. A commercial educational resource based on parts of the publishers’originalpartwillnotbeopen for learningactivities suchas re‐use,modificationorsharingduetomonetaryconsiderationsofthepublishers.(OpeneLearningContentObservatoryServices(2007)p.29).Alsoeducationalmaterialwhichgetspublishedbyuniversitiesoftenconsistsofsomecontentwhichisfromthirdpartiesandthereforeitisnotfullylegaltoreuseoradaptit(OpeneLearningContentObservatoryServices(2007)p.67).
Licensing schemes such as Creative Commons and the GNU Free DocumentationLicence havemade a significant difference in terms of providing amechanism forOERtobeeasilyattributedandshared.Thesenewschemesofferwideandeasytouse licensingoptions andpromote goodOEP that encourages thedevelopmentofOER.Thefeaturesofsuchlicencesarethatthe:
• Use is around ‘fair use/fair dealing plus’ (see for examplehttp://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5681), in that they grant a layerofprotectionontopofandinadditiontothescopeofactivitythatispermittedunderexistingcopyrightexceptionsandlimitations.
Thefurtherexistingoptionalfeaturesare:
• Non‐commercial (NC): Others are permitted to copy, distribute, display andperformthecopyrightwork–andanyderivativeworksbaseduponit–butfornon‐commercialpurposesonly.
• Share Alike (SA): Others may distribute derivative works only under a licenceidenticaltothatcoveringtheoriginalwork.(CentreforEducationalResearchandInnovation2007,p.74)
Copyright openness with Creative Commons licenses
ThefigureaboveistakenfromHodgkinson‐Williams,Cheryl;Gray,Eve(2009:9)andgives an overview of all available Creative Commons (CC) Licences. CC licencesprovidethebasisonwhichtoshareandre‐useOER(Fitzgerald2007,p.13).Bymixingandmatchingthethreecorelicencesitispossibletogeneratesixdifferentlicences,asshowninthefigure.AlthoughCCismeanttobeadriver,byitsnature,itimpliessomekindofbarrier.TheNoDerivatesandNon‐Commercialclausesforexamplearenotfullycompatiblewith‘freecontent’asdefinedbyMakoHillandMöller(Cite inCentreforEducationalResearchandInnovation2007:78).NeverthelessCCseemsto be a very important project that acts as a strong driver for OER development.AnotherfeatureofCCisthemachine‐readabletranslations,theso‐calledmetadataoftheCClicenses.ThisdataallowsuserstodiscoverandsearchmaterialthathasalinktoaCClicense.SeveralsearchengineslikeGooglehaveincorporatedafeaturethatallowsauser to search formaterials thatareconnected toCC licenses (OpeneLearningContentObservatory Services2007: 59). Tohelp address such issuesCClaunched a new subdivision called Learning Commons with a main focus oneducationandeducationalresources;“ThemissionofLearningCommonsistobreakdown the legal, technical, and cultural barriers to a global educational commons.”(Yuanetal.2008:17).ThusLearningCommonsgivesexpertiseandadvicetotheOERcommunity to solve cultural and technical barriers. The Open eLearning ContentObservatoryServices(2007:103)citesRiceUniversityasagoodexample.
‘One of the leading examples of IT‐enabled innovation in teaching is theConnexionsplatform,which ismanagedbyRiceUniversity (USA)but invitesuniversityprofessorsandhighschoolteachersfromanywhereintheworldtoparticipate. Connexions allows them to design, update andmake availableteaching and learningmaterial in amodular and highly interactiveway. Allcontent can be used by others under a Creative Commons license.” (OpeneLearningContentObservatoryServices2007,p.103)
‘Hence, ideally a repository would be a Web‐based environment in whichteachers can create, manage and share some parts of what they consideruseful for teaching. Actually, the question of how to manage contenteffectively is one of the most important, and repositories might becomemuchmoreappealingtoteachersbyprovidingassistancewiththis.However,thisrequiresagoodunderstandingofwhatteachersdo,orwouldliketodo,with digital content’. (Open eLearning Content Observatory Services 2007:102‐103)
4QualityandInnovationthroughOpenEducationalPracticesThe previous section presented the data from the case studies. This sectioncontextualises this in thebroader research literature and in particular discusses indetailtwoofthekeyconceptsthattheOPALprojectisconcernedwith;namelythenotionsofqualityandinnovationofOEP.
4.1 Introducing quality of educational practices This section provides a short overview of the concept of quality as it is generallyused.Itfocusesonthequalityofresourcesversusqualityofpractices.Itprovidesashortaccountofwhatcurrentindicationstherearearoundthecreationanduseofquality processes, concepts, concentratingwhere possible on approaches that arespecificallyaroundactualOEP.
TherearenumerouswaysofmeasuringqualityprocessesinthecontextofOEPandthecreationofOERs.Oneapproach,havingdefinedanidentifiablemeasurementofquality, might be to contrast the quality of the resources with the quality ofpractices.Anothermethod,atadifferent (institutional) level,mightbetocomparethequalitymechanismsofexistingeducationalmaterialproductionwiththatofOERcreation.TheformermethodsareoftencarriedoutbyFaculty,UniversityorNationalAssurance Agencies and, as such, may have long established mechanisms andprocesses.IntheUK,forexample,HigherEducationteaching(includingeducationalmaterialproduction) isoverseenbytheQualityAssuranceAgency(QAA)whostatethattheywill:
• safeguard the public interest in the sound standards of higher educationqualifications
• inform and encourage continuous improvement in the management of thequalityofhighereducation
(http://www.qaa.ac.uk)
6http://www.olcos.org/
42
TheQAAachieve this throughcarryingout regular teachingqualityassessments ineitherspecificsubjectsareasorintermsofinstitutionalauditsofteachingpracticesintheHigherEducationsector.CurrentlytheredoesnotappeartobequitesuchanestablishedsetofprocessesforOERproduction,however,itispossibletoanticipatethatOEPqualityprocessescouldfallintothreecategories,namelythosethatassessthe:
• Technicalproductionquality
• Pedagogicalpresentationofresources
• Subjectcontentquality(intermsofaccuracy)
OEPisabroadchurch:individualOERproductionprocessesvary,explicitpedagogyisnotalwaysconsideredanddeliveredOERscoverawiderangeofsubjectareas,eachpotentially invitingdistinctivemeasuresof accuracyor trust in thevalidityof theircontent. The current state of OER quality control, according to Wikimedia(http://strategy.wikimedia.org)havebeensummarisedinfurthertermsof:
• Context: is the material appropriate for, and relevant to, a specific group ofstudents, in a specific classroom, in a specific school ormore broadly in otherlearningcontextsforlifelonglearners?
• Efficacy:hasthematerialbeenproveneffective?
In summary the quality processes to be assessed for OER and OEP can thus bemeasured in terms of ‘fit for purpose’. It is important to recognise that anymeasurement of quality is contextual and ultimately the end user (learner oreducator) will measure the quality of any OER through a variety of (subjective)mechanismsoftenuniquetotheirexperienceandcontext.
As an addenda to this focus on quality processes it is opportune to note that theforthcomingOERworkshop inWindhoek,Namibia, organised byUNESCO and TheCommonwealth of Learning (COL)7 “Open Educational Resources for QualityAssuranceAgencies”partofaseriescalled“takingOERbeyondtheOERcommunity:PolicyandCapacity”willencompassmanyoftheseobjectives.Theinitiative’saimisto expand understanding of OERs by educational decision makers in order topromote their wider use, in other words themain purpose is to promote qualityassurance of OER production and delivery. The workshop aims to bring togetherexperts in quality assurance as well as from quality assurance agencies in bothdevelopinganddevelopedworldsto:
1. The quality of education has to focus on educational practices and cannotjustfocusononeaspectofeducationalprocesses.
2. Educational practices are concerned with the whole of the educationalprocess (i.e. stakeholders, interactionsand theactual resource),which leadto more practical performance competence of an individual within aparticulardomain.
3. The nature of the ‘openness’ of educational practices is directed towardsopening traditional ‘closed’, instruction‐oriented, content‐focussededucational practices towards open educational practices, which arefocussing on social practices, acquiring competence to be able to performresponsibleactionwithinadomain.
‘Quality’ as an activity is now well established within educational institutions. Arangeofmetricshasbeendevelopedtoidentifyandbenchmark‘quality’withinandbetweeninstitutions.Alongsidethisarangeofmethodologieshasbeendeveloped.In general there has been a shift from the notion of basic ‘quality audit’ through‘qualityassurance’andfinallyinrecentyearstowards‘qualityenhancement’.Withinthebroaderfocusonqualityaroundteachingandlearningpractices,e‐learningisaparticularfocusofinterest;inpartbecauseitchallengesmanyaspectsoftraditionalteachingandlearningprocessesandinpartbecauseitisseenashavingthepotentialtoactasaleveragetopromotioninnovation.
E‐learningquality–oreducationalqualityinawidercontext–isadiverseconcept.Itisnotanabsoluteandfixedcategorybutratherdependsonthesituationinwhichitisemployed.Nocountryhas(yet)reachedasocial,politicaloracademicconsensusonwhateducationalqualityactuallyis.Differentmethodsareusedtoassurequality,rangingfrommarket‐orientedinstruments,government‐drivenconsumerprotectionmechanisms and accreditation concepts to institutional strategies and individualinstruments.Approachescanhaveanexplicitintentionalcharacterorcanberatherimplicit–whenqualitydevelopmentislefttoindividuals’professionalcompetences.
Thedefinitionofqualityalwaystakesplaceasanormativeact,referringtoaspecificcontext. Consequently, situations and interests always influence its definition. Thisappliesspeciallytoqualityinthesectorofsocialandeducationalservices,sincethe
44
quality of those services is by nature only constituted in the moment of serviceprovision itself and through a negotiation and co‐production of the professionaleducationalactorandtheclient.
Tocriticallyanalyzequalityitishelpfultoidentifythebasicpointsofthedebate.Wecan distinguish between three fundamentally different aspects in the discussion(Ehlers2003):
Quality cannot be generalised. There is no direct relation between action andimpact;qualitydevelopment–asmuchaseducation–issituated,androotedinthecontextof a cultureanda learningenvironment.Definingquality thereforemeansnavigatingthismultidimensionalspace.Thereisnoeasyanswerorstandardqualityassurance solution.Onehas to abandon thehopeof only having todefinequalitycriteriaoncetobeabletoappraisee‐learning‐servicesandformatsproperly inthefuture. A key factor for e‐learning thuswill be a concise quality orientationwhichspansallprocessesandputslearnersfirst.Theymusttakethepolepositionsinthequality debate since their (professional) development is on stake – regardless offormalorinformalenvironments.
4.2 How OEP enhances quality and innovation in education It istruethatcurrentOERinitiativeslargelyfocusonbuildingaccesstoeducationalresources. It is also true that the international community of educationalpractitioners increasingly recognise that providing access to digital educationalresourceshasnotcausedasignificantuptake intheiruse,norhas itresulted inanimprovement inthequalityofeducationalprovision.Arguably,themissing link isafocus on the practice dimension rather than the resources themselves. Theavailability of resources has never been sufficient motivation or sufficientopportunity to change educational practices within organisation, policies orindividualbehaviour.AsHatakka (2009)questions in the titleofhispaper ‘Build itandwilltheycome?’
Pinning down what is meant by ‘quality’ and ‘innovation’ in OEP is complex anddifficult to quantify as the practice of developing OER varies from institution toinstitution,amongstgroupsofOERspecialistsandthosenewtotheareaaswellasbetweenlike‐mindedindividualswithasubjectinterestagreedoncreatinganOER.WiththisinminditisimportanttonotethatOERpracticeisanareathatmayormay
45
not observe national or, indeed, international boundaries. Resources may bedelivered in multiple languages and potentially crossing a number of differentculturesaswell as incorporatinga varietyof local educationalpractices. EachOERprojecthasaparticularstorytotellaboutits inception,creation,mechanismsusedforensuinggoodpracticeandpossiblefuturedevelopments.
Capturing this diverse practice enables us to build a picture of current issues andshouldleadtoagreaterunderstandingofhowOERcanbecreated,developedandusedinavarietyofsettings.Lessonsofwhatworksandwhatdoesnotareessentialto the further development of quality OER as well as their wider adoption in theeducationalcommunity.DeterminingtheperceivedqualityofthoseexistingOERandunderstanding any innovative methods used to create them can also helpforthcomingdevelopments in thewiderareaofeducationwhere theOERpracticemayormaynottakeplace.Oneemergingcasethatsupportsthisideahasbeenputforward by The Higher Education Academy (HEA) and JISC, UK, who argue that:‘makingeducationalresourcesopenbroadenstheiruse’(HEA/JISC2010).
Theevidencefromthedeskstudy,thusfar,showsthatdifferentcommunitieshavedeveloped a diverse collection of OER and have demonstrated a variety of goodeducational work. Comparing two of the case studies can illustrate some of thisvarietyof innovation inpracticeaswellasbeginningtoexemplifyemergingqualityissues.Thefirstcasestudy:theUKbasedPeople’sOpenAccessEducationalInitiative– the “People’s University” (http://www.peoples‐uni.org) are a relatively smallcommunity of practice focusing on the broad area of public health. Their aim, aseducators, istohelpwithPublicHealthcapacitybuildinginlowandmiddle‐incomecountries through Internet‐based education. They offer some 12 dedicated OERstudyunitstomorethan300studentsandareaccreditedtotheUKRoyalSocietyforPublicHealth.TheirOERcoursesareaccessibleviathecontentmanagementsystem,Moodle. OER teaching support is offered via the 4 Trustees and 11 internationaladvisors who are engaged by the project. The People’s University, although UKbased,thusaimstoofferitseducationtoaglobalaudiencethroughthemediumofEnglishthusdemonstratingthepotentialofOEP.
By contrast in the second case study, the Universia project, a consortium ofuniversities based in the European Union and Latin America, aims to provide“leadership in the development of the Information Society in Hispanic universityeducation” (http://mit.ocw.universia.net) ‐amuchbroader remit.Theyoffer some105 Spanish and 29 Portuguese OER courses in a variety of subject areas.AdditionallyUniversiahasalsoentered intoanagreementwith theMassachusettsInstitute of Technology (MIT) to translate some of their existing English mediumOpenCourseware(OCW)coursesintoSpanishandPortuguese.Universiaalsooffersan online discussion forum for Spanish speaking OCW users and a contrastingexampleofmulti‐lingualOEP.
Thus OEP in action can take different forms: focuses on geographical coverage,exploitation of different types of networking technologies and mechanisms forsharing, exploration of cultural or language issues such as the choice of languagemedium, as well as the actual scale of OER production, delivery and support.
46
Innovation can emerge during the development of OER and OEP as a result ofperceived needs, the individual circumstances of the developers: experience, timeframe and available resources. It may be a reaction to these factors or simplytranspiresasaresultofthelocalconditionsandperceivedOERstatus.Forexample,theOpenLearninitiativeintheOUUK,fundedbytheHewlettFoundation,wasbothan institutionally focussed initiative, with clear institutional strategic drive andcommitmentaswellasa flagshipexemplar forotherOERprojects. Incontrast theNDLRinIrelandfocusesverymuchatanationallevelwithapartnershipconsortiumarrangementofkeyinstitutions.
Open educational practices are practices where the open refers to opening andwideningtheparadigmofresourcesandcontent‐basededucation.Thevisionbehindit is to achieve a situation inwhich resources are no longer the sole focus, but inwhich the practiceswithin a specific domain (e.g. Engineering,Medicine, etc.) arethefocusofeducation.Notknowledgeonlybutresponsibilityistheobjectiveofsuchaneducationalvision.
Openeducationalpracticesaregoingbeyond the stateofavailabilityof resources.Open educational practices are practices in which a portfolio of educational,pedagogicalprocessesareconfiguredinsuchawaythatavailableopeneducationalresources areused tomove froman instructional paradigmof education inwhichthelearnerisseenasthereceiverofinformationandknowledge,andresourcesareusedto informthe learneraboutthingss/hedoesnotknow,toaparadigmwherethe knowledge is freely availablewhilst teachers and learners are striving to learnhowtonavigate inaprofessionaldomain,askingtherightquestionsandassessingthe suitabilityofmaterials for the respective arrayofproblems. Learners are thennotonlyreceiversbutalsocreatorsofknowledgeandresourceswhichtheycollectfrom the available resources on the net or othermedia andwhich they assembleintopersonalknowledgespaces,modify them into theirownknowledgeportfoliosand share themwithother learners andbecomepart of communities of practicesandmembersofnetworkscreatingnewknowledge.
Validationofknowledgeiskeyinsuchscenariosandisnoteasytoachieve,becausethesoleparadigmofrightandwrongisnolongeronlythefixedcurriculumbuttheproblemwhichhastobesolved,whichthelearnerstogetherwithfacilitatorsdefinedat the outset of their professonalisation process. Validation is a process of peer‐review, reflection and bench‐learning in which learners and facilitators togetherreflect in the suitability and usefulness of the acquired knowledge, skills andattitudes.Validationcomesmorefrompeersandexternalactorsinformofreviewsand peer‐reflections than from a ´fixed check against a standard portfolio. ThePeer2Peer OER project ably demonstrates this ethos in its fundamental aims andobjectives.
The vision of open educational practice includes a move from a resource‐basedlearning and outcomes‐based assessment, to a learning process in which socialprocesses, validation and reflection are at the heart of education, and learnersbecome experts in judging, reflection, innovation within a domain and navigationthroughdomainknowledge.
47
Toavoidmisunderstandingit is importanttostressthatopeneducationalpracticesdonotneglecttheimportanceoftheavailabilityofgoodresourcesbutthattheyaimat higher levels of cognition, such as understanding, connecting information,application of knowledge, competence action and responsible behaviour (North2001).
The visionof openeducational practices therefore involves all stakeholders of thehigher education and adult education governance community. It is a vision thatcannotbeachievedby learnersorteacherthemselvesbutdemandsthesupportofmanagement, administration, educational leaders and policy makers on local,regional,nationalandgloballevels.
4.3 Quality through OEP vs. Quality of OEP Thissectionprovidesanoutlineofmethods,conceptsandpracticesusedtoenhancethequalityofOEPandconsidersoneof the fundamentalquestionsunderlying theOPALproject,i.e.howcanabetterarticulationandunderstandingofOEPbeusedtoenhancequality?
Quality ineducationcanonlybeachievedthrougheducationalpractices.Afocus istherefore required on the logical framework of quality through open educationalpractices rather than on the quality of open educational practices. We areemphasising also thatweperceive that openingup educational practices is a newandchallengingconceptwhichwillputeducationalstakeholdersintonewsituationsand encourage them to move on from the long grown tradition of transmissivephilosophiestoparticipativeeducationalphilosophies.
Achieving quality OEP through the adoption of best appropriate educationalpracticescanbearguedtopromotethecreationanddeliveryofOERsthatarenotonly fit for purpose but also may incorporate the opportunity to increase newinnovativemethodsofdeliverytoandsharingwithawiderglobalaudience.Howthisisaccomplishedoftendependsuponlocalcircumstancesaswellasaccesstosuitabletechnological solutions and personal attitudes. It is informed by knowledge ofcurrentresearchintheareaofOERproductionaswellasdrawingfromexistingOEP.Assessing dissemination activities and observing or commenting on practicalworkshop/seminars,wherebothnewandexistingOER/OEPspecialistscanexchangeandshare thoseexperiences,are importantchannelsofcirculating ideasofqualityprocessesandproductionofOEPmethods.
In this respect theEuropeanAssociationofDistanceTeachingUniversities (EADTU)(http://www.eadtu.nl), in association with UNESCO, ran a very successful jointseminar inParis12‐13thMarch2009entitled:“QualityAssurance ineLearningandOpen Educational Resources”. The seminar focus was primarily on promoting theinternationalisationofglobaleducationwhilstrecognisingthat“qualityassuranceineLearning can be one of the main vehicles for cross‐border higher education”(UNESCO‐EADTU 2009). The main objective of the meeting was to compare theapproaches on quality assurance in eLearning in a forum of continents, thusencompassingglobalOEPexperiencethatincluded:
• ACDE: The establishment of Pan‐African standards, quality assurance andaccreditationfordistancelearningacrossAfrica
DuringtheEADTU‐UNESCOseminarattendeesalsohadtheopportunitytoassesstheopportunities and threats of OER production for the participating continents. Thiswas facilitated through the use of Force FieldAnalysis and resulting outputswerecapturedusingtheCompendiumKnowledgeMappingsoftware(Okada,Connolly&Lane,2010).Thispartoftheseminarwas,infact,thethirdinaseriesofstructuredworkshops deliveredwithin EADTUmeetingswhere ideas and experiences ofOERproductionandpracticeswereshared,presentedvisuallyinforcefielddiagramsandlater represented as Compendium knowledge maps. Results from the series ofworkshops can be seen on the MORIL section of the EADTU websitehttp://moril.eadtu.eu/.
2. Is it pedagogically robust in that theway thematerial has been structuredmatches a stated pedagogical model and sets out appropriate learningoutcomesandwaysofassessingthoseoutcomes?
3. Is the way the material is presented through the chosen media helpful inenablinglearnerstomeetthelearningoutcomes?
He argues that there are two distinct models of QA. For many OER the qualityassuranceiscarriedoutbytheoriginatinginstitutionsandthiswascertainlythecasewithmanyof thecasestudieswereviewed. Incontrast large‐scalepan‐institutioninitiativesorthosethatarenotinstitutionallybasedhaveadifferentmodel.HesitesConnexionsandWikiversityasexamples.HereOERtendtobe judgethroughopenpeer‐rating or reviewingmechanisms. Again we saw examples of this in the casestudiesarereviewed.
4.4 Innovation through OEP This section looks at examples of current innovative practices and considers howOEPcansupportinnovation.ItthenpresentsaframeworkforeducationalpracticesandinnovationandhowOEPsupportsinnovation
Kamien and Schwartz (1982) define two basic types of innovations: productinnovations andprocess innovations.Newproductsorprocesses are called radicalinnovations, while improved products and processes are called incrementalinnovations. In the context of OEP the innovation could focus on the educational
49
system (product) or on the teaching/instruction/learning support activity/practice(process).
A third aspect of innovation is its novelty in geographic terms. A worldwideinnovationreferstotheveryfirstimplementationofaneworimprovedproductorprocess.Firm‐onlyinnovationoccurswhentheneworimprovedproductorprocessisnovelfortheorganizationbuthasalreadybeenimplementedelsewhere.
Thethreeaspectsofinnovations
Innovation processes occur in interaction between institutional and organisationalelements that together may be called systems of innovation. The systems ofinnovation approach is considered by many to be useful tool for betterunderstanding of innovation processes as well as production and distribution ofknowledgeintheeconomy.
Themost recent innovation theories emphasize the importance collaboration andknowledgesharing foreffective innovation.Today’s innovationsdonotcome fromindividualsbut fromcollaboration.Workonsocialnetworks suggests thatmuchofthe most successful innovation occurs at the boundaries of organisations andindustrieswheretheproblemsandneedsofusers,andthepotentialoftechnologiescanbelinkedtogetherinacreativeprocessthatchallengesboth.
Educationalpracticesingeneralarediverse.InaEuropeancontextthereareasmanyeducational traditions as nations and sometimes even within nations there aredifferent debates, and educational streams to be considered. To talk aboutinnovationofeducationinthiscontextisunlikelytoleadtoanormativemodel;i.e.one particular educational approach as the one and only right to follow andinnovative.
Innovation in the context of open educational practices rather means to view aparticular educational practices field as a structural systemwhich always containsmoreclosed,stableandsetelementsandotherswhicharemorefluid,changingandopen.
The use of fixed curricula in formal educational setting, which are supplementedthroughexpert createdcontent thathas tobe learnt, is anexampleof closedandstableelementswithinmostEuropeanhighereducationsystems.
50
Opening this particular educational element would mean to disturb the so farreached, (if also forced), equilibrium and touch uponmany other elements of theeducational scenarios, as well. An example is the role of teachers. If fixedcurriculums and expert basedmaterial are suddenly complemented through openeducational resources, then the roleof teachersas thesolecontentsupplierofaneducational process is weakening and topics like authority and understanding ofwhatteachersrolesare,arehavingtoberedefined.
Innovation in this case comes through putting the existing assumptions of howeducational environments need to be shaped to discussion. Basically we can seethat changing one element in the configuration of the educational environmentleadstoacascadingredefinitionprocess–whichwecallinnovationthroughopeningeducationalpractices.
In our particular understandingwe have chose a specific viewpoint and that is topromote the use of open educational resources. We believe that this particularstarting point causes the cascade to touch upon many important and oftenunquestioned educational definitions, assumptions and paradigms. Therefore wechosethisparticularstartingpoint.
OEPhasdevelopedinanumberofdifferentways.OERsareproducedbyvarietyofinstitutions, groups and individuals. Each emerges from an almost unique historydependingonthecircumstancesoftheirdevelopment.Somehavespecificpaths:bybuilding on existing teaching practice, for example, or by reusing and adaptingpedagogy that translates into a form deemed suitable for OER delivery. A goodillustration of the latter can be seen in the OpenLearn project(http://openlearn.open.ac.uk)whereaselectionoftheselfstudymaterialsoftheUKOpen University were repurposed as OER study units. OEP, however, generallymaterialises from the needs and requirements of a variety of actors (mainlyUniversity staff, sometimes includes students) who come together with a specificpurposeinmind:thecreationofanOERtoresolveaparticularproblemorchallengeaswellashavingasoundpedagogicalbase.
This‘comingtogether’ofteachingandeducationaltechnologistsormediaspecialistsinaUniversityenvironmentcan,intandem,stimulateoriginalityandadvancementsto meet the potential requirements of a proposed OER. Again innovation thatemergesinthisareatakesmanyforms.EvidencefromtherecentOER10conference(http://www.ucel.ac.uk/oer10/) demonstrates how many pioneering OERdevelopments, for example, have emerged from the UK HEI community throughspecific HEA/JISC funded projects that have brought together groups of subjectspecialists within and across these HEIs. Each appears to have taken a differentapproach to thedevelopmentofanOERprojectandamongst the thirtyprojectsawidevarietyofinnovationisevident.
Oneprojectbased in theHEASubjectCentre forMedicine,Dentistry&VeterinaryMedicine(MEDEVhttp://www.medev.ac.uk)isagoodexampleofboththe“comingtogether” of different actors as well as being a very real source of innovationthrough a community of practice.MEDEV is a consortium of 18 UK HEIs that aredeveloping interesting OER toolkits and teaching resources. The resulting MEDEV
51
OERshavebeencreatedfromacrystallisationofmanydifferentideasfromsubjectspecialists in different UK HEIs collaborating for the development of specific OERmaterialsfortheMEDEVarena.
4.5 Strategy and Policy Supporting Quality through OEP Thissectionconsidersthestrategiesandpoliciesthatareusedaroundthecreation,use and management of OER. It will concentrate in particular on looking at howstrategy and policy are currently contributing to the support of quality andinnovation through OEP. It considers pan‐European, national and institutionalstrategiesandpolicies.
ThereareanumberofexampleswhereleadingprofessionalorganisationsorfundingbodieshaveprovidedstrategicdirectionintermsofpromotingOER.TheworkoftheHewlett Foundation and UNESCO are particularly noteworthy in this respect.Strategicdrivecantakeanumberofforms.Firstly,throughdeclarativestatementsofintent; both UNESCO and OECD for example articulate the direction of themovement by providing definitions for the term OER. Similarly some of the earlycommissionedreportshelpedtocapturetherangeofOERactivitiesandportraitthelandscape.Secondly, throughdedicatedfunding initiatives.TheHewlett foundationhasprovidedsignificantsupporttotheextentthatthereisarecognisedworldwidecommunityofHewletttrusteesandassociatedprojects.SimilarlymorerecentlytheJISC/HEAOERprogrammeintheUK.Thirdly,strategicdrivecanbesupportthroughfacilitative and capacity building activities; for example, the UNESCO OER wikiconsultationprogramme,andfunderevents,conferencesandworkshops.Thereforetheroleofstrategicstakeholdersistobothidentifyandarticulatethenatureoftheareaandprovidemomentumformovingitforward,butalsotoactasacriticallensandtosynthesiseandrepresentthecurrentstateofplayatcriticalmomentsastheareamoved forward.Positionalpapers, review reports,endofproject reportsandbroaderconsultationprocessesareallgoodexamplesofthis.
Once again it is possible to draw an analogy between the types of existingeducational practices and those of OER production. There are many policy‐ledpractices established in universities and institutions across Europe and worldwidethat focus on the creation and delivery of teaching in its many forms. It can beargued that in the case of OEP the distance teaching universities may have anadvantageovertheircampus‐basedcounterpartssimplybecausetheyoftenhaveanestablished production process for their educational materials. This does notpreclude the face‐to‐face universities adoptingOEP, rather that theymay have toadapttheirexistingprocessesinamuchmoresignificantandstrategicmanner.
IndeedtheemergentOERfromthedifferentstyleofinstitutionsalsoaddsvaluetotheir richness,diversity and rangeof content and resourcesassociatedwith them.ThiscanbeobservedfromthegatheringoforiginalmaterialsorassetsthatarethenreusedorrepurposedasOER.
Returning to policies, however, it is important to acknowledge a number ofinfluentialfactors:
• There is evidence that involvement in OER initiatives has had a number ofbenefits at the local level, including enhancing the reputation of institutionsinvolved, who are seen externally as being innovative in their e‐learningpractices.
• The breadth of OER initiatives now in operation means that we now have asizeablebodyofdataonthedevelopmentanduseofOERthatwecandrawonand hence we are in a good position to build both national and internationalcataloguesofpractice.
A number of significant national policies initiativeswere evidence across the casestudies reviewed. These included the OER leadership and drive provided by theHewlettfoundation,therelativelyrecentJISC/HEAOERnational,UKinitiative(the29projectsintheJISC/HEAOERprogrammearedividedintoinstitutional,individualandsubjectcentredOERprojects),andtheOpenCourseWareConsortium.Anumberofmore subject‐based developments were also evident. These provide a differentmeans of spreading innovation and have the advantage of working across andbetween institutions at the discipline level, building on established disciplinenetworks, whilst also enabling and encouraging the creation of new learningcommunities.
5ConclusionThisdocumenthasreportedontheworkdonetodateintermsofmappingtheOERterrainandinparticularanalysisofaseriesofOERcasestudies inordertoidentifyandarticulateassociatedOEP.Asetofdimensionshasbeenderivedanddescribed.This work will feed into the development of a broader OEP survey as describedearlierinthisreportandinmoredetailintheappendices.Ithasoutlinedsomeofthebarriers and enablers associatedwith the creation, use andmanagement of OER,categorisedunder fourmain types (technological, economic, social and legal). ThefollowingquotecapturestheessenceoftheOERmovement:
“Education and science have a longstanding tradition of openness andsharing.TheOERmovementisbutthelatestexample.However,whenlistingothermotives for institutionsto initiateOERprojects, itbecomesclear thatwhatatfirstappearstobeaparadox–givingintellectualpropertyawayina
53
competitive world – might actually be a way of handling a changinglandscape for higher education. Institutions are experimenting with newways of producing, using and distributing learning content, novel forms ofcoveringtheircostsandmoreefficientwaysofattractingstudents.Thesameistrueforindividualteachersandresearchers.Althoughmanyaredrivenbywillingness to share and co‐produce with peers, other motivations existsimultaneously, maybe even for the same individuals. One of the currentstrengths of the OER movement is that it allows multiple motivationalsystemstocoexist.”(OpeneLearningContentObservatoryServices2007:68)
This quote illustrates that there are a number of development stages involved inachievingthevisioninherentintheOERmovement.Thefirstisessentiallypragmatic;it is concernedwith the creationofOERandaccess.However the second ismuchmore important, it is about radical transformation and about how OER canfundamentallychangeteachingpracticeandthenatureoftheteacher‐learnernexus.Andindeedarguablythisradicaltransformationisessentialifwearetokeepapacewithandmakesenseoftherapidlychangingcontextwithinwhichmoderneducationoperates.Weneedtobeproactiveinharnessingtheaffordancesnewtechnologiesoffer,ratherthantaketheroleofmeekrecipientsorbystandersastotheirimpact.Furthermore,ifwedon’tactasexistingestablishedinstitutionsarguablyotherswithavisionwill.
Figure 1: Propose framework for analysing the factors
Our intention, as part of the next steps with this work, is to derive appropriatetheoretical lenses to describe and make sense of our emerging understanding ofOEP.Anumberofexistingframeworksarebeingconsideredatthisstageaspotentialcandidatesto includeand/oradapt.Thefirst isaframeworkthatmayenableustomap the dimensions of OEP identified in the case study review across differentfactors:
A second set of tools thatmight be useful is parallel work around articulation ofunderstanding thecompleteOEReffectivenesscycle,which isemerging fromworkat the Open University as part of the OU Learning Design Initiative(http://ouldi.open.ac.uk) and Olnet (http://olnet.org). In particular we havedeveloped a set of conceptual, visual and collaborative tools for articulating andrepresentingtheinherentdesignsofeducationalofferings(thesecanincludewholecoursesorprogrammes,individuallearningactivitiesorOER).Figure2illustratesthethreetypesoflearningdesigntoolsthathavebeenidentified:Conceptualorthinkingtools(fivedesignviewsforexampleare listed),collaborativetools(theCloudworkssiteforsharinganddiscussinglearningandteachingideasanddesignsislisted)andvisualisation tools (CompendiumLD is sited as a visualisation tools that has beendeveloped which enables users to and articulate their design process visually).
Figure 2: Types of learning design tools
LearningDesigntoolsthatmightbeappliedtoOERandOEP
Finally,more generic tools such as Activity theorymay be useful as a descriptiontool; considering OEP in terms for the associatedmediating artefacts involved, aswell as the the rules/conventions, the community involved and the division oflabour.
55
Figure 3: Examples of the types of mediating artefacts that can be used in the design process
Downes, S., 2007. Models for sustainable open educational resources.Interdisciplinaryjournalofknowledgeandlearningobjects,3,29–44.EducationalResources(OER)Movement:Achievements,Challenges,andNewOpportunities.Ehlers,U.D.andVogels,P.(2010),OpenEducationalResources–TheirQualityandUsage.Ehlers,U.‐D.(2003):ZumStandderForschung:QualitätbeimE‐Learning[Stateoftheartinresearchforqualityine‐learning].In:Ehlers,U.‐D.,Gerteis,W.,Holmer,T.,Jung,H.(Hrsg.)(2003):E‐Learning‐ServicesimSpannungsfeldvonPädagogik,ÖkonomieundTechnologie.L³‐LebenslangesLernenimBildungsnetzwerkderZukunft.BielefeldEhlers,U.‐D.(2004).QualitätimE‐LearningausLernersicht.Grundla‐gen,EmpirieundModellkonzeptionsubjektiverQualität[Qualityfromalearner’sperspective].Wiesbaden.Ehlers,U.‐D.(2005).AParticipatoryApproachtoE‐Learning‐Quality.AnewPerspectiveontheQualityDebate.In:LLine‐JournalforLifelongLearninginEurope.Vol.XI/2005.Ehlers,U.‐D.(2007):QualityLiteracy‐CompetencesforQualityDevelopmentinEducationandE‐Learning.In:EducationalTechnology&So‐ciety,PalmerstonNorth,NewZealand10(2).Ehlers,U.‐D.,Pawlowski,J.M.(2006):HandbookofQualityandStan‐dardisationinE‐Learning.SpringerVerlag.HeidelbergEhlers,U.‐D.,Hildebrandt,B.,Pawlowski,J.M.,Teschler,S.(2004):TheEuropeanQualityObservatory.EnhancingQualityforTomorrow’sLearners.In:SupportingtheLearnerinDistanceEducationandE‐Learning,ProceedingsoftheThirdEDENResearchWorkshop,Olden‐burg,Germany,S.138‐145.EuropeanUniversitiesAssociation(2006).QualityCultureinEuropeanUniversities:ABottom‐upApproach.ReportontheThreeRoundsoftheQualityCultureProject2002‐2006.Brussels.Faulstich,P.,Gnahs,D.&Sauter,E.(2003).QualitätsmanagementinderberuflichenWeiterbildung:einGestaltungsvorschlag[Qualitymanage‐mentinVET].AvailablefromInternet:http://www.europanozert.de/epz/dokumente/Studie‐Weiterbildung.pdf(cited15.01.2005).Fink,L.D.(2003).CreatingSignificantLearningExperiences.SanFrancisco.
TheBroaderOERLandscapeThis appendix provides a description of the broader OER landscape. This includesotherOERinitiativesthathavenotyetbeenscrutinisedaccordingtotheOPALOERcasestudy template,aswellasbroader initiatives.Thisdeliverable formsan initialstartingpointintermsofdocumentingcasestudies.Theaimistocontinuegatheringcase studies and to encourage broader community engagement in terms ofsubmittingcasestudiesandcommentingonexistingones.
• EstablishedOERprojectsAnumberoffunders(suchastheHewlettFoundation,Shuttleworth,andUNESCO)have had, and continue to have, a significant influence on the nature of OERinitiatives, in terms of the funding they provide but also through other forms ofpromotion and support. Examples of different types of initiatives include;EADTU/MORIL, EU funded FP7 programmes e.g. ICOPER, ASPECT, ROLE, STELLAR,andtheOpenScoutinitiative,investigatingvariousaspectsofOERmovements.
The following alphabetical listing outlines a selection of these varied projectssourced fromhttp://wikieducator.org/Exemplary_Collection_of_institutions_with_OER_policy
Anadolu University, Yunusemre Lifelong Open Learning Portal, Turkey
AnadoluUniversity,(founded1958)establishedtheOpenEducationFacultyin1982.It istheonly institutionofferingbothon‐campusanddistanceeducationinTurkey.AnadoluUniversitysupports life‐long learningand ithasbeenoffering149contentrich courses free through its Yunusemreeducationportal. The courses include thefollowingcomponents;e‐books,e‐courses,e‐TV,e‐audiobooksande‐practice.
BELLE was a $3.4 million shared‐cost project (2002) funded under the CANARIELearningProgram.BELLE'sobjectivewastodevelopaprototypeeducationalobjectrepository.ItisapartnershipledbytheNeteraAlliance.
75
Athabasca University - Open University, Canada
http://www.athabascau.ca/
Athabasca University (AU) is Canada's leading distance‐education and onlineuniversity and serves over 38,000 students (over 7,300 full‐load equivalents) andoffersover700coursesinmorethan90undergraduateandgraduateprogramsinarangeofarts,scienceandprofessionaldisciplines.TheUniversitystrivestoremovethebarriersoftime,space,pasteducationalexperience,and,toagreatdegree,levelof income. Individualizedstudycoursesallowastudentto learnattheirownpace.Flexible instruction frees students from the demands of specified class times andrigid institutional schedules. For undergraduate individualized study courses, therearenoadmissionsdeadlines’studentsmayenrolyear‐round.
The OpenCourseWare Consortium is a collaboration of more than 100 highereducationinstitutionsandassociatedorganizationsfromaroundtheworldcreatingabroad and deep body of open educational content using a shared model. ThemissionoftheOpenCourseWareConsortiumistoadvanceeducationandempowerpeopleworldwidethroughopencourseware.
Japanese OpenCourseWare Alliance (JOCW), Japan
http://www.jocw.jp/
TheJOCWistheconsortium(established2006)ofJapaneseUniversitieswhichhavebeen providing OCW in JAPAN and also participates in the OCW as an Affiliatemember.
Digital Repository Infrastructure Vision for European Research (DRIVER)
http://www.driver‐repository.eu/
DRIVER aims to establish a cohesive, pan‐European infrastructure of DigitalRepositories, for both researchers and the general public. It sets out to build anadvanced infrastructure for the future knowledge of the EuropeanResearchArea.AimedtobecomplimentarytoGEANT2,thesuccessfulinfrastructureforcomputingresources, data storage and data transport, DRIVER will deliver the contentresources, i.e. any form of scientific output, including scientific/technical reports,working papers, pre‐prints, articles and original research data. The vision is toestablish the successful interoperation of both data network and knowledgerepositories as integral parts of the E‐infrastructure for research and education inEurope.
Carnegie Mellon's Open Learning Initiative (OLI) is a collection of "cognitivelyinformed,"openlyavailableandfreeonlinecoursesandcoursematerialsthatenactinstructionforanentirecourse inanonline format. Ideally, thecoursesdevelopedand delivered through theOLI projectwill be used by instructors and students inColleges and Universities throughout the world as well as individuals seekingeducation who are not affiliated with an institution. OLI should have a profoundimpactonhighereducationbyincreasingaccesstoeducation,enhancingthequalityof instruction and providing a model for a new generation of online courses andcoursematerialsthatteachmoreeffectivelyandappealtostudentsmorepowerfullythananythinginexistencetoday.
EuropeanSchoolnet (EUN) isauniquenot‐for‐profitconsortiumof28ministriesofeducation in Europe created in 1997. EUN provides major European educationportalsforteaching,learningandcollaborationandleadsthewayinbringingaboutchangeinschoolingthroughtheuseofnewtechnology.EUN’sworkisorganisedinthreestrandscorresponding to its coreobjectiveof supporting theefficientuseofICT ineducationandtheEuropeandimension ineducation;schoolnetworkingandpractice;knowledgebuildingandexchangeonICTandpracticeandInteroperabilityandcontentexchange.
The Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning in Reusable Learning Objects (CETL), United Kingdom
http://www.rlo‐cetl.ac.uk/joomla/index.php
The Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning (CETL) in Reusable LearningObjectsisaconsortiumconsistingofLondonMetropolitanUniversity,theUniversityof Cambridge and theUniversity of Nottingham. It is one of a suite of Centres ofExcellence in Teaching and Learning funded through HEFCE in the UK. The CETLdevelops, shares and evaluates learning objects and leads on innovation inpedagogicaldesignandtriestoachievethewidespreaduseandreuseofhighqualitylearningobjects.
ParisTech, France
http://www.paristech.fr/en
ParisTech is a collectiveentity that includes twelveof themostprestigious FrenchinstitutesofeducationandresearchItstartedinNovember2003andaimstomakeavailable some of their educational resources (lecture notes, exercises, yearly
77
archives, simulations, animations, course notes and videos). One target of thisproject is to promote the excellent high quality teaching provided by thoseinstitutions, in order to attract foreign students. Another goal of the project is tocontributetobridgethedigitaldividebymakingavailableOpenAccessEducationalResources, in accordancewith the recommendations of theWorld Summit on theInformationSociety(WSIS).ThisinitiativeappearsintheWSISstocktakingdatabase.Thisprojectisbasedonthreeprinciples:
Commonwealth of Learning (COL), Global
http://www.col.org/Pages/default.aspx
The Commonwealth of Learning (COL), based in Vancouver, Canada, is anintergovernmentalorganisationcreatedbyCommonwealthHeadsofGovernmenttoencourage the development and sharing of open learning/distance educationknowledge,resourcesandtechnologies.COL ishelpingdevelopingnations improveaccess toqualityeducationand training.Twoonlinedatabasesof learningcontentthat provides support to Commonwealth countries free of charge. Institutions orgovernmentscanusetheserepositoriestoaccessarangeoffreelearningcontent.
Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) Digital Repositories, United Kingdom
JISC provides funded for technical and educational projects and is committed toenabling the UK education and research communities to engage in national andglobalcollaborations.Ithasfundedarangeofinitiativesaroundthecreationanduseofdigitalresources.Thishasincludedsignificantworkondigitalrepositories.
Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) and Higher Education Academy (HEA) Open Educational Resources programme, United Kingdom
BetweenApril 2009‐April 2010 the JISC and theHEA funded a series of pilots andactivitiestopromotetheopenreleaseoflearningresources.Projectswererequiredtomakea significant amountofexisting learning resources freely availableonline,licensed in such away to enable them to be used and repurposed worldwide. 29projects were funded in total, around three themes (individual researcher,institutionallybasedandsubject‐based).
In accordance with the spirit of the Declaration of the Budapest Open AccessInitiative,theECHOCharterandtheBethesdaStatementonOpenAccessPublishing,theBerlinDeclarationpromotestheInternetasafunctionalinstrumentforaglobalscientific knowledge base and human reflection and to specify measures whichresearch policy makers, research institutions, funding agencies, libraries, archivesand museums need to consider. The Berlin Declaration states that, ‘Establishingopenaccess as aworthwhileprocedure ideally requires theactive commitmentofeach and every individual producer of scientific knowledge and holder of culturalheritage’. In signing the "Berlin Declaration", the research organizations advocateconsistently using the Internet for scientific communication and publishing. Theirrecommendations in favour of open access are directed not only at researchinstitutionsbut alsoand to the sameextent at cultural institutes suchas libraries,archives,andmuseums.
IIEP‐UNESCO hosts a Wiki that offers a list of several portals, gateways andrepositories. It offers a list of links to OER initiatives, resources and tools. It wascompiled following the first IIEP discussion forum onOpen Educational Resources(24 October ‐ 2 December 2005). It offers access to a selection of approximatelythirtyrepositoriesofopenlearningobjects,mostlyattheuniversitylevel.
Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and Online Teaching) (MERLOT), North America
http://www.merlot.org/merlot/index.htm
MERLOT provides free and open resources designed primarily for faculty andstudents of higher education. MERLOT is a growing catalogue of online learningmaterials, peer reviews, learning assignments, and user comments, organized bydiscipline into specific discipline communities and created to help faculty enhancetheirinstruction,andthatanyonecanuseforfree.
OER Commons, North America
http://www.oercommons.org/
OERCommonsisateachingandlearningnetworkofferingabroadselectionofhigh‐qualityOpen Educational Resources that are freely available online to use and, inmanycases,toadapt,tosupportindividualizedteachingandlearningpractices.Itisthe first comprehensiveopen learningportalwhere teachersandprofessors (frompre‐Ktograduateschool)canaccesstheircolleagues’coursematerials,sharetheir
79
own,andcollaborateonaffectingtoday’sclassrooms.Itusesweb2.0features(tags,ratings, comments, reviews, and social networking) to createanonlineexperiencethatengageseducatorsinsharingtheirbestteachingandlearningpractices.
Open Courseware Directory (OCD)
http://iberry.com/cms/OCW.htm
The Open Courseware Directory is an annotated listing of publicly availablecourseware (lecture notes, handouts, slides, tutorial material, exam questions,quizzes, videos, demonstrations, etc) from the world's universities, colleges andothereducationalinstitutions.Itwascreatedandismaintainedbyiberry.com,anon‐profitprivatewebsite,servingtheinternationalacademiccommunity.
TheOCWFinder currently shows results fromseveral collections;MITOCW ,UtahStateUniversity,JohnsHopkinsSchoolofPublicHealthOCW,TuftsUniversityOCW,FoothillDe‐AnzaSOFIA,andCarnegieMellonOpenLearningInitiative.
ide@s, North America
http://www.ideas.wisconsin.edu/
This is an initiativeby theUniversity ofWisconsin to identify, evaluate, catalogue,and align to theWisconsin education standards resources that are already on theInternet, such as lesson plans and reference materials. These resources are thenmade available from the ide@s search engine for pre‐kindergarten to highereducationandadulteducation.
JORUM, United Kingdom
http://www.jorum.ac.uk/
JORUM is funded by JISC (the Joint Information Systems Committee), JORUM is acollaborative venture in UK Higher and Further Education to collect and sharelearningandteachingmaterials,allowingtheirreuseandrepurposing,andstandingas a national statement of the importance of creating interoperable, sustainablematerials.Userscanaccessthelearningandteachingmaterials(whichcoverarangeof subject areas) to enhance their students learning experience. Materials rangefromsingleassets (documents, images,diagrams) tomorecomprehensive learningobjects (interactive units and content packages). JORUM accepts learning andteachingresourcesacrossallsubjectareasforbothHigherandFurthereducationintheUK
Maricopa learning exchange (MLX), North America
http://www.mcli.dist.maricopa.edu/mlx/
The Maricopa Learning eXchange (MLX) is an electronic warehouse of ideas,examples, and resources that support student learning for the state of Arizona
80
Maricopa Community Colleges. These resourcesmight include a particular lesson,technique,method,activity,orassignmentdevelopedand/ortaught.
Monterey Institute for Technology and Education National Repository of Online Courses (NROC), North America
http://www.montereyinstitute.org/nroc/
NROC isagrowing libraryofhigh‐qualityonlinecourses forstudentsandfaculty inhighereducation,highschoolandAdvancedPlacement.CoursesintheNROClibraryarecontributedbydevelopersfromleadingonline‐learningprogramsacrosstheUS.All courses are assessed to ensure they meet high standards of scholarship,instructional value and presentational impact. NROC works with developers andcontributes resources to improve course quality and to provide ongoingmaintenance.Coursesaredesignedtocoverthebreadthanddepthoftopicsbasedon generally accepted US curricula and can also be customised within a coursemanagementsystem.NROCpartnerswithacademicinstitutions,publishers,teachingorganizations,USstateandfederalagencies,internationaldistributorsandotherstocreateaglobaldistributionnetworktoprovidecoursestostudents,teachersandthegeneralpublicatlittleornocost.
National Learning Network Materials (NLN), United Kingdom
http://www.nln.ac.uk/
Working in partnership with subject experts and commercial developers, BECTA's(British Educational Communications and Technology Agency) the NLN MaterialsTeam has commissioned and managed the development of Further Education e‐learningmaterials foruse inVirtualLearningEnvironments.ThematerialsspantheUK post‐16 Further Education curriculum and are designed to be fitted easily intoexistingteaching.
SchoolNet, Canada
http://www.schoolnet.org.uk/
InEnglishandFrench,SchoolNet isapartnershipwiththeprovincialandterritorialgovernments, the education community and the private sector in Canada, whichpromotestheeffectiveuseofinformationandcommunicationstechnologies(ICT)inlearning.
United Nations University (UNU) Open Course Ware, Global
http://ocw.unu.edu/
The United Nations University is a member of the OpenCourseWare (OCW)Consortium and is committed to the development of an OCW website thatshowcasesthetrainingandeducationalprogrammesimplementedbytheUniversityinawiderangeofareasrelevanttotheworkoftheUnitedNations.
World Lecture Hall (WLH), North America
http://wlh.webhost.utexas.edu/
81
World LectureHall is a project of the Center for Instructional Technologies at theUniversityofTexasatAustin.Thisprojectpublisheslinkstopagescreatedbyfacultyworldwidewhoareusingthewebtodelivercoursematerialsinanylanguage.Somecourses can be accessed as full text. Materials include syllabi, course notes,assignments, and audio and video streaming. The WLH contains links to coursematerialsforuniversity‐levelcourses.
Textbook Revolution, Global
http://textbookrevolution.org/index.php/Main_Page
Textbook Revolution is a student‐run site dedicated to increasing the use of freeeducationalmaterialsbyteachersandprofessors.Theapproachistobringallofthefreetextbookstogether inoneplace,reviewthem,and letthebestrisetothetopandfindtheirwayintothehandsofstudentsinclassroomsaroundtheworld.
Wisconsin Online Resource Center, North America
http://www.wisc‐online.com/
The Wisconsin Online Resource Center is a digital library of Web‐based learningresources it has been developed primarily by faculty staff from the WisconsinTechnical College Systemandproducedbymultimedia technicianswho create thelearningobjectsfortheonlineenvironment.
