Content uploaded by Marjan Vermeulen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marjan Vermeulen
Content may be subject to copyright.
Open Educational
Resources: Innovation,
Research and Practice
C O L
C O L
Rory McGreal, Wanjira Kinuthia and Stewart Marshall
Editors
PERSPECTIVES ON OPEN AND DISTANCE LEARNING
Open Educational Resources: Innovation, Research and Practice
PERSPECTIVES ON OPEN
AND DISTANCE LEARNING
PRINTED IN CANADA
“Everyone has the right to education.”
UNESCO Paris Declaration on OER, 2012
“Educators worldwide are developing a vast pool of educational resources on the
Internet, open and free for all to use. These educators are creating a world where
each and every person on earth can access and contribute to the sum of all human
knowledge. They are also planting the seeds of a new pedagogy where educators
and learners create, shape and evolve knowledge together, deepening their skills
and understanding as they go.”
Cape Town Declaration, 2007
Open Educational Resources (OER) — that is, teaching, learning and research materials
that their owners make free to others to use, revise and share — offer a powerful means
of expanding the reach and effectiveness of worldwide education. Those resources can be
full courses, course materials, modules, textbooks, streaming videos, software, and other
materials and techniques used to promote and support universal access to knowledge.
This book, initiated by the UNESCO/COL Chair in OER, is one in a series of publications by
the Commonwealth of Learning (COL) examining OER. It describes the movement in detail,
providing readers with insight into OER’s significant benefits, its theory and practice, and its
achievements and challenges. The 16 chapters, written by some of the leading international
experts on the subject, are organised into four parts by theme:
1. OER in Academia – describes how OER are widening the international community of
scholars, following MIT’s lead in sharing its resources and looking to the model set by
the OpenCourseWare Consortium
2. OER in Practice – presents case studies and descriptions of OER initiatives underway
on three continents
3. Diffusion of OER – discusses various approaches to releasing and “opening” content,
from building communities of users that support lifelong learning to harnessing new
mobile technologies that enhance OER access on the Internet
4. Producing, Sharing and Using OER – examines the pedagogical, organisational,
personal and technical issues that producing organisations and institutions need to
address in designing, sharing and using OER
Instructional designers, curriculum developers, educational technologists, teachers,
researchers, students, others involved in creating, studying or using OER: all will find this
timely resource informative and inspiring.
Printed according to environmentally progressive print practices, using chlorine-free,
recycled fibres. Electricity used in manufacturing the paper stock has been offset by
Green-e renewable energy certificates.
OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES: INNOVATION, RESEARCH
AND PRACTICE
PERSPECTIVES ON OPEN AND DISTANCE LEARNING
Published by Commonwealth of Learning and Athabasca University, Vancouver, 2013
Open Educational
Resources: Innovation,
Research and Practice
PERSPECTIVES ON OPEN AND DISTANCE LEARNING
Rory McGreal, Wanjira Kinuthia and Stewart Marshall
Editors
Tim McNamara
Managing Editor
The Commonwealth of Learning (COL) is an intergovernmental organisation
created by Commonwealth Heads of Government to encourage the development
and sharing of open learning and distance education knowledge, resources and
technologies.
Commonwealth of Learning and Athabasca University, 2013
© 2013 by the Commonwealth of Learning and Athabasca University.
PERSPECTIVES ON OPEN AND DISTANCE LEARNING: Open Educational
Resources: Innovation, Research and Practice is made available under a Creative
Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Licence (international):
http://creativecommons.org/licences/by-sa/3.0.
For the avoidance of doubt, by applying this licence the Commonwealth of
Learning and Athabasca University do not waive any privileges or immunities from
claims that they may be entitled to assert, nor do the Commonwealth of Learning
and Athabasca University submit themselves to the jurisdiction, courts, legal
processes or laws of any jurisdiction.
PERSPECTIVES ON OPEN AND DISTANCE LEARNING: Open Educational
Resources: Innovation, Research and Practice
Rory McGreal, Wanjira Kinuthia and Stewart Marshall, Editors
Tim McNamara, Managing Editor
ISBN 978-1-894975-62-9
Published by:
With support from:
COMMONWEALTH OF LEARNING
1055 West Hastings, Suite 1200
Vancouver, British Columbia
Canada V6E 2E9
Telephone: +1 604 775 8200
Fax: +1 604 775 8210
Web: www.col.org
E-mail: info@col.org
UNESCO/COL CHAIR IN OER
Technology Enhanced Knowledge
Research Institute
Athabasca University
Peace Hills Trust Tower
1200, 10011 – 109 Street
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada T5J 3S8
Telephone: +1 855 807-0756
(toll free in Canada & USA)
+1 780 235-0901
(international)
Web: tekri.athabascau.ca
E-mail: rory@athabascau.ca
iii
Contents
Foreword ...............................................................................................................v
Contributors ............................................................................................................... vii
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................... xiii
Introduction: The Need for Open Educational Resources..........................................xv
Rory McGreal, Athabasca University
PART I: OER in Academia
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 3
Chapter 1
Massive Open Online Courses: Innovation in Education? ................................... 5
George Siemens, Athabasca University
Chapter 2
Academic Knowledge Mobilisation to Promote
Cultural Change Towards Openness in Education ............................................. 17
José Vladimir Burgos Aguilar and Maria Soledad Ramírez Montoya,
Tecnológico de Monterrey
Chapter 3
365 Days of Openness: The Emergence of OER
at the University of Cape Town ........................................................................... 33
Cheryl Hodgkinson-Williams, Michael Paskevicius, Glenda Cox,
Shihaam Shaikh, Laura Czerniewicz and Samantha Lee-Pan,
University of Cape Town
Chapter 4
Open Educational Resources University:
An Assessment and Credit for Students Initiative .............................................. 47
Rory McGreal, Athabasca University
Wayne Mackintosh, OER Foundation
Jim Taylor, University of Southern Queensland
PART II: OER in Practice
Introduction ............................................................................................................... 63
Chapter 5
Open Education Research: From the Practical to the Theoretical ..................... 65
Patrick McAndrew and Robert Farrow, Open University UK
Chapter 6
Realising the Open in Open Educational Resources:
Practical Concerns and Solutions ...................................................................... 79
Norm Friesen, Thompson Rivers University
Chapter 7
Approaches to the Production and Use of OERs:
The African Virtual University Experience ........................................................... 91
Bakary Diallo, Catherine Wangeci Thuo (Kariuki) and
Clayton R. Wright, African Virtual University
iv
Chapter 8
Sharing of Open Science Education Resources and
Educational Practices in Europe ....................................................................... 105
Demetrios G. Sampson and Panagiotis Zervas,
University of Piraeus
Sofoklis Sotiriou, Ellinogermaniki Agogi
PART III: Diffusing OER
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 125
Chapter 9
Open Educational Resources: Access to Knowledge —
A Personal Reflection ....................................................................................... 127
Susan D’Antoni, Athabasca University
Chapter 10
How OER Support Lifelong Learning ............................................................... 141
Andy Lane, Open University UK
Chapter 11
An Open “Materials” Repository and Global Search System:
Preparing for Diverse Learners and a Variety of Learning Processes .............. 153
Tsuneo Yamada, Open University of Japan
Chapter 12
Wikiwijs: Using OER as a Driver for Maturation ............................................... 165
Robert Schuwer, Open Universiteit in the Netherlands
Part IV: Producing, Sharing and Using OER
Introduction ............................................................................................................. 175
Chapter 13
Why Teachers Share Educational Resources:
A Social Exchange Perspective ........................................................................ 177
Frederik Van Acker, Hans van Buuren, Karel Kreijns and
Marjan Vermeulen, Open Universiteit in the Netherlands
Chapter 14
Can Open Educational Resources Thrive in Closed Educational
Systems? Some Reflections on OER in Developing Countries ........................ 193
Abdurrahman Umar, Balasubramanian Kodhandaraman and
Asha Kanwar, Commonwealth of Learning
Chapter 15
The Role of Open Educational Resources in Personal Learning ...................... 207
Stephen Downes, National Research Council of Canada
Chapter 16
Towards a Sustainable Inter-Institutional Collaborative
Framework for Open Educational Resources (OER) ........................................ 223
Dick Ng’ambi, University of Cape Town
Airong Luo, University of Michigan
v
Foreword
Since the UNESCO Paris Declaration on OER adopted by the global community
in June 2012, there have been a number of developments, and the key question is
no longer about the “how” of OER development. We are no longer talking about
authoring tools or distribution systems. It is more about realising the value to
be derived from OER. This involves defining an OER value chain that will help
stakeholders identify the various sub-systems in the chain that link the individual
teacher’s or learner’s contribution relating to OER use, to bigger initiatives such
as good-quality open textbooks or Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs)
which could lead to viable academic qualifications and credentials involving
institutions.
The development and exchange of OER continues to be a technologically
intensive process. Technological considerations in OER are not limited to
authoring or remixing tools. Collaborative production of OER requires well-
designed and robust online spaces and infrastructure (Wikiwijs) and repositories.
The latter can also be used to combine OER to create lesson plans online (Open
Science Education Resources in Europe). Unless OER are consistently and
adequately described, they cannot easily be located in online searches. The
chapter on GLOBE considers these challenges and oers solutions. COL’s earlier
publications on OER oered insights and advice on good institutional practices,
business models and policy matters.
However, the social dimension emerges as an important factor from a number
of chapters in this book. The study on OpenLearn shows that when OER are
taken directly from formal courses, the biggest impact is on the formation of
communities of learners around the OER. This is similar to the conclusion of
the chapter on OER for Lifelong Learning, both reflecting the experience of the
UK’s Open University. The African Virtual University (AVU) chapter reveals
the importance of the formation of a consortium of OER producers across
institutions and countries. This process requires subtle yet intensive facilitation
for its sustenance and is important for the quality assurance of OER. The detailed
analysis of the experience of the African Health OER Network also points to the
viability of viewing OER as a social practice.
In two dierent chapters that focus on MOOCs (contributed by the global
pioneers of MOOCs), what emerges is that even if the teachers do not use OER,
the learners draw upon OER through their own social space and networks. The
chapter based on COL’s experience reveals that the existing hierarchies and
power relationships in many developing country institutions do not allow for
the decentralisation that fosters and encourages the use of OER. The experience
of the Open University in the Netherlands reveals the significant role of trust in
encouraging the increased use and sharing of OER.
vi
The chapter on OERu identifies more fully all the linkages and sub-systems in
the OER value chain. It also shows the importance of how trust-based interactions
among institutions can advance the value of OER for a wide range of stakeholders.
Thus, it is not just lack of policy that can hold back OER development and re-use, but
an inadequate appreciation of the social aspects as well. Chapters on OER in academia
(Mexico and South Africa) show the importance of blending bottom-up processes
of OER generation and exchange among faculty with top-down policy support. It is
significant that this book combines the technology aspects with social values and
the impact that these have on the users and creators of OER.
Licensing considerations are inseparable from discussions of OER and are taken
up in a separate chapter. This book of research articles about OER is itself an
OER, as are the individual chapters, all available under a Creative Commons 3.0
attribution Share-Alike licence. Published by COL, the book is produced as part
of the work plan of the UNESCO/COL Chair, which was granted to Athabasca
University and is led by Professor Rory McGreal, one of the editors. The other
editors, Dr. Wanjira Kinuthia and Emeritus Professor Stewart Marshall, are part of
the international group of UNESCO/COL Chair partners.
Contributions in this volume provide insights, experience-based case studies
and analyses which will help readers grasp the essential contours of the OER
value chain. COL’s OER publications in the last two years provide the most
comprehensive view of the various sub-systems and linkages in the non-U.S.
milieu, and this book is yet another contribution in that direction.
The individual book chapters are included in the OER Knowledge Cloud
(oerknowledgecloud.org), which is a Web repository of more than 400 research
papers and reports on OER. This Knowledge Cloud provides researchers with free
and easy access to the OER research knowledge base, including refereed papers,
presentations, dissertations, reports and other OER-related publications. The
cloud has been created at Athabasca University as part of the international Chair
work plan. The rationale for this is the growing need for a substantial expansion
of the OER research base that can provide researchers with the means to explore
new knowledge about OER. It is hoped that this book, along with the OER
Knowledge Cloud, can provide a solid foundation supporting the introduction
and implementation of OER innovations, increasing the research evidence and
providing guidance for OER in practice.
Given COL’s commitment to implementing the recommendations of the
Paris OER Declaration, COL will continue its advocacy eorts, encourage the
development of policy, support capacity building and promote OER research.
Some of the key global leaders in the OER movement have shared their valuable
experiences and insights along all these dimensions in this book, which I most
heartily commend to you.
Professor Asha Kanwar
President & Chief Executive Ocer
Commonwealth of Learning
vii
Contributors
José Vladimir Burgos Aguilar is Open Content Coordinator and Liaison Ocer
of Innovation and Educational Technology at the Innov@TE Center, Center
for Innovation in Technology and Education at the Virtual University of the
Tecnológico de Monterrey. He is also project manager of OCW Tecnológico de
Monterrey and temoa.info (Knowledge Hub/OER search engine).
Glenda Cox is a lecturer at the Centre for Educational Technology, University
of Cape Town. She focuses on curriculum projects, teaching with technology,
innovation grants, OER (Open Educational Resources) and sta development.
Laura Czerniewicz is Director of the Centre for Educational Technology at the
University of Cape Town. She is the research leader on a project on students’
technological habitus use in higher education institutions in South Africa. She is
also researching: the emergent knowledge domain of the field; mobile learning;
the digital divide and ICTs; and scholarly communication.
Susan D’Antoni is Advisor to the President for International OER (Open
Educational Resources) Initiatives at Athabasca University and is associated with
the UNESCO/COL Chair in OER. The focus of her current work is a collaborative
global mapping of institutional OER initiatives to promote communication,
connection and collaboration in the global OER movement. Susan worked as
a consultant at the International Association of Universities, and then at the
UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP) and Education
Division as Programme Specialist. She has been a leader in the OER movement
since the term was first coined.
Bakary Diallo is the CEO/Rector of the African Virtual University (AVU), an
intergovernmental organisation based in Nairobi, Kenya, which specialises in
open distance and electronic learning. Prior to joining the AVU, he worked at
the University of Ottawa as a part-time lecturer at the Faculty of Education, and
as a consultant of integration of ICT in education at the Center for University
Teaching. He also taught at the secondary level in Senegal. His latest research
activities focus on the use of ICT in higher educational institutions.
Stephen Downes is a researcher at the National Research Council of Canada. He
is a designer and commentator in the fields of online learning and new media.
Stephen has explored and promoted the educational use of computer and online
technologies since 1995 and was one of the originators of the first Massive Open
Online Course. He is known for his blog, “Stephen’s Web,” which is followed by
many eLearning specialists.
viii
Robert Farrow is a research associate at the Institute of Educational Technology of the
Open University UK. He has developed expertise in accessibility, evaluation, mobile
learning, use of technology to support research communities, and open learning.
Norm Friesen is Canada Research Chair in E-Learning Practices at Thompson
Rivers University in Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada. He has been leading the
CanCore Learning object metadata initiative. He is also a member of the Canadian
delegation to the ISO/IEC JTC1 subcommittee 36, for Learning, Education and
Training. His research interests include media theory, alternative pedagogies,
technical eLearning standardisation, phenomenology and ethnomethodology.
Cheryl Hodgkinson-Williams is an Associate Professor of information
communication technologies (ICT) in education at the University of Cape Town
(UCT). She is the co-ordinator of the Mellon Scholarship programme, which
sponsors colleagues from higher education institutions in Africa to attend a
postgraduate programme in ICT in Education at UCT. Cheryl is also a lecturer on
the MEd ICT in Education programme.
Asha Kanwar is the President and CEO of the Commonwealth of Learning.
She was the Vice-President and Programme Director before that. Previously, she
was a consultant in open and distance learning at UNESCO’s Regional Oce for
Education in Africa (BREDA) in Dakar, Senegal. Her engagement with distance
education began when she joined Indira Gandhi National Open University
(IGNOU), where she served as Professor, Director of the School of Humanities and
Pro-Vice Chancellor.
Wanjira Kinuthia, PhD, is Associate Professor of Learning Technologies at
Georgia State University. Prior to that, she worked as an instructional designer in
higher education and business and industry for several years. Wanjira has a special
interest in international and comparative education. Her research focuses on
educational technology in developing countries, including the role of OER (Open
Educational Resources) and sociocultural perspectives of instructional design and
technology. She is co-editor of the book series Educational Design and Technology in
the Knowledge Society.
Balasubramanian Kodhandaraman is an education specialist at the
Commonwealth of Learning (COL), working in the area of agriculture and
livelihood. He is focusing on the Lifelong Learning for Farmers initiative in various
Commonwealth countries, with emphasis on non-formal and informal learning.
Karel Kreijns is at the Technical University Eindhoven. He has worked at the Open
Universiteit in the Netherlands, where he collaborated with colleagues in the
Educational Technology field.
Andy Lane is a Professor of Environmental Systems at the Open University UK,
and was formerly director of the OpenLearn initiative for free and OER (Open
Educational Resources) for learners and educators. He is a former dean and
director of studies of the Faculty of Technology. He is interested in how people
understand and use technologies for environmental resource management and
open education and, particularly, in how systems thinking can be used to improve
environmental decision-making and social learning.
ix
Samantha Lee-Pan is a graduate student at the University of Cape Town and
an OER (Open Educational Resources) project administrator in the Educational
Development Unit of the Faculty of Health Sciences.
Airong Luo is a researcher at the Oce of Learning Technologies at the University
of Michigan Medical School. Her work focuses on OER (Open Educational
Resources) and understanding how to build a sustainable model for OER.
Wayne Mackintosh is a UNESCO/Commonwealth of Learning Chair in OER
(Open Educational Resources) and the founding Director of the OER Foundation
and the International Centre for Open Education based at Otago Polytechnic,
New Zealand. He also serves as a member of the Board of Directors of the OER
Foundation and is a leader in the formation of the OERu (OER university)
initiative. He was previously Education Specialist for eLearning and ICT Policy at
the Commonwealth of Learning.
Stewart Marshall, PhD, is an Emeritus Professor at the University of the West Indies
Open Campus and also Founding and Managing Editor of the International Journal
of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology
(IJEDICT) (http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu/). Previously, he was Director of Special
Initiatives in the Oce of the Principal of the University of the West Indies Open
Campus and UNESCO Chair in Educational Technologies. Professor Marshall has
worked in higher education since 1973. He has held senior management positions in
universities in the UK, Papua New Guinea, Australia, Swaziland and the Caribbean.
He has over 100 publications, including book chapters, refereed articles and
conference papers, an encyclopedia and several books.
Patrick McAndrew is a professor of Open Education at the Institute of
Educational Technology of the Open University UK. He directed the research and
evaluation within OpenLearn and he is the Programme Lead for the Learning in
an Open World research area. Previously, he worked at Heriot-Watt University
where he was Manager of the Institute for Computer Based Learning within the
Learning Technology Centre.
Rory McGreal is a UNESCO/Commonwealth of Learning Chair in OER (Open
Educational Resources) and Director of the Technology Enhanced Knowledge
Research Institute (TEKRI) at Athabasca University (AU), Canada’s open university,
based in Alberta, Canada. He is also a professor of Computer Technologies in
Education He was previously the Associate Vice-President Research at AU. Prior
to that, he was a supervisor at Contact North, a distance education network in
Northern Ontario. He has also worked abroad in the Middle East, Seychelles
(Indian Ocean) and Europe. He has been honoured with the Wedemeyer Award
for Distance Education practitioner. He researches the implementation and
management of distance education systems and networks from technological,
pedagogical and policy perspectives. His present research interests include
the use of OER and standards in technology-assisted learning, particularly in
the development/application of learning objects on mobile devices and the
assessment and accreditation of informal learners.
Maria Soledad Ramírez Montoya is Director of the Research Chair in the
Group of Innovation in Technology and Education in Tecnológico de Monterrey
x
(ITESM). She majored in Elementary Education, earning a BSc in Education in the
Technological Institute of Sonora in Mexico; and then graduating in Educational
Technology with a PhD in Education and Educational Psychology: Curriculum
and Instruction at the University of Salamanca (Spain), where she is currently a
professor at the Graduate School of Education.
Dick Ng’ambi is the Masters Programme Convenor in the Centre for Educational
Technology at the University of Cape Town. Before that, Dick worked in higher
education as an educator in Zambia, Lesotho and South Africa. His research
interests include anonymous knowledge sharing, use of mobile technology, and
podcasting.
Michael Paskevicius is an educational technologist in the Centre for Educational
Technology at the University of Cape Town. Originally from Canada, he arrived
in South Africa via Namibia after being awarded a Commonwealth of Learning
International Internship in 2005.
Demetrios G. Sampson is an Associate Professor of eLearning at the Department
of Digital Systems, University of Piraeus, Greece; founder and Director of the
Advanced Digital Systems and Services for Education and Learning (ASK) Research
Laboratory; and Senior Researcher at the Informatics and Telematics Institute (ITI)
in the Center of Research and Technology Hellas (CERTH).
Robert Schuwer is Associate Professor at the Open Universiteit in the Netherlands
and the project leader for the OpenER project, which was the first OER (Open
Educational Resources) project in that country. Currently, he is a project leader
in the Wikiwijs programme. He is chairman of the Special Interest Group OER
for Higher Education, established by SURF, and chairman of the Nominating
Committee of the OpenCourseWare Consortium.
Shihaam Shaikh is a project manager for the Open UCT initiative at the
University of Cape Town. She is also the legal advisor for copyright and related
intellectual property (IP) issues.
George Siemens is an Assistant Professor at the Centre for Distance Education at
Athabasca University. He is the organiser of one of the first Massive Open Online
Courses (MOOCs) with Stephen Downes. He is the author of Knowing Knowledge,
an exploration of how the context and characteristics of knowledge have changed,
and of the Handbook of Emerging Technologies for Learning. Siemens is also the
Associate Director of the Technology Enhanced Knowledge Research Institute
(TEKRI) at Athabasca University.
Sofoklis Sotiriou has worked at CERN, at the National Center for Scientific
Research “Demokritos” in Athens, and in the Physics Laboratory of Athens
University. He holds a PhD in Astrophysics and a PhD in Technology Enhanced
Science Education. He is the Head of the R&D Department of Ellinogermaniki
Agogi, where he has been active in the co-ordination and development of research
projects on the implementation of advanced science education and training.
Jim Taylor is a retired professor and former Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Global
Learning Services) at the University of Southern Queensland. He is on the Board
xi
of the OER Foundation, and is a leader in the development of the OERu (OER
university) initiative.
Abdurrahman Umar is an Education Specialist, Teacher Education at the
Commonwealth of Learning. Previously, he was the Director of Academic Services
at the National Teachers’ Institute in Kaduna, Nigeria. He was in charge of
Programme Design and Development and Examinations at the institute. He also
served as the Director of Programme Development and Extension at the National
Commission for Nomadic Education in Kaduna.
Frederik Van Acker is an Associate Professor at the Open Universiteit in the
Netherlands, where he is Head of the Research Methods and Statistics department
in the Psychology faculty.
Hans van Buuren is an Associate Professor in the Psychology faculty of the Open
Universiteit in the Netherlands. He is interested in educational statistics and
research methods.
Marjan Vermeulen is a part-time Associate Professor at RdMC, a centre for the
professionalisation of teachers at the Open Universiteit in the Netherlands. She is
also a knowledge manager at the KPCgroep, an institute that oers advisory and
research services to organisations in the field of education.
Catherine Wangeci Thuo (Kariuki) is the Manager, Projects and Business Services
at the African Virtual University, where she is an education specialist. Prior to
her current position, she was the Project Manager of the AfDB/UNDP-funded
Multinational Education Project.
Clayton R. Wright is an educational consultant who has been actively involved
with a number of international collaborative eorts aimed at advancing
educational systems through the use of learning technologies and gained
international experience with the Association of Canadian Community Colleges,
the Canadian Department of Foreign Aairs and International Trade, the
Commonwealth of Learning, the Commonwealth Secretariat, United Nations
Children’s Fund and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. He
primarily focuses on distance education, curriculum development, instructional
design and professional development in Canadian and international settings.
Tsuneo Yamada is a Professor at the Department of International Collaboration
in the Center for ICT and Distance Education (CODE) at the Open University of
Japan (OUJ); and an Adjunct Professor and the Chair of the Department of Cyber
Society and Culture, the Graduate University for Advanced Studies. His main
research fields are educational technology, learning psychology, and second
language learning. His current interests are in the development and evaluation
of learning objects, strategies for their sharing and distribution, and their quality
assurance.
Panagiotis Zervas received a Diploma in Electronics and Computer
Engineering from the Technical University of Crete, Greece, in 2002 and
an MSc in Computational Science from the Department of Informatics and
Telecommunications at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens,
Greece, in 2004.
xiii
Acknowledgements
The editors would like to express their thanks to the following people who have
made this work possible:
• Susan D’Antoni, whose eorts have been crucial in the early development of
the OER movement and who convinced UNESCO of the importance of an
OER Chair programme
• Jos Rikers, who has been a principal organiser of the OER Chair initiatives
• Tim McNamara, the managing editor, whose eorts have been critical in
bringing the book to completion
Sponsors, whose grants have helped in the realisation of this book, include:
the Ministry of Advanced Education and Technology of Alberta, Canada; the
Canadian Foundation for Innovation; the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation;
and the Technology Enhanced Knowledge Research Institute (TEKRI) at
Athabasca University.
xv
Open Educational Resources (OER) are important learning materials with the
potential to facilitate the expansion of learning worldwide. The flexibility, both
technological and legal, aorded by openly licensed content is an important pre-
condition for supporting the educational use of content. Open standards support
the deployment of learning objects as OER on a wide variety of dierent devices,
whether mobile, on the desktop or in print. The open licence frees instructors and
learners from concerns about permissions, as well as about how, when, where and
how long the content, video, audio or application can be used.
The UNESCO Paris Declaration on OER (2012) begins with the premise that
“everyone has the right to education,” referring to the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and other international recommendations and agreements.
The participating countries support the OER movement, encouraging OER
development and adaptation, research and, especially, the open licensing of all
government-sponsored publications.
This book project was initiated by the UNESCO Chairs in OER in support of these
principles.
OER Theory
It is impossible to pin down any one theory that best fits the OER movement other
than the principle of openness in education. This includes, at the forefront, the
principle of accessibility — opening educational resources so that anyone can
access and learn from these resources at no cost. The Cape Town Declaration
(2007) states:
“Educators worldwide are developing a vast pool of educational
resources on the Internet, open and free for all to use. These educators
are creating a world where each and every person on earth can access
Introduction:
The Need for Open Educational
Resources
Rory McGreal,
Athabasca University
xvi
and contribute to the sum of all human knowledge. They are also
planting the seeds of a new pedagogy where educators and learners
create, shape and evolve knowledge together, deepening their skills
and understanding as they go.”
The use of OER is not confined to eLearning contexts or distance education.
Although they are for the most part born digital, many if not most OER can also
be printed out and used in analogue contexts. Most OER are technologically
neutral in that they can theoretically be reformatted or refitted for use in any
platform or in any learning management system or application. OER can be used
online or in traditional classrooms, or in blended or flexible learning contexts.
This includes a focus on the importance of interoperability for both learners and
instructors, in their free re-use or repurposing of the resource, including mixing
and mashing. Interoperability of the resources in dierent contexts is a pre-
condition for useful OER.
There is no single paradigm associated with OER, nor are there any preconceived
approaches to learning that limit the generalisability of OER. On the other hand,
individual OER can be specifically designed to support particular theories of
learning, whether that is behaviourist, constructivist, connectivist or something
else. The OER concept can accommodate a wide range of theories. In addition to
openness, eclecticism may be the theory most nearly associated with the OER
movement. Educators using OER can draw on multiple theories, mixing and
mashing them to fit what they feel is reasonable given their particular context.
Pragmatism that links practice and theory in order to improve both can also be an
important theory associated with OER. Pragmatists consider the practical eects
of using OER and base their decisions on these.
Diusion theory (Rogers 1995) has also been used to describe the rate of
adaptation of OER among educators and in informal learning contexts, but it is
not all-encompassing. In fact, it is a bricolage of many theories bunched together
by the researcher (bricoleur). Complexity theory also has its place as researchers
investigate how OER have been formed through self-organising and emergent
methods and interactions (Tim McNamara, unpublished thesis).
So, OER, as freely available learning objects encapsulating learning resources,
are pedagogically neutral and, as a concept, can lend themselves to any learning
theory. OER proponents in dierent theoretical “camps” of learning, such as
constructivist, connectivist or behaviourist, can design their OER either to
support their theories uniquely or to be more generalisable in a wider variety of
learning contexts. Likewise, educators can make eective use of OER according
to their theoretical approach, which could be easier or more problematic
depending on the theoretical perspective that is embedded in the OER. There is
no one theoretical camp that can claim ownership of OER from a pedagogical
perspective. Independent learning is often connected to OER, but OER are also
used in classroom, blended learning and distance education environments. Panke
and Seufert (2012) noted that there is “no one-size-fits-all theory that allows us to
understand all aspects of the learner’s use of OER.”
Bateman et al. (2012) highlight the need for more than researchers’ anecdotal
information, supporting a critical analysis of OER issues. They support the
development of OER policies and strategies to: increase access to educational
xvii
programmes; build capacity among educators, including appropriate ICT
infrastructure; design quality assurance frameworks; and develop cost-eective
strategies and business models. The collection of chapters in this book addresses
this need through analyses, case studies, theoretical analyses and personal
reflections.
OER also aim to be technology neutral and various standards are proposed to
support their interoperability (e.g., IMS Common Cartridge, SCORM, IEEE LOM).
This represents more of an ideal than the reality, as OER creators continue to
create content in a wide variety of formats, many of which do not lend themselves
to easy interoperability.
OER Definitions
Open Educational Resources (OER) aim to promote open access to digital
educational resources “that are available online for everyone at a global level”
(Caswell et al. 2008). The term was introduced by UNESCO (2002), which defined
OER as the “technology-enabled, open provision of educational resources for
consultation, use and adaptation by a community of users for non-commercial
purposes.”
The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (2010), one of the primary donors in
the OER movement, supported the use of OER “to equalize access to knowledge for
teachers and students around the globe.” They defined OER as “teaching, learning
and research resources that reside in the public domain or have been released
under an intellectual property license that permits their free use or repurposing
by others” (Hylen 2007). OER can be full courses, course materials, modules,
textbooks, streaming videos, tests, software, and other materials or techniques
used to support access to knowledge.
Another widely used definition of OER has been provided by Atkins et al. (2007),
who defined OER as “full courses, open courseware and content, educational
modules, textbooks, streaming videos, tests and assessments, open source
software tools, and any other tools and materials used to support teaching or
learning.”
Broader definitions have been elaborated, such as this more descriptive
characterisation, also from Atkins et al. (2007, p. 4):
“Open Educational Resources (OER) are teaching, learning, and
research resources that reside in the public domain or have been
released under an intellectual property license that permits their free
use or re-purposing by others. Open educational resources include
full courses, course materials, modules, textbooks, streaming videos,
tests, software, and any other tools, materials, or techniques used to
support access to knowledge.”
Downes (2011b) defined OER broadly as “materials used to support education that
may be freely accessed, reused, modified and shared by anyone.” Other definitions
discussed in the July 2011 worldwide online conversation of members of the OER
community were more specific. For example, says Rossini (2011):
“OER are teaching, learning, and research materials in any medium
that reside in the public domain or have been released under an
xviii
open licence that permits their free use and re-purposing by others.
The use of open file formats improves access and re-use potential of
OER, which are developed and published digitally. They can include
full courses, course materials, modules, textbooks, research articles,
videos, tests, software, and any other tools, materials, or techniques
used to support access to knowledge.”
Wiley (2010) presents a “strengthened and clarified definition of OER.” His definition
includes three elements: 1) the concept of “free”; 2) the four Rs permissions (re-use,
redistribute, revise, remix); and 3) non-interfering technology and media choices.
Wiley argues that free-of-charge access is a necessary feature of OER, but is not
sucient, noting that many resources online are freely accessible whether they be
texts, videos, pictures, games and so on. He likens this linkable/viewable but free
accessibility as “window shopping,” arguing that if the resources are not openly
licensed with permissions for the four Rs, they cannot be OER. OER are needed to
ensure that the instructors and/or students have eective control of the content.
I formulated this practical definition for learning object: “any reusable digital
resource that is encapsulated in a lesson or assemblage of lessons grouped in units,
modules, courses, and even programmes. A lesson can be defined as a piece of
instruction, normally including a learning purpose or purposes” (McGreal 2004).
So, many OER can also be seen as a subset of learning objects, characterised by
their being educationally designed content that is free, modifiable, reusable and
shareable.
The free and open sharing of educational resources is essential for promoting
the building of ubiquitous learning networks as well as reducing the knowledge
divide that separates and partitions societies. Educators worldwide continue to
face significant challenges related to providing increased access to high-quality
learning while containing or reducing costs. New developments in information
technology highlight the shortcomings and challenges for the traditional
education community, as well as those of more flexible providers such as open
universities. Such developments, including accessible repositories, Internet
access, wireless networks and mobile devices, have the potential to increase access
and flexibility in education by rendering it ubiquitous. Basic education for all
continues to be a goal that challenge — and will continue to challenge — many
countries. OER can be used to overcome many of the obstacles faced by both
learners and educators.
Critiques of OER
Bates (2011) and others have criticised OER as being elitist and a form of cultural
imperialism. In some contexts this could very well be true. However, educated
readers understand that any content can be elitist and imperialistic. This criticism
cannot be reserved for OER alone. Much of the content that is not free and is sold
to developing countries by international publishers can be described as elitist and
imperialistic. On the other hand, unlike proprietary content, OER can be adapted,
amended, abridged, localised and otherwise altered to suit specific cultures,
approaches or sensitivities.
Another criticism leveled at supporters of OER is that the content is not really free
— that someone has to pay for it. In response, OER advocates have long recognised
xix
that these resources are not “free” (as in, not costing anything). Public education
too is not free, although it does not cost parents directly; they pay through their
taxes. Critics argue that instructors have to be paid, and who would disagree?
However, the argument does not fit the reality. Schools that use proprietary
content do not pay their teachers from their earnings from the content.
Proprietary content is a cost, not a revenue stream. The same is true when using
OER, although the costs are very small in comparison and usually these are labour
costs, so they stay local. There are costs in any educational system whether or not
OER or proprietary content is used. The dierence is that schools or students using
proprietary content keep paying for the same content every year, while OER frees
them from these payments.
Critics also argue that one has to be clear about what is meant by “content.” They
fail to realise that we work in a confusing and unclear world. As a wise woman
once commented, “If you are not confused, you don’t understand.” Educational
content can be distinct from the format. Nevertheless, the boundaries are seldom
clear. With multimedia and educational games, for example, the content and the
process can be intertwined and inseparable.
Another criticism of OER is that it is the process that is important. There is a
“content is king” camp and a process-oriented group called the “content is
obsolete” camp. It seems that “never the twain shall meet,” which is too bad
because, arguably, both approaches are valid. Students can learn eectively
from facts that are shoveled at them (many of today’s educators are survivors
of such learning approaches), although there may be better approaches. So,
to argue that learning “requires” questioning, testing and feedback is quite
simply not in accordance with the facts. People learn many things all the time
without “personal reflection, expert feedback and interaction with others.” It is
understood that these processes can and do help in learning, improving eciency,
but to say that they are “required” is unsupportable.
OER are also more than a glorified public library as some OER critics have argued.
Comparing a public library to the content available on the Internet — the world’s
intellectual commons — is like comparing a horse and carriage to a spaceship.
Access to knowledge is becoming ubiquitous.
Some people have criticised the MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
OpenCourseWare initiative, arguing that using this content would be like
importing content without understanding it. This may or may not be true,
depending on the instructor, but the same critique would hold for importing
proprietary content — so, it is not a criticism of OER, but rather of using external
resources in general, including proprietary content.
The criticisms of OER repositories like Health Sciences Online and Global Uni are
premature. The first step in moving forward is often simply putting your materials
online as OER. Step 2 would be to make them better. Access to material that is
not first-rate is better than no access. In fact much, if not most, of the proprietary
content used in traditional university settings is not well designed, but is still
used.
A Dean of Medicine once told me that he would not waste his time with
instructional design, because his students were the cream of the crop and would
learn no matter how the content is presented. Many (if not most) learners do
xx
need the help of really well-designed content and the intervention of instructors.
However, some don’t. With OER, this minority of learners can learn — try to
stop them. This hopefully will build a small cadre of knowledgeable people in
needy communities that can help others who are less able. And they might even
participate in improving the OER. Note that this is not an argument against
creating sound pedagogical OER — of course we should build good OER. It is an
argument that even second-rate materials can be and are useful, whether we care
to admit it or not.
So, OER do not need to be properly designed, as critics contend. It would be great if
they were, but is it possible to get all instructional designers to agree on what that
would be? OER as they stand are useful, even the PowerPoints. They do not need
skill and hard work, even though that would be desirable.
On the other hand, it is wrong to assume that there is not a great deal of attention
being paid to the quality of OER. MERLOT (Multimedia Educational Resources
for Learning and Online Teaching; www.merlot.org) and other organisations
like OPAL (Online Portal for Advanced Learning; http://umanitoba.ca/faculties/
medicine/opal/) are supporting the improvement of the eectiveness of teaching
and learning by enhancing the quantity and quality of OER. OER quality relies
on the content being clear and concise, demonstrating the concepts to be learned,
and integrating, where appropriate, with prerequisites and instructions that are
clearly indicated. Other quality measures have been posited. These included the
brand or reputation of the OER creator, peer review, user ratings, use indicators,
validation and self-evaluation. Other possible quality indicators include
shareability, timeliness, reach (number of users), usability (licence restrictions)
and accessibility.
A respected institution’s prestige, brand name or reputation can be one indicator
of quality. Peer review is a time-tested approach to ensuring quality and is used
extensively in academia for scholarly publishing. User ratings are another quality
measure. These can be formal, informal or both. Formal rating systems include
the “five star” system; in more informal systems, comments from users might be
made readily available.
Quality can also be improved through the sharing of OER when institutions
transfer costs from the course development process to student services and
support. Students could benefit by paying less for course materials. OERs can be
used to provide more student choice at little additional cost. Is cost to learners and
institutions an aspect of quality?
The timely updating of courses can be another benefit of OER. A course could be
of the highest quality when it is first created, but unless it is updated regularly and
consistently, the quality can decay. OER can be one way of accessing and inserting
updated content and other relevant course materials as they become available. Is
time an aspect of quality?
Bates (2011) does concede that OER are good for use by students and by instructor
groups; that there are innumerable other approaches to using OER that may be
more or less eective; and that the value of OER is that they are accessible for
use in a variety of ways and, as has been noted above, are more open for such
contextualisation than proprietary materials.
xxi
Finally, one has to agree that OER are not a panacea — neither is proprietary
content, nor is technology, nor constructivism, connectivism nor any anything
else, but they all could have a place in any of the multiple approaches that we can
develop to promote accessible learning.
How This Book Is Organised
This OER book is aimed at practitioners, researchers, students and others
interested in creating, using or studying OER. It has been organised to facilitate
easy access to OER themes of interest. Each theme is introduced separately,
providing a concise overview of the relevant chapters in the theme. The chapters
consist of a diverse collection of peer-reviewed papers, written by some of the
leading international experts in the field of OER on five continents. In the spirit of
openness, rather than prescribing a format for the book, we left it to the authors
to come up with the OER subjects and issues that were important to them. All
chapters were then blind peer-reviewed to ensure the relevance and the quality of
the submissions. In that way, the OER issues emerged and were then organised by
the editors into overall themes.
From the diverse selection of papers, four themes emerged:
1. OER in Academia
2. OER in Practice
3. Diusion of OER
4. Producing, Sharing and Using OER
The OER in Academia theme is important because of the way in which OER are
widening the international community of scholars with shared resources. The
lead taken by universities in opening up education by releasing their content has
been the major driving force in promoting OER. This was led by the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT), with support from the William and Flora Hewlett
Foundation, which resulted in the formation of the OpenCourseWare Consortium.
Other academic institutions and organisations took up the case from there.
The OER in Practice theme includes case studies and descriptions of specific
working OER initiatives on three continents. Their successes are highlighted
along with many of the problems encountered, so that others can learn from
their example. Issues addressed include the re-use, repurposing, adaptation and
localisation of OER to serve the needs of the learners in dierent environments,
touching on the need for continuous updating and improvement of content
without proprietary constraints. Raising institution-wide awareness of the
location and management of OER has become an important consideration. It
represents an important first step in embedding the philosophy and practice of
OER internally within the organisation. Collaboration, both internally among
dierent sectors and externally among a variety of institutions, is another feature
of eective practice in OER implementations,
The Diusion of OER theme provides readers with thoughts on how dierent
groups approach releasing their content to the world. One of the ongoing
weaknesses in OER has been the “not invented here” syndrome, which, along
with other reasons, has hindered the spread of OER. Building communities of
xxii
users supporting lifelong learning, combined with ubiquitous access to OER on
the Internet using new mobile technologies, will go a long way in overcoming the
recalcitrance of learners and educators. Technical standards and specifications to
promote interoperability using dierent devices and applications will also play an
important role.
Producing, Sharing and Using OER is a theme that includes design issues related
to how OER will be used, whether for formal or informal learning or some
combination of the two. This understanding is important when considering the
course design and other production issues. In this theme, the authors examine
the pedagogical, organisational, personal and technical issues that should be
addressed by producing organisations and institutions.
This book is intended as a teaching and research resource as well as an aid for
practitioners, and so readers are expected to start by reading those chapters in
which they have a special interest, rather than reading from beginning to end.
Theme descriptions introduce each section as a way of helping readers focus more
easily on chapters of interest or get a quick overview of the theme contents.
References
Atkins, D.E., Brown, J.S. and Hammond, A.L. (2007). A Review of the Open
Educational Resources (OER) Movement: Achievements, Challenges,
and New Opportunities. Report to the William and Flora Hewlett
Foundation. Retrieved from: www.hewlett.org/uploads/files/
ReviewoftheOERMovement.pdf
Bateman, P., Lane, A. and Moon, R. (2012). “An Emerging Typology for Analysing
OER Initiatives.” In Innovation and Impact – Openly Collaborating to
Enhance Education. A Joint Meeting of OER12 and OpenCourseWare
Consortium Global 2012. Cambridge, UK. Retrieved from: http://oro.
open.ac.uk/33243/1/OER_Typology_paper.pdf
Bates, T. (2011). “OERs: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.” Retrieved from: www.
tonybates.ca/2011/02/06/oers-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/
Cape Town Declaration. (2007). Cape Town Open Education Declaration: Unlocking
the Promise of Open Educational Resources. Retrieved from: www.
capetowndeclaration.org/read-the-declaration
Caswell, T., Henson, S., Jensen, M. and Wiley, D. (2008). “Open Educational
Resources: Enabling Universal Education.” The International Review of
Research in Open and Distance Learning 9(1): 1–11.
Downes, S. (2011a). Comment in “Proposed Definition of OER.” Open Educational
Resources – An Online Discussion Forum. Retrieved from: http://lists.esn.org.
za/pipermail/oer-forum/2011-July/000614.html
Downes, S. (2011b). “Open Educational Resources: A Definition.” Retrieved from:
http://halfanhour.blogspot.com/2011/07/open-educational-resources-
definition.html
Hylen, J. (2007). Giving Knowledge for Free: The Emergence of Open Educational
Resources. Retrieved from: www.oecd.org/dataoecd/35/7/38654317.pdf
xxiii
McGreal, R. (2004). “Learning Objects: A Practical Definition.” International
Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning (IJITDL) 9(1).
Retrieved from: www.itdl.org/Journal/Sep_04/article02.htm
Panke, S. and Seufert, T. (2012). “What’s Educational about Open Educational
Resources? Dierent Theoretical Lenses for Conceptualizing Learning
with OER.” Retrieved from: http://panke.web.unc.edu/files/2012/07/
ELEA2012-preprint.pdf
Rogers, E. (1995). Diusion of Innovations. Free Press: New York.
Rossini, C. (2011). Comment in “OER definition = open IP + open formats.” Open
Educational Resources – An Online Discussion Forum (13 July 2011). Retrieved
31 October 2011 from: http://lists.esn.org.za/pipermail/oer-forum/2011-
July/000585.html
UNESCO (2002). “Forum on the Impact of Open Courseware for Higher
Education in Developing Countries.” Final report. Retrieved 10 April 2012
from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001285/128515e.pdf
UNESCO (2012). World Open Educational Resources (OER) Congress 2012 Paris
OER Declaration. Retrieved from: www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/
MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/CI/pdf/Events/English_Paris_OER_Declaration.
pdf
WikiEducator (2011). “Defining OER.” Retrieved 31 October 2011 from: http://
wikieducator.org/Educators_care/Defining_OER
Wiley, D. (2010). “OER 101: Theory and Practice.” Retrieved from: http://
opencontent.org/blog/archives/1725
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. (2010). Education Program: Strategic Plan.
Retrieved from: www.hewlett.org/uploads/documents/Education_
Strategic_Plan_2010.pdf
OER in Academia
I
PART
3
The capacity for innovation in production processes is an indicator of strength
and vitality. In academia, innovative production can be exhibited through the
creation of courses, instructional materials and learning resources, publication of
articles and books, and the development of other educational materials as OER.
These materials are becoming popularised, along with other ways of mobilising
faculty to support the use and re-use of OER.
In this part of the book, dierent approaches in academia supporting openness
are discussed, including the MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) phenomenon,
open access publishing, specific university initiatives in the developing
and developed world, and the consortium approach linking institutions
internationally.
One innovation is that of MOOCs as a means of facilitating the ecient creation,
distribution and use of knowledge and information for learning. MOOCs have no
prerequisite courses and no formal accreditation — anyone can participate online.
Siemens, as one of the founders of the MOOC concept, gives an overview of this
emerging phenomenon in Chapter 1, “Massive Open Online Courses: Innovation
in Education?” He argues that MOOCs, by taking advantage of freely available
online resources such as OER, can be used to support social networking and other
forms of “connectivity.” The power of the MOOC is in the active engagement
of large numbers of self-organising learners who make connections with one
another.
The use of OER to facilitate the ecient creation, distribution and use of
knowledge and information is another recent innovation. In Chapter 2,
“Academic Knowledge Mobilisation to Promote Cultural Change Towards
Openness in Education,” Aguilar and Montoya present several aspects of
“educational experiences” involved in mobilising knowledge through OER. These
experiences include the adoption, publication and dissemination of OER in the
Introduction
4
academic community. This chapter also discusses the remixing of OER in courses,
the creation of an institutional repository, and use of OER as learning resources
or as content generated or modified by the learner. Finally, the authors discuss
initiatives that integrate communities of practice and train faculty in academic
settings.
Historically, resources such as books, journals, newspapers, and audio and
video recordings have been fairly well curated in university libraries. However,
the same cannot be said for teaching and learning materials, unless they have
been included in a textbook or study guide. In the past, such materials have
typically only been made available to registered students within the confines of
the physical or virtual classroom. In the early 2000s, institutions such as MIT
(Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and Rice University challenged this
convention of locking down teaching and learning resources by opening up access
to many of their teaching and learning resources to the rest of the world as OER.
In April 2008, the University of Cape Town (UCT) joined the open movement by
signing the Cape Town Open Education Declaration, thereby committing itself to
making a selection of its teaching and learning materials available as OER.
In Chapter 3, “365 Days of Openness: The Emergence of OER at the University of
Cape Town,” Hodgkinson-Williams, Paskevicius, Cox, Shaikh, Czerniewicz and
Lee-Pan review the first year of their university’s OER initiative, detailing how it
decided on and developed an institutional directory using a customised version
of open source software — that is, the content management system software
Drupal. The authors describe how the OER team went about soliciting content
from academics to populate the UCT OpenContent directory and how it has been
sustained beyond the original Shuttleworth Foundation grant.
The assessment and accreditation of learners who informally study using OER
over the Internet is the goal of the OER university (OERu) initiative that is
described in Chapter 4, “Open Educational Resources University: An Assessment
and Credit for Students Initiative,” by McGreal, Mackintosh and Taylor. The OERu
aims to provide free learning to all learners worldwide using OER with pathways
to gain credible qualifications from recognised educational institutions. The
OERu holds the promise of shifting the learning paradigm by creating, adapting
and assembling pathways to accreditation using OER supported by the OERu
consortium of universities and colleges that agree to assess a candidate’s learning
based on mastering the knowledge and skills embedded in the OER that they use.
The partner institutions hope to develop cost-eective processes to evaluation, to
develop a sustainable learning “ecosystem.”
5
Introduction
Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have developed into a significant talking
point for universities, education reformers and start-up companies. The interest in
this format of teaching and learning resulted in the New York Times declaring 2012
as “the year of the MOOC” (Pappano 2012).
Writing a chapter such as this can be a fool’s game; by the time the book is
published, the hype-driven world of education may well have moved on to
newer buzzwords. Currently, though, MOOCs represent and reflect the angst
of educators and administrators in attempting to understand the role of the
university in the Internet era.
Researchers have extensively chronicled the trends and challenges in higher
education (Altbach et al. 2009). MOOCs appear to be as much about the collective
grasping of universities’ leaders to bring higher education into the digital age as
they are about a particular method of teaching. In this chapter, I won’t spend time
commenting on the role of MOOCs in educational transformation or even why
attention to this mode of delivering education has received unprecedented hype
(rarely has higher education as a system responded as rapidly to a trend as it has
responded to open online courses). Instead, this chapter details dierent MOOC
models and the underlying pedagogy of each.
Distance learning — and, more recently, online learning— has a long history of
increasing access to education, dating back to 1833 (Simonson et al. 2011, p. 37).
Correspondence schools and radio instruction contributed to reducing education
barriers. By the late 1960s, the launch of the Open University UK (OU UK, History)
resulted in the development of open access universities around the world.
Open universities were initially defined by their goal to reduce entry requirements
for higher education. In the distance education model, students received texts and
Massive Open Online Courses:
Innovation in Education?
George Siemens,
Athabasca University
CHAPTER
6
reading resources via postal service and submitted assignments in return. Today,
with millions of students learning at a distance (Simonson et al. 2011, pp. 14–15),
research and literature have developed to address teaching practices, learner skills
and attributes, as well as governance and leadership of open universities. MOOCs
are a continuation of this trend of innovation, experimentation and the use of
technology to provide learning opportunities for large numbers of learners.
What Are MOOCs?
Open online courses, sometimes called “massive” (MOOCs) due to their high
enrolment numbers (McAuley et al. 2010), oer a middle ground for teaching and
learning between the highly organised and structured classroom environment
and the chaotic open web of fragmented information. In a traditional classroom
or online course, learning designers and educators structure the readings,
learning resources, lectures and activities of learners. As a result, learning is
directed toward clearly articulated goals and outcomes. The educator provides
shape and direction to the learning experience by forming groups and providing
assessments, assignment focuses or guidelines.
Connectivism and Connective Knowledge (CCK08) was the first MOOC,
oered both as an open course and in the Certificate in Emerging Technologies
for Learning (CETL) at the University of Manitoba. CETL was designed as a
Masters-level certificate with three core and three elective courses. CCK08 was
the initial core course in the programme. The course syllabus was translated
into six dierent languages: Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Hungarian, Chinese
(Simplified Character Version) and German (http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/wiki/
Connectivism_2008). The course was first oered from September to November
2008, facilitated by me and Stephen Downes. A total of 24 for-credit students
enrolled in the course. The course was then oered as an open online course,
drawing over 2,200 additional participants. These additional students did not pay
a registration fee or receive feedback on their assignments from course instructors.
As put forward by McAuley et al. (2010, p. 5):
“A MOOC integrates the connectivity of social networking, the
facilitation of an acknowledged expert in a field of study, and
a collection of freely accessible online resources. Perhaps most
importantly, however, a MOOC builds on the active engagement
of several hundred to several thousand ‘students’ who self-organise
their participation according to learning goals, prior knowledge and
skills, and common interests. Although it may share in some of the
conventions of an ordinary course, such as a pre-defined timeline and
weekly topics for consideration, a MOOC generally carries no fees, no
prerequisites other than Internet access and interest.”
Specifically, MOOCs are:
• Massive, involving hundreds and thousands of students. The scale of
“massive” is somewhat relative. Early MOOCs had in the range of 2,000
students, but oerings by Coursera and Udacity have exceeded 100,000
registrants. An important benefit of large numbers of students is the
opportunity for sub-network formation by participants. For example, in
CCK08, students formed sub-networks around language, geographical
7
locations, physical “meet-ups,” technology spaces such as Second Life, and
dierent education segments (primary and secondary, higher education,
corporate learning).
While the concept of massive raises concerns about isolation and
overwhelming student-instructor ratios, at least some students use the size
and diversity of networks to personalise their learning through forming
sub-networks.
• Open, in terms of access. MOOCs, particularly those oered by for-profit
firms such as Coursera, are not necessarily openly licensed, but students can
access the course content and participate in guest lectures without fees.
• Online, exclusively. In some instances, learners arrange physical meet-
ups, but most of the learning activity — content and interactions — occurs
online.
• Courses. MOOCs have a set start and stop time. Even if MOOC archives
are made available after the course, social interactions in forums and blogs
occur during the set times of the course oering. While there are some areas
of overlap and use of open education resources with MOOCs, the content
is somewhat structured and sequenced, even when multiple sources of
learning content are used.
MOOC Formats
MOOC models are evolving quickly. In their current configuration, they can be
classified as xMOOCs, cMOOCs and quasi-MOOCs.
xMOOCs
xMOOCs are oered in a traditional university model such as Stanford (Coursera),
MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)/Harvard (edX), and Udacity. This
format started in the fall of 2011 with Stanford University’s course in Artificial
Intelligence (www.ai-class.com/). Coursera and Udacity are for-profit initiatives.
In contrast, edX is not for profit.
Traditional universities, including many elite American institutions, are the
driving force behind this model. The pedagogical model that underpins these
courses is one of “teacher as expert” and “learner as knowledge consumer.”
Learning is primarily a process of the learner duplicating the knowledge structure
set by the course designer and the instructor teaching the course. Weekly course
topics are addressed through recorded lectures that range from 3 to 30 minutes
in length. Udacity, not aliated with a university, relies on short lectures and
interactive activities that rarely exceed five minutes. Coursera, which includes
traditional universities as members, oers video lectures that typically range
between 15 and 30 minutes.
In order to meet the challenges of large numbers of students, assignments are
computer-graded in xMOOCs. Direct instructor feedback is not common, except
in discussion forums where teaching assistants and the course instructor respond
to student questions. Coursera and Udacity encourage participants to form
regional meet-ups to connect with other students. As of late 2012, Coursera lists
over 2 million students (or “courserians”) and over 200 courses.
8
cMOOCs
cMOOCs are based on a connectivist pedagogical model that views knowledge
as a networked state and learning as the process of generating those networks
and adding and pruning connections. Of particular importance in cMOOCs
is the view of knowledge as generative and the importance of artifact creation
as a means of sharing personal knowledge for others to connect to and with.
In contrast with xMOOCs, cMOOCs are largely open in terms of the activities
that learners can pursue related to the theme, with limited structure and weekly
themes.
A pre-history of cMOOCs includes smaller open online courses oered by David
Wiley and Alec Couros in 2007 and early 2008 (Downes 2012). Since CCK08,
numerous courses have been oered in the distributed cMOOC format, as detailed
in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1: Early MOOCs
Course Facilitators University credit?
CCK08 Siemens, Downes Yes
CCK09 Siemens, Downes Yes
Personal Learning Environments and
Knowledge 2010 (PLENK)
Siemens, Downes, Cormier, Kop No
Education Futures 2010 Siemens, Cormier No
Critical Literacies 2009 Downes, Kop No
MobiMooc 2010 Inge de Waard No
Learning Analytics 2011 Siemens, Dron, Cormier, Elias No
CCK 2011 Siemens, Downes Yes
eduMOOC, 2011 Schroeder Yes
cMOOCs are distributed, and they emphasise, the importance of learner
autonomy. As a consequence of increased learner control, numerous tools and
technologies are used during the delivery of an open course. Each learner selects
the technologies that he or she prefers to use. Course facilitators provide: an
infrastructure for content and administrative details (in the form of a wiki or a
Web page); a schedule for synchronous sessions involving guest speakers or live
discussions; a means of communicating with participants and providing course
updates (often handled through email and blogs); and starting points for learners
to form connections with each other (a learning management system such as
Moodle).
quasi-MOOCs
quasi-MOOCs provide Web-based tutorials as OER, such as those of the Khan
Academy and MIT’s OpenCourseWare (OCW). These are technically not courses.
They consist of OER intended to support learning-specific tasks such as an
operation in algebra, or they are treated as asynchronous learning resources that
do not oer the social interaction of cMOOCs or the automated grading and
tutorial-driven format of xMOOCs. These resources are loosely linked and are not
packaged as a course.
9
The Saylor Foundation (www.saylor.org/) has full courses primarily as OER and
available for free use by learners. These courses are being accepted for credit at
some educational institutions (Carey 2012) and as an open course format using
Google Course Builder (http://cb-me102.saylor.org/).
Figure 1.1 provides a timeline representation of MOOC models and early providers
(Hill 2012).
Figure 1.1: History of MOOCs (from Hill 2012).
Challenges of MOOCs
Since fall 2011, with the oering of Stanford’s Artificial Intelligence (AI) course,
most coverage of MOOCs has focused on the positive aspects: democratising
learning; free courses; and economy of scale. Numerous challenges are starting
to emerge. In particular, MOOCs have high dropout rates, lack an economic
or sustainable model, face challenges of plagiarism, and risk de-skilling the
professoriate.
Dropout Rates
MOOCs have poor completion rates in comparison with traditional university
courses. Daniel (2012) reports that an MIT course, Circuits and Electronics, only
had 7,157 students out of 155,000 complete the course. However, dropouts in
MOOCs may be driven by dierent factors than in traditional courses. Students
taking a traditional course have a dierent level of commitment because of credit
seeking, the motivation of paid tuition fees, and the need to take a course to fulfil
degree requirements. Together, these factors are a type of “hard commitment” on
the part of students. Failure to complete the course has implications for future study.
Learners who take a MOOC may do so for a range of reasons beyond credit. The
obligation for continuing a course is not driven by responsibility of completion,
but for reasons such as personal interest or motivation. To date, studies have not
been conducted on the impact of “soft commitment” in MOOCs. For example,
participants may be interested in taking only a few of the weekly topics out
of an entire course. It is still possible that students have a sense of personal
disappointment in failing to complete a course, but course completion is dierent
10
in online courses, even though many of the metrics of success (such as concern
over dropout rates) are dierent from those in regular university courses. (During
and following CCK08, I met numerous students at conferences in dierent
countries who expressed a sense of disappointment at not completing the course
or being more active.)
Sustainability
MOOCs do not yet have a sustainable revenue model. Developing, delivering
and updating online courses is a resource-intensive undertaking. Until a revenue
model is established, concerns will exist around the viability of MOOC providers
and the MOOC model of learning. Udacity and Coursera are at the early stages of
experimenting with business models, including oering career placement services
(Young 2012b).
De-skilling the Professoriate
One potential impact of “super professors” from top universities providing
recorded lectures to other universities and colleges is the progressive de-skilling
of the professoriate (Basu 2012). MOOC providers such as Coursera and Udacity
are for-profit organisations backed by venture capital funding. As such, the first
mandate of these providers is to their shareholders, not to students or to society.
Cheating and Plagiarism
While MOOCs are often non-credit, cheating and plagiarism is a growing concern
for university providers (Young 2012a). These concerns require attention from
open course providers in order for MOOCs to be considered for credit or transfer
by universities.
The Impact of MOOCs
MOOCs may well be a transitory stage for education. The concerns that MOOCs
raise need to be addressed before this course format is accepted broadly.
When viewing MOOCs from the perspective of how students interact and how
information is created, it becomes apparent that a key aspect of this format is
how it mirrors or reflects the structure of the Internet (at least, the cMOOCs). An
ecosystem is developing around MOOCs. MOOCs are a platform on which various
service oerings are provided. As an example, Twitter’s popularity has resulted in
the development of numerous products and services that enrich the experience
for users. While Twitter itself was initially a platform for sharing short messages,
often from mobile phones, numerous products were developed on the Twitter
platform for reading tweets, sharing images and videos, and archiving tweets.
This ecosystem improved the value of the Twitter platform. Similarly, MOOCs
are today at an early stage, but already there are indications that a similar suite of
products and tools will be built on top of existing oerings.
Another impact of open online courses is a power shift toward increased equity
between educator and learner. Figure 1.2 details how the traditional faculty–
content–learner role is increasingly augmented through OER and external experts.
11
The emerging educator–learner power shift is also reflected in access to learning
content, social media and content creation tools reflective of the participatory
nature of the Web.
Figure 1.2: Expanding learner access.
Another important contribution of MOOCs is to increase interest in, and
awareness of, online learning. Online learning continues to outpace the
enrolment growth of traditional university students (Allen and Seaman 2011).
The media interest in open courses has generated much discussion of the
opportunities of online education.
Attributes of cMOOCs
The content and discussion in a cMOOC reflect the open, networked and
distributed structure of the Internet. While a classroom-type model is evident
in open courses through the use of readings and recorded lectures, participants
have control and autonomy to move beyond the planned structure of the course
through the use of OER, the use of personal blogs, and the formation of sub-
networks around areas of personal interest.
The relationships among the various technological components of a cMOOC
are detailed in Figure 1.3. Blog and Moodle forum posts, as well as tweets, were
aggregated through gRRShopper, an application developed by Stephen Downes.
If a post or tweet contains the course hashtag (such as CCK08), it is automatically
pulled into the database for inclusion in the next edition of The Daily, an email
sent (not surprisingly) every day. gRSShopper and The Daily have commenting
features available to course participants, but comments are most often made
directly on the blogs of participants or in the Moodle forum, as indicated by the
comment ecosystem in Figure 1.3.
12
Figure 1.3: Technology elements in a cMOOC.
These cMOOCs are informed by connectivist views of learning — namely, that
knowledge is distributed and learning is the process of navigating, growing and
pruning connections. Interactions in CCK08 started in Moodle, but learners
interacted in Facebook (www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=31924181180),
Second Life (http://chilbo.wikispaces.com/Connectivism+Course+in+Chilbo),
blogs, wikis and other spaces. Fini (2009, Section 3) details the following toolset
used in his research of CCK08: “Moodle, blogs, Facebook, Linkedin, Twine,
Twitter, Ning, Elluminate, Ustream, Pageflakes, The Daily, Second Life, RSS,
conceptual maps, social bookmarking, and Flickr.”
CCK08 was among the first courses that adopted the model of distributed content
and interactions that have since come to define cMOOCs. Fini (2009) provides
an indication of the range of tools and processes, including how some of the
tools were selected and proposed by the facilitators, and others were suggested
by the participants. Even though the course assignments required only the use
of a personal blog and a tool to build concept maps, during the course more than
12 dierent tools and technological environments were used, from learning
management systems (e.g., Moodle) to 3D environments (e.g., Second Life).
Tool sets dier for each MOOC, with prominent or “fashionable” tools gaining
significant attention. For example, during CCK08, a group was formed in Second
Life (which was, at the time, gaining attention with educators) for individuals to
meet and discuss course topics. In subsequent courses, dierent technologies were
used that reflected the new tools gaining prominence during the time frame of
the course. CCK09 resulted in significant Twitter trac and PLENK10 produced
numerous Facebook groups.
• Knowledge is generative – xMOOCs adopt a traditional view of knowledge
and learning. Instead of distributed knowledge networks, xMOOCs are
based on a hub-and-spoke model: the faculty/knowledge at the centre
and the learners as replicators or duplicators of knowledge. Each week
in a cMOOC starts with readings and resources that reflect the current
understanding of experts in the field. Learners are asked, however, to go
beyond the declarations of knowledge and to reflect on how dierent
contexts impact the structure (even relevance) of that knowledge. Broadly,
however, generative vs. declarative knowledge captures the epistemological
13
distinctions between cMOOCs and the Coursera/edX MOOCs. Learners are
encouraged to create and share digital artifacts — blogs, articles, images and
videos.
• Coherence is learner formed and instructor guided – This attribute is closely
related to the point above. In traditional courses, instructors create
knowledge coherence by bounding the domain of knowledge that the
learners will explore — that is, this is the course text, here are the readings
and the quizzes and tests that validate what the student has learned. In
cMOOCs, the coherence between course concepts is less structured, as
learners are expected to form these connections through the process
of learning. Learners are asked to explore, deepen and extend the ideas
presented in weekly readings and resources. Coherence is something that
the learners form as they make sense of and find their way through the
messy knowledge elements that make up the many dimensions of a field.
• Interactions are distributed and multi-spaced – CCK08 started by being
primarily centred in a Moodle discussion forum. As the course progressed,
interactions occurred with many tools and technologies, including Second
Life, PageFlakes, Google Groups, Twitter, Facebook, Plurk, blogs, wikis,
YouTube and dozens of others.
• Solutions are innovation and impact focused – It is now a cliché to state that
the world is complex and that knowledge is continually evolving. However,
just because it is a cliché does not mean it is not true. Society faces complex
challenges. Solutions to these global challenges will likely be found in
distributed and networked approaches. The challenges are too big to
be addressed in traditional sub-clustered empirical knowledge models.
Integrative and holistic knowledge approaches, distributed across global
networks can help (e.g., the way the virus that causes SARS in 2003 was
identified). With cMOOCs, attempts are made to emulate connective and
integrative knowledge: a tug on one part of the knowledge network impacts
other parts.
• Autonomous and self-regulated learners are fostered – cMOOCs revolve around
a power question: What can learners do for themselves with digital tools
and networks? cMOOCs foster not only a particular type of knowledge
in a particular area of inquiry; they also foster a self-regulated, motivated
and autonomous learner. When an instructor does for learners what
learners should do for themselves, the learning experience is incomplete.
Developing capacity for learning and the mindsets needed to be successful
learners is a central attribute of cMOOCs. The goal is not only the
epistemological development of learners (knowing things), but also their
ontological development (becoming a certain type of person).
Curriculum and Learning Outcomes
Participative pedagogical models are particularly appropriate for use with OER. The
learning content or curriculum, when it consists of OER or other free content on
the Internet, plays a dierent role than they do in traditional courses. Traditional
courses are generally designed with some learning target (outcomes) and
sequenced content intended to direct the learner to achieving planned outcomes.
14
On the surface, this model is useful for managing the education experience,
as the intent of courses are clearly mapped to specific course, programme
or degree outcomes. The reality of the learning experience is more complex
than is indicated by structured curriculum. Learners approach courses with
varying levels of expertise and knowledge, gained through formal courses and
life experiences. A group of 30 students will consist of diverse learners having
dierent knowledge profiles. In a participative pedagogical model, learners are
able to select and interact around new knowledge and avoid duplication. The
educator continues to play a role in ensuring that all learners meet the needs of
each course. However, where a course cannot be personalised for each student,
due to teacher-learner ratios, learners can self-organise and self-regulate to
personalise the learning process. Instead of creating a rigid course structure in
advance of learner engagement with curriculum, a cMOOC defines learning
outcomes, but gives students freedom in exploring and accessing the course
content.
Finally, structure in cMOOCs is a by-product of the interactions that occur
between learners and content, learners and the educator, and learners with other
learners. The experience of student interaction is then “stitched together” as
learners move through the course through analytics (Hawksey 2012). Analytics
reveal the coherence developed through interaction for dierent students, rather
than the structure that is formed in advance of the course starting.
Conclusion
The OER movement faces an important challenge in responding to MOOCs.
While the hype pendulum has swung strongly in the direction of open online
courses, as educators start to face the challenges and shortcomings of MOOCs,
it is reasonable to expect that attention will turn to concerns about access to
educational content and eective pedagogical models.
One challenge that OER advocates need to consider is the broader appeal of ease of
use and access than just openly licensed content. For example, learners who take
Coursera courses have, to date, not demonstrated a significant interest in OER or
any content and course licensing. The main interest is “free as in access” not “free
as in remixing/re-use.”
Additionally, how do small colleges and universities participate in open online
courses? Companies such as Coursera are partnering with elite universities. The
prominent xMOOC model has not yet provided an opportunity for less elite
systems to teach courses on their platforms.
The future of MOOCs is unclear, considering the rapid development of MOOCs
from obscurity in late 2011 to mainstream attention in 2012. The OER movement
is quickly evolving, as are software, content and platform providers. Media
attention proclaims disruption for education. Regardless of what the future holds
for open online courses, a critical need exists for learners from around the world to
be able to access quality learning content and learning experiences. As the MOOC
hype subsides, it is important for the OER movement to continue to advocate for
openness, access and learner-focus.
15
References
Allen, I. and Seaman, J. (2011). “Going the Distance: Online Education in the
USA.” Babson Survey Research Group: Wellesley, MA.
Altbach, P.G., Reisberg, L. and Rumbley, L.E. (2009). “Trends in Global Higher
Education: Tracking an Academic Revolution.” Retrieved from: http://
unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0018/001831/183168e.pdf
Basu, K. (2012). “MOOCs and the Professoriate.” Retrieved from: www.
insidehighered.com/news/2012/05/23/faculty-groups-consider-how-
respond-moocs
Carey, K. (2012). “Into the Future with MOOC’s.” Retrieved from: http://chronicle.
com/article/Into-the-Future-With-MOOCs/134080/
Creative Commons (2012). “Keeping MOOCs Open.” [blog]. Retrieved from:
http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/34852
Daniel, J. (2012). “Making Sense of MOOCs: Musings in a Maze of Myth, Paradox
and Possibility.” Korean National Open University: Seoul.
Downes, S. (2012). “The Rise of MOOCs.” Retrieved from: http://halfanhour.
blogspot.ca/2012/04/rise-of-moocs.html
Fini, A. (2009). “The Technological Dimension of a Massive Open Online Course:
The Case of the CCK08 Course Tools.” International Review of Research in
Open and Distance Learning 10(5). Retrieved from: www.irrodl.org/index.
php/irrodl/article/view/643/1402
Hawksey, M. (2012). “Summary of Social Monitoring Tools and Recipes I Use
at JISC CETIS.” Retrieved from: http://mashe.hawksey.info/2012/10/
summary-of-social-monitoring-tools-and-recipes/
Hill, P. (2012). “Four Barriers That MOOCs Must Overcome to Build a Sustainable
Model.” Retrieved from: http://mfeldstein.com/four-barriers-that-moocs-
must-overcome-to-become-sustainable-model/
McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G. and Cormier, D. (2010). “The MOOC Model
for Digital Practice.” Retrieved from: www.elearnspace.org/Articles/
MOOC_Final.pdf
Open University (2012). “History of the OU.” Retrieved from: www8.open.ac.uk/
about/main/the-ou-explained/history-the-ou
Pappano, L. (2012). “The Year of the MOOC.” Retrieved from: www.nytimes.
com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/massive-open-online-courses-are-
multiplying-at-a-rapid-pace.html
Simonson, M., Smaldino, S.E., Albright, M. and Zvacek, S. (2011).Teaching and
Learning at a Distance: Foundations of Distance Education. Allyn & Bacon:
Boston.
Young, J. (2012a). “Dozens of Plagiarism Incidents Are Reported in Coursera’s Free
Online Courses.” Retrieved 5 December 2012 from: http://chronicle.com/
article/article-content/133697/
Young, J. (2012b). “Providers of Free MOOC’s Now Charge Employers for Access to
Student Data.” Retrieved from: http://chronicle.com/article/Providers-of-
Free-MOOCs-Now/136117/
17
Introduction
We are living in challenging times as we transition to a new knowledge-based
society. Some educational resources are now fully accessible through dierent
media formats via information and communication technologies (ICT) —
through Web tools and search engines, including personal websites and those of
formal educational institutions, libraries, information centres and civil society
organisations (communities, associations, aliations). There are advances in
technology worldwide and hundreds of thousands of new resources published
each day on the Internet. Accordingly, the way we see the world has changed
dramatically. This also has a significant impact on education, both in the methods
of learning and in the methods of teaching.
If knowledge creation and transfer is one of the strategies of wealth and prosperity
most promising and challenging in the emergence of a knowledge-based
society, then the main objective for an organisation has to be the discovery,
instrumentation and operationalisation of a sustainable cycle of “virtuous value
creation” as a side eect of capitalising on the flow of information and knowledge
in the activities produced by the most valuable asset of the organisation: its
human capital.
The capacity for innovation is a recognised indicator of competitive strength and
vitality in an organisation, and has become extremely valued in a knowledge-
based economy (Carrillo 1998, 2004). In an educational environment this means
valuing and using knowledge produced through the academic community, from
courses and teaching materials, articles and books, conferences and lectures,
research reports, learning resources and other educational materials.
The Internet has proven to be of great potential to facilitate knowledge
dissemination from universities, educational institutions, organisations and
Academic Knowledge Mobilisation
to Promote Cultural Change Towards
Openness in Education
José Vladimir Burgos Aguilar and Maria Soledad Ramírez Montoya,
Tecnológico de Monterrey
CHAPTER
18
governments, as well as to support the design of innovative educational strategies
to improve and transform learning environments. UNESCO coined the term
“Open Educational Resources” (OER) in 2002 to describe open academic content
made available through ICT for reference, use and adaptation for educational
purposes. According to UNESCO (2011), the potential use of information
technologies in education is crucial in providing educators in a growing
information society with the tools needed to creatively impact the teaching-
learning process, enabling them to overcome the challenges of a disruptive
environment and global progress towards a more demanding knowledge-based
society.
To move beyond the OER movement of creating and sharing resources, it is
important to recognise and properly document the type of knowledge being
generated in educational institutions. Educational institutions aim to provide
appropriate mechanisms to encourage knowledge transfer but make a conscious
recognition of administrative, technological and legal barriers. It is crucial that
policy makers and administrative sta take actions to facilitate knowledge-based
strategies, aligned with the mission and vision of organisations, to make possible
a real change in the three levels of planning: strategic, tactical and operational.
To succeed in building a knowledge-based economy, organisations — including
educational institutions — need to recognise their knowledge assets and facilitate
a dissemination process through an active local community.
According to the OPAL Report (2011) “Beyond OER: Shifting Focus to Open
Educational Practices,” five barriers need to be overcome if educational
institutions are to encourage use of OER:
1. Lack of institutional support
2. Lack of technological tools
3. Lack of skills and time of users
4. Lack of quality or fitness of OER
5. Personal issues (lack of trust and time)
The report argues for building confidence in the use of OER to enhance actual
usage, as well as the creation of open learning frameworks to transform the way
institutions see education today.
One of the critical barriers identified is the issue of protecting knowledge assets
through mechanisms of intellectual property and copyrights at the moment that
the knowledge is generated by the creator. Without the proper legal management
of digital objects (like OER), the eorts will be diminished, impacting the further
uses of OER. It is estimated that most of the existing educational material available
over the Internet is protected by traditional copyright terms and conditions of
use, which makes it dicult to share and subsequently make it “open” (Atkins
et al. 2007). OER are characterised as open access materials that are available to
the public, with no restriction on accessibility and no payment of royalties for
educational use.
One challenge of OER use in academia is to recognise the value of existing
knowledge as it is shared, assimilated and applied to specific needs by other
communities in academia. Eective knowledge application entails the explicit
definition of new knowledge that arises through the process of tailoring OER from
19
their source towards a specific application (re-use or repurposing), facilitating
actions that are eective and significant (Bennet and Bennet 2007).
Figure 2.1 shows how knowledge represented by OER is first published on the
Internet to the worldwide community. The problem then becomes that OERs
are too dispersed on too many websites. This makes it dicult for the users to
tell whether educational resources are from reliable sources or unreliable sources
(ACRL 2004). Thus, the emergence of “infomediaries” is needed, whose basic
goal is to provide a service as aggregators of information, operating as catalogues
(Hartman et al. 2000; Skyrme 2001). An infomediary (from the combination
of the words “information” and “intermediary”) is a website that gathers and
organises large amounts of data (metadata) and acts as a go-between among those
who need the information and those who supply the information.
Next, there is a dissemination process to dierent markets. In the case of
universities, the faculty is the idoneous community to catalyze change by
mobilising knowledge into specific educational practices — for example, by
creating new courses, workshops, learning activities, conferences and other
teaching activities.
Figure 2.1: Knowledge mobilisation of academic content.
The OPAL Report (2011) shows significant findings, such as the fact that the OER
initiatives have focused on the creation and publication of educational materials
and resources but neglected the transfer and mobilisation of knowledge into
learning and teaching practice. Towards an academic mobilisation of knowledge
represented by Open Educational Practices, a definition is needed. The OPAL
Report (2011) shows us the following:
“Open Educational Practices (OEP) are a set of activities around
instructional design and implementation of events and processes
intended to support learning. They also include the creation, use
and repurposing of Open Educational Resources (OER) and their
adaptation to the contextual setting. They are documented in a
portable format and made openly available.”
The full idea with Open Educational Practices is to represent the activities
of how institutions, educators and learners are using OER in practice for
20
teaching, learning or research. A good example is the re-use, revision, remixing,
redistribution and production of new OER to promote innovative pedagogical
techniques and strategies to empower learners on their lifelong learning path.
Case Study: Mobilising OER to Educational Practices
The case study that is presented in this chapter took place at a Mexican university
that has worked since the year 2007 on several open educational projects. These
projects were thought to enrich innovative practices and to improve academic
achievement. Based on experiences with the use and production of royalty-free
course materials, the Tecnológico de Monterrey has identified some key factors for
the development of a model of eective knowledge transfer using OER.
The Tecnológico de Monterrey is a private, non-profit academic institution
founded in 1943. It is composed of 31 campuses across Mexico. These campuses
oer high school programmes, undergraduate and graduate degrees, continuing
education, as well as social programmes. Through technology-based distance
programmes since 1989, the Tecnológico de Monterrey has been a pioneer
in distance education. With more than 20 years of experience through its
Virtual University, it currently reaches 29 countries and oers undergraduate,
postgraduate, continuing education, and social programmes completely online.
Regarding knowledge mobilisation of academic content, the Tecnológico
de Monterrey has been an active participant in each stage of the process by
sharing and publishing academic content through the worldwide initiative
of the OpenCourseWare Consortium (OCW-ITESM 2008). This has been
accomplished by publishing undergraduate and graduate courses, by selecting
relevant educational resources through the creation and maintenance of a Web
catalogue of indexed OER, and by fostering dissemination of academic content to
those who may be interested in its use (academia, government, industry, NGOs,
communities, the public). Lastly, it promotes not only the use of OER, but goes far
beyond the process of dissemination of knowledge by tailoring it from its source
to its application. OER content playlists promote and facilitate remixing of core
components of courses and share new ideas for teaching by creating new topics
and course subjects. Some examples are: OER as textbook alternatives (anthologies
of educational resources); OER as reusable resources; and OER as content generated
or modified by a learner (Ramírez and Burgos 2011), fostering a culture of active
participation in the creation, use and re-use of educational material.
Some innovative educational experiences that have promoted knowledge
mobilisation through OER at the Tecnológico de Monterrey towards an
educational open practice include:
a) the adoption of open digital materials from OpenCourseWare universities
for formal academic programmes in our institution (Contreras 2008)
b) publication of academic content through the OpenCourseWare initiative
(OCW-ITESM 2008)
c) digital knowledge dissemination through the initiative called “Knowledge
Hub” (currently named TEMOA: www.temoa.info) that provides a public
and multilingual catalogue of OER, aiming to help the educational
community find the resources that meet their particular needs for teaching
21
and learning through a specialised and collaborative search systems and
social tools (Burgos 2008, 2010)
d) integration of OER with eLearning in graduate courses to create anthologies
equivalent to textbooks (Ramírez 2010b); and integration of OER with
traditional education systems in the context of the work of students (Burgos
and Ramírez 2010). Examples include:
(d1) development by the university of an institutional repository of
OER and mobile learning resources on educational research which
is available through a website (http://catedra.ruv.itesm.mx), where
these resources are open, free and licensed for use, re-use and
distribution (DAR 2010)
(d2) use of OER as an anthology of selected resources (content playlist)
by the instructor of the course, providing a suitable alternative to a
textbook for the course (Ramírez 2010c)
(d3) creation of an open textbook (Ramírez and Burgos 2010), resulting
from case studies and investigations where 120 graduate students
implemented OER in their learning environments and documented
the impact on their learning
(d4) creation of OER by the graduate students who designed educational
cases for K–12, high school and higher education, as well as open
objectives for the formation of teachers in a knowledge-based society
(Ramírez and Valenzuela 2010)
(d5) use of the platform of TEMOA by learners to generate or modify
content (The service “Topics & Courses” allows registered users to
create courses, topics and learning activities through the definition
of annotated lists with OER, and search queries produced by the
user at the catalogue (TEMOA 2011a). The lists may be shared as
they are published for free use, or can be copied and reorganised by
combining specific elements to create new lists and adapting them to
meet needs of teaching or learning, all while retaining references of
attribution to the original sources.)
(d6) production of OER, aimed at the development of educational
researchers in a collaborative process with six other Mexican
institutions (Ramírez 2010c)
(d7) training by the university of its own faculty and undergraduate
and graduate students, as well as of faculty from other educational
institutions (K–12 to university level), on the eective use of OER in
their own classroom environments
Finally, the Tecnológico de Monterrey has conducted research on all these
experiences, such as: use of technology; legal issues relating to open educational
materials; training for using and producing OER; and sharing best practices (www.
temoa.info/research). Figure 2.2 shows a practical application by mapping the
dierent experiences that have taken place at the Tecnológico de Monterrey to
encourage and promote academic knowledge mobilisation into Open Educational
Practices.
22
Figure 2.2: Knowledge mobilisation of academic content at the Tecnológico de Monterrey.
Sharing: Publication of Academic Content Through OER
The first documented phase for the Tecnológico de Monterrey in knowledge
mobilisation is the educational experience of sharing and publishing academic
content through the initiative of OpenCourseWare Consortium (OCW-ITESM
2008; www.ocwconsortium.org). The Consortium brings together over 250
educational institutions and organisations to create a pool of open educational
content, fostering the development of courseware materials from its members to
facilitate knowledge transfer through open academic content, and by promoting
its adoption to propitiate tailoring of educational materials to satisfy specific
educational needs (see Figure 2.3).
The process of adoption of open academic content started in 2007 at the
Tecnológico de Monterrey with the analysis of several courses from international
universities of higher education — for example, MIT (Massachusetts Institute
of Technology) (MIT-OCW 2011), Carnegie Mellon University (2011; www.cmu.
edu/oli) and Yale University (2011; http://oyc.yale.edu). The professors searched
for matches between the syllabuses of their courses and others published in open
initiatives. The next step was to select specific content and learning activities from
these courses. The content and activities were incorporated into undergraduate
courses delivered during that fall 2007 academic period.
The implementation of these materials was smooth and successful (Mortera
2011). The contents and activities from OCWC courses provided an international
perspective which made the recipient courses richer and more interesting for both
professors and students. The main obstacles identified in this process occurred
during the selection and design stage. The topics included and the depth of the
23
content of open courses varied significantly from local courses, which made
finding suitable matches between courses a dicult task.
To study the adoption process, the Graduate School of Education of the Tecnológico
de Monterrey conducted two follow-up case studies on the subject of knowledge
transference and the adoption process of open academic content: “Knowledge
transference of digital resources from the OpenCourseWare initiative for face-to-
face instruction” (Contreras 2008); and the “Transference of open educational
resources from global universities” (González 2008; González et al. 2008).
Figure 2.3: Sharing of open academic content through OCWC (OCW-ITESM 2008).
Selection: Documentation and Evaluation of