ArticlePDF Available

OER Usage by Instructional Designers and Training Managers in Corporations

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

ince the development of Open Educational Resources (OERs), different models regarding the usage of these resources in education have appeared in the literature. Wiley’s 4-Rs model is considered to be one of the leading models. Research based on Wiley’s model shows that using materials without making changes is the most common use. Compared to the extensive literature regarding OER usage in education, the literature barely deals with OER usage by instructional designers or training managers in corporations. The purpose of this research is to examine the OER usage of these two stakeholders, distinguishing between Little and Big OER repositories, in which Little OER repositories such as YouTube and Wikipedia aren’t necessarily designed to fulfill educational purposes. Findings show that these stakeholders almost use only Little repositories and that their usage level is higher than what is documented in the literature: they mostly Revise–modify the form of the resource, and Remix–combine different resources to create new ones. These differences can be explained by the fact that materials from Little OER repositories are raw materials, requiring further editing and adjustment. Significant differences between instructional designers’ and training managers’ usage of OERs were found regarding the Reuse level of resources from internal repositories and the Google Images repository, and the frequency of this Reuse.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Interdisciplinary Journal of e-Skills and Lifelong Learning Volume 11, 2015
Cite as: Merkel, E., & Cohen, A. (2015). OER usage by instructional designers and training managers in corporations.
Interdisciplinary Journal of e-Skills and Life Long Learning, 11, 237-256. Retrieved from
http://www.ijello.org/Volume11/IJELLv11p237-256Merkel1968.pdf
Editor: Janice Whatley
Submitted May 25, 2015; Revised September 6, 2015; Accepted: October 4, 2015
An earlier, shorter version of this paper was presented at the Chais conference 2015, in Raanana, Israel,
and included in Y. Eshet-Alkalai, I. Blau, A. Caspi, N. Geri, Y. Kalman, & V. Silber-Varod (Eds.), Proceed-
ings of the 10th Chais Conference for the Study of Innovation and Learning Technologies 2015: Learning in
the Technological Era. Raanana: The Open University of Israel.
OER Usage by Instructional Designers and
Training Managers in Corporations
Eli Merkel and Anat Cohen
Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
elimerkel@mail.tau.ac.il; anatco@post.tau.ac.il
Abstract
Since the development of Open Educational Resources (OERs), different models regarding the
usage of these resources in education have appeared in the literature. Wileys 4-Rs model is con-
sidered to be one of the leading models. Research based on Wiley’s model shows that using mate-
rials without making changes is the most common use. Compared to the extensive literature re-
garding OER usage in education, the literature barely deals with OER usage by instructional de-
signers or training managers in corporations. The purpose of this research is to examine the OER
usage of these two stakeholders, distinguishing between Little and Big OER repositories, in
which Little OER repositories such as YouTube and Wikipedia arent necessarily designed to
fulfill educational purposes. Findings show that these stakeholders almost use only Little reposi-
tories and that their usage level is higher than what is documented in the literature: they mostly
Revise–modify the form of the resource, and Remix–combine different resources to create new
ones. These differences can be explained by the fact that materials from Little OER repositories
are raw materials, requiring further editing and adjustment. Significant differences between in-
structional designersand training managersusage of OERs were found regarding the Reuse lev-
el of resources from internal repositories and the Google Images repository, and the frequency of
this Reuse.
Keywords: OER, Open Educational Resources, instructional designers, training managers, corpo-
rate
Introduction
The term, Open Educational Resource (OER), was first coined in 2002 by the UNESCO commit-
tee (World Forum of UNESCO Chairs, 2002)) and was defined by Hylén (2006, p. 1) as “Digit-
ized materials offered freely and openly for educators, students, and self-learners to use and re-
use for teaching, learning, and re-
search”. Following Hylén’s definition, it
can be assumed that instructional de-
signers in the training world might have
interest in these resources since they
already use new technologies and incor-
porate learning objects into their designs
(Duncan, 2009).
OERs can usually be found in varied
repositories. The literature suggests a
Material published as part of this publication, either on-line or
in print, is copyrighted by the Informing Science Institute.
Permission to make digital or paper copy of part or all of these
works for personal or classroom use is granted without fee
provided that the copies are not made or distributed for profit
or commercial advantage AND that copies 1) bear this notice
in full and 2) give the full citation on the first page. It is per-
missible to abstract these works so long as credit is given. To
copy in all other cases or to republish or to post on a server or
to redistribute to lists requires specific permission and payment
of a fee. Contact Publisher@InformingScience.org to request
redistribution permission.
OER usage
238
distinction between these repositories based on different theoretical frameworks, e.g., distribution
and sharing models (Shmueli, Reisman, & Sperling, 2010): Big repositories and Little reposito-
ries (Weller, 2010). A Big OER repository is defined as an institutional repository for teaching
and learning objectives and is usually of high quality. It is presented in a unified style and forms
part of a time-limited, focused project, has a portal, and is associated with research and data. A
Little OER repository is defined as an individually produced, low cost resource that can be pro-
duced by anybody, not just educators, and may not have explicit educational objectives. It is usu-
ally perceived to have low production quality and is shared through a range of third party sites
and services. Reference to Little OER repositories, such as Wikipedia, posts and blogs on Word-
press, Slideshare, Wikispaces, and images on Flicker, which do not contain the classic learning
objects, can be found in the literature (Hylén, 2006; Keegan & Bell, 2011; Rolfe, Williams, &
Windle, 2012; Weller, 2010).
Types of OER usage are varied. In his 4-Rs model, Wiley (Hilton, Wiley, Stein, & Johnson,
2010) differentiates four levels of reuse: using the content without changes (Reuse); sharing cop-
ies of the content with others (Redistribute); adapting, modifying, translating, or changing the
form of the content (Revise); and combining different OERs to create a new source (Remix). The
literature suggests that the last two levels represent a minor part of the possible utilization of
OERs (Hilton, Wiley, & Lutz, 2012; Rolfe et al., 2012). Through the reuse of OERs, teaching and
learning processes can be enhanced (Friesen, 2009; Hylén, 2006).
OER repositories might be relevant for corporate instructional designers who are required to sup-
ply training solutions of considerable content and domains. There is no doubt that organizations
have different training needs, thus the requirement for particular content; however, instructional
design in organizations often revolves around a standard set of topics. Varied resources are avail-
able for instructional designers, such as internal manpower, internal organizational repositories,
external repositories, and repositories which are not necessarily meant for learning purposes.
These last two might be open Big or Little repositories and, thus, are accessible to instructional
designers and training managers. In addition, it seems that there are different work characteristics
for instructional designers working in corporate organizations in comparison to instructional de-
signers in the academic and educational domains. Therefore, this research aims to examine which
OER repositories are used by the instructional designers working in corporate organizations and
whether their usage characteristics are different from those described in the literature. This re-
search broadens the little knowledge that exists regarding the use of OERs by instructional de-
signers and training managers in corporations, especially in Israel, and provides insight into the
way they are used.
Background
The impact of open learning resources in higher education was discussed during UNSCOs edu-
cation forum in 2002. Out of that forum came the term OERs (Johnstone, 2005). Around this
principal, a movement was developed, and at its heart lies the simple and powerful idea that the
world’s knowledge is a public good and that technology in general and the World Wide Web in
particular, provide an extraordinary opportunity for everyone to share, use, and reuse that
knowledge (Smith & Casserly, 2006). Since the time the term originated, there have been several
attempts to clarify the definition of OERs. Hylén (2006) defines OER as digital materials offered
freely and openly to reuse for education and research. Hylén also adds that OERs contain educa-
tional content, software tools, and application resources. A more detailed definition of OERs was
suggested by the William and Flora Hewlett foundation, which is considered part of the OER
movement leadership: “Teaching, learning, and research resources that reside in the public do-
main or have been released under an intellectual property license that permits their free use or re-
purposing by others. OERs include full courses, course materials, modules, textbooks, streaming
Merkel & Cohen
239
videos, tests, software, and any other tools, materials, or techniques used to support access to
knowledge” (D’Antoni, 2009, p. 3).
The meaningful advantage of these resources being free for use turns out to have profound impli-
cations; for example, in an updated study of eight US colleges that had adopted the use of OERs,
Hilton, Robinson, Wiley, and Ackerman (2014) found a significant cost reduction for their stu-
dents worth thousands of dollars. Beyond that, the money savings did not come at the expense of
the quality of materials nor the students’ academic achievements. A study from 2013 compared
the academic achievements of students who used OERs to the achievements of students who used
learning books, and found no difference (Hilton, Gaudet, Clark, Robinson, & Wiley, 2013).
Generally, OERs can be found in various dedicated repositories. The literature suggests several
theoretical frameworks to distinguish between these repositories. Shmueli et al. (2010) categorize
types of online learning material repositories based on distribution and sharing models; Cohen,
Kalimi, and Nachmias’s (2013) distinction is of local and global repositories. Hylén (2006) pro-
vides a different angle to the characterization of repositories by placing them on two axes: scale
of operation (small/large), and provider of materials (institution/community). Although the termi-
nology is similar, Weller (2010) presents a slightly different approach to the classification of re-
positories. He groups the repositories in terms of Big repositories and Little repositories. A Big
OER repository is usually defined as an institutional repository for teaching and learning objec-
tives and is usually of high quality. It is presented in a unified style and forms part of a time-
limited, focused project, has a portal, and is associated with research and data. A Little OER re-
pository is defined as an individually produced, low cost resource that can be produced by any-
body, not just educators, and may not have explicit educational objectives. It is usually perceived
to have low production quality and is shared through a range of third party sites and. Indeed, the
literature refers to Little OER repositories as not containing the classic learning objects such as
Wikipedia, posts and blogs on Wordpress, Slideshare, Wikispaces, and images on Flicker (Hylén,
2006; Keegan & Bell, 2011; Rolfe et al, 2012; Weller, 2010). Despite this categorization, one
should notice that Weller’s terminology might be misleading. The repository size in terms of
number of objects and number of users reflects the opposite picture. In their research, Zervas,
Alifragkis, and Sampson (2014) analyzed the functionality of 49 Big OER repositories and pre-
sented data regarding the number of objects and users for each repository. They found that the
biggest repositories contain no more than several hundreds of thousands of objects, and they lo-
cated only two repositories with more than one hundred thousand users (e.g., Curriki and Merlot).
This contrasts Little repositories such as Wikipedia, which contains more than 26 million articles
in more than 250 languages and serves more than 500 million readers each month (Mesgari,
Okoli, Mehdi, Nielsen, & Lanamäki, 2015).
Detailed examination of OER repositories, whether they are Big or Little, reveals a variety of ob-
jects that are used as OERs. In their 2009 review, Wiley and Gurrell display the development of
several OER projects such as Internet Archive, Wikipedia, Connexions, and MIT Open-
CourseWare; each contains a wide variety of objects. Wikipedia includes encyclopedic items that
are mainly text based; Internet Archive is an online library containing websites, moving images,
texts, audio, and recently added educational resources (Murphy, Hashim, & O’Connor, 2007);
Connexions is an Internet repository containing educational content focusing on books, organized
in modules that include tools for editing and reorganizing content (Burrus, 2014); MIT Open-
CourseWare is a repository containing the academic content of entire courses from all the MIT
university faculties, where some of the courses even include full video lectures (dOliveira, Car-
son, James, & Lazarus, 2010). Thus, it seems that the types of OERs are varied from small
learning objects to full courses.
A significant aspect of the definition of OERs is the extent of openness, which is the way they
can be used. Obviously, OERs are used as a knowledge source for the learner, but a more ad-
OER usage
240
vanced OER use is the Reuse: usage which exceeds a simple reading or reviewing of the learning
object. Hylén (2006) states that Reuse of OERs means that the end-user should be able not only to
use or read the resource but also to adapt it and build a new OER upon it. By the Reuse of OERs,
teaching and learning processes can be made efficient, and their quality can be improved via ad-
aptation to local needs, improvement, renovation, adding or removing layers, and combining sev-
eral resources (Friesen, 2009; Hylén, 2006). However, there is always the concern that infor-
mation overload might cause confusion, create a mismatch, or waste time during the data search
due to a lack of consistent classification schemes. There is additional concern for the quality of
the data because of the absence of appropriate evaluation tools (Nash, 2005).
Hilton et al. (2010) expanded the definition of the Reuse types. In their research, they present
Wileys 4-Rs model, in which four levels of Reuse are differentiated. The model defines the pos-
sible openness levels of OERs, but in a broader sense the model can be used to define the usage
types of OERs:
1. Reuse the most basic usage type, using the content unaltered and verbatim.
2. Redistribute - sharing copies of the content with others.
3. Revise - adapting, modifying, translating, or changing the form of the content.
4. Remix the highest level of reuse, combining different OERs to create a new source.
The literature suggests that the last two levels represent a minor part of the utilization of OERs.
Hilton, Wiley, and Lutz (2012) examined OER repositories of digital books in order to map the
usage types of the repositorys users. They concluded that Reuse is the most popular usage type,
and that the Revise and Remix usage types, although they seem to be appealing for use, represent
only 7.5% of overall usage. This finding is in line with what is known from the literature regard-
ing the Reuse of OERs from other repositories. For example, the Rolfe et al. (2012) research, in
which the usage types of medical OERs in a specific repository were examined, found that 99%
of users didnt implement any changes to the content, but simply reused it. Hilton et al. (2012)
found that the easier it is to make changes to an OER, the more changes people will make. Never-
theless it is important to mention that this research was conducted on a repository that enabled the
option to track changes made on its objects. A major limitation of the research was the dark reuse
of contentcases in which the users Revise or Remix objects outside of the system without the
researchers knowing.
In the corporate world, a requirement for instructional design turns up when someone in the cor-
poration, usually a manager, identifies a performance gap that requires a training treatment. Ac-
cording to the needs and the target audience, the instructional designer decides what the required
solution is and develops manuals, scripts, video tutorial, computer based solutions, or tests (Gor-
don & Zemke, 2000). A substantial part of learning solutions might combine technological ele-
ments; therefore, instructional designers might have interest in OERs since they already use new
technologies in their projects and incorporate learning objects from the web in their designs
(Duncan, 2009). Additionally, given the global economic condition, organizations are increasing-
ly forced to reduce manpower while simultaneously being required to increase the productivity of
their remaining employees. In such an environment the instructional designersrole becomes
more significant, and they are required to increase the quality of instructional programs using ev-
er more efficient methodologies (Roytek, 2010). Therefore, instructional designers might find
OER repositories useful since they contain high quality learning objects likely to be relevant for
them, answering the organization’s demand for efficiency. There is no doubt that considerable
differences can be found between organizations in regard to their training needs and vocational
training, and thus in their different content needs. However, in the learning development world, in
most organizations, there are a few common fundamental topics that can be found. Different and
Merkel & Cohen
241
varied resources are available for instructional designers who develop training materials such as:
internal manpower, internal organizational repositories, external repositories, and repositories
which are not necessarily meant for learning purposes. The latter might be OER repositories –
Big or Littlethus accessible for instructional designers. In addition, it seems that different OER
usage can be found when comparing instructional designers working in corporations to instruc-
tional designers in the academic and educational domains due to the dissimilar nature of their
work. Actually, publication regarding OER usage in the corporate world is scarce, as it seems that
the literature has mostly focused on the academic and educational domains. Even when the litera-
ture deals with OER issues in the corporate world, it is mostly from the point of view of how the
corporation is using the repository knowledge, and not its training division. For example, Orri-
Badia (2015) describes a case in which the L’Oréal Company chose to train 160 employees to
improve their presentation skills via a Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) and another exam-
ple is an OER that was established for the food industry (Geith, Vignare, Bourquin, & Thiagara-
jan, 2010). Therefore, this research aims to examine which OER repositories are used by the in-
structional designers working in corporations, and whether their usage characteristics are different
from those outlined by the literature.
The Study
The current study explores the corporate training development domain, focusing on two main
stakeholders – instructional designers (content developers of face-to-face and online training) and
training managersin order to examine the types of repositories they use and their usage levels.
The claim was that different organizations have their own unique characteristics, thus their learn-
ing and training needs are unique. Therefore, it was hypothesized that only a few external institu-
tional repositories (Big) are used for content development in corporations, mainly due to compat-
ibility issues and irrelevancy of other corporate content. Furthermore, it was theorized that in-
structional designers who use external repositories are required to make adjustments to learning
objects obtained from these repositories, hence deriving the following research hypotheses:
Instructional designers and training managers use the Little OERs.
Since Little repositories do not contain structured learning items, instructional designers
and training managers mainly utilize the Revise and Remix levels of use, which the lit-
erature indicates as less than 10% of common use.
Accordingly, the research questions are:
Which OER repositories are used by the instructional designers of corporations? Do they
use Little OERs?
If instructional designers of corporates do use Little OERs, what is the level of use in ac-
cordance with Wileys 4-Rs model?
Are there any differences regarding the usage level of instructional designers and training
managers?
Methodology
The research tool was a questionnaire, which was distributed to instructional designers and train-
ing managers in corporations through the following: Google Docs, by e-mail; relevant forums
related to corporate training in LinkedIn; as well as Facebook groups of instructional designers
and training managers. The full questionnaire in Hebrew can be found at the following link:
http://tinyurl.com/qe4hkbz, while the translated questionnaire in English can be found in the
Appendix.
OER usage
242
The questionnaire was designed according to the research questions, and the usage scale was
based mainly on the 4-Rs model (Hilton et al., 2010). It was mostly focused on the usage levels of
the items located in different kinds of repositories and their usage frequency, which was meas-
ured by a Likert scale.
The questionnaire was composed of four major parts:
General data – demographic data of the participant such as age, gender, role, and nature
of his/her job with an emphasis on learning material types developed by him/her.
Internal repositories participants were asked to report whether their place of work has
an internal repository, and their usage type.
External repositories participants were asked to report which external repositories they
use, and their usage type.
Sharing – participants were asked to report whether they share the learning objects that
they develop.
Regarding the external repositories, it should be noted that this part had two segments: in the first
segment, participants were asked to name the Big repositories that they use and describe their
usage level. In the second segment, participants received a list of popular Little repositories from
diverse disciplines and were asked to report whether they use them, and if so, to also describe
their usage level. In addition, participants had the option to list other Little repositories that they
use and describe their usage type. The main reason for focusing on popular Little repositories was
to obtain a sufficient amount of data for statistical analysis. The chosen repositories were:
YouTube – a popular website used for sharing videos and movies, containing millions of
videos and movies.
TED – a popular website containing short videos of lectures and movies from varied do-
mains and topics.
Google Imagesa search engine containing millions of pictures.
Flicker a website used for sharing pictures, containing millions of pictures.
Wikipedia – an encyclopedia website, containing free content and millions of informative
articles.
The questionnaire was sent to the targeted population of the study by e-mail and through posts in
relevant Facebook and LinkedIn forums. The mails and posts included an explanation of the
study aims and a request for participation. The questionnaire included further explanation and
guidelines regarding how to fill it out and was voluntarily completed online by Israeli participants
in the month of June, 2014.
According to the analysis of the completed questionnaires, the population of this study consisted
of 50 participants from the field of training, from 29 corporate organizations across Israel of
which there were 16 men and 34 women. 62% of the participants were instructional designers and
38% of them were training managers. The average age of the participants was 34.5, and their av-
erage number of years of experience in the industry was 6.9. The participating organizations in-
cluded companies from varied domains such as finance, food industry, and technology.
Merkel & Cohen
243
Findings
Characteristics of Learning Resources Developed in
Corporations
The study examined the types of learning resources which were developed by the participants,
their topics, and the development frequency of each resource. A list of common and popular cor-
porate training topics was shown to the participants. The participants were asked which topics
they developed as learning content. The options were sales, service, technical topics, regulations,
and other (the participants were able to report what kind of other contents they developed for
learning purposes). The results show that the developed learning items deal with service, sales,
technical topics, and regulations (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Segmentation of learning resource topics
Figure 2. Types of learning objects and development frequency
Figure 1 presents the major topics of learning resources developed in corporate organizations.
Service (27%), Sales (22%), and Technical (21%) were found to be the major topics of learning
resources developed in corporate organizations, with a balanced division. Regulation was only
OER usage
244
10% of developed learning resources. The category of Other did not result in a clear trend toward
a specific topic. In addition, participants were presented with common corporate learning items
such as presentations and software simulation and were asked to report the development frequen-
cy of these items on a 1-5 Likert scale (1 = never; 2 = rarely; 3 = sometimes; 4 = often; 5 = most-
ly).
As shown in Figure 2, the learning item that had the highest development frequency was Presen-
tation (4.00 on average), followed by Lesson plan (3.66 on average). Educational software (2.46
on average), Educational software script (2.32 on average), and Software simulation (2.06 on av-
erage) were far behind.
The Usage of Internal Repositories
Part of the questionnaire examined whether there were internal repositories in the participants
working environments and whether the participants use them. In addition, types and usage levels
of participantslearning items were explored. The findings show that 92% of organizations have
an internal repository and that 87% of the participants frequently use these internal repositories.
In order to examine the types of learning items that are available in the internal repositories, and
the search frequency of these items, the common corporate learning items were presented to the
participants and they were asked to rate their search frequency on a 1-5 Likert scale (1 = never; 2
= rarely; 3 = sometimes; 4 = often; 5 = mostly).
Figure 3 shows that in accordance with the development frequency of the different types of learn-
ing items, the most searched item was Presentation (3.59 on average), followed by Lesson plan
outline (3.21 on average). Educational software (2.76 on average), Educational software script
(1.81 on average), and Software simulation (1.69 on average) were, again, far behind.
Figure 3. Types of learning items retrieved from internal repositories, and their
search frequency
The participant usage level of learning items available in the internal repositories was examined,
as well. Different levels of learning item usage were presented to the participants, and they were
asked to rate their usage frequency for each level. The different levels were based on Wileys 4-
Rs model; however, in this current study only three out of the four Reuse levels were examined.
The fourth level of Reuse, Redistribute distributing free learning materials was not examined,
since it does not have relevance to the role of instructional designers. Table 1 outlines the congru-
ence between the model’s definitions and the options that were given to the participants in the
questionnaire.
Merkel & Cohen
245
Table 1. The congruence between Wileys 4-Rs model and
the answer options on the questionnaire
Remix
Reuse
The 4 Rs
The highest level of
Reuse, combining
different OERs to
create a new source
translating, or chang-
ing the form of the
content
The most basic usage
level, using the content
unaltered and verbatim
Definition
Creating changes
and combining dif-
ferent learning items
according to my
needs
Creating changes and
adjustments in the
learning item accord-
ing to my needs
Using the learning item
for informational pur-
poses only/using the
learning item in its
original form, just as it
appears in the reposito-
ry
Description in the
questionnaire
The participants were asked to report on the frequency of their Reuse for each level. The usage
levels and the frequency of Reuse were rated on a 1-5 Likert scale (1 = never; 2 = rarely; 3 =
sometimes; 4 = often; 5 = mostly), as well. The findings are presented in Figure 4. As the Figure
shows, the most popular usage levels are “creating changes and adjustments in the learning item
according to my needs” (3.67 on average) and “creating changes and combining different learning
items according to my needs” (3.64 on average). This means that Revise and Remix are the most
frequent answers, respectively. They are followed by “using the learning item for information
purposes only” (3.53 on average), and far behind with “using the learning item in its original
form, just as it appears in the repository” (2.36 on average), which correspond to the first two lev-
els of Reuse.
Figure 4. The frequency of usage level
The Usage of External Big Repositories
49% of the participants answered positively to the question, “Do you use online repositories con-
taining learning items when you are working on training development?” Subsequently, the partic-
ipants were asked to report the repositories that they use and on what level. It is noted that alt-
OER usage
246
hough the questionnaire gave clear and specific guidance to the participants, asking them to only
list repositories containing items which are clearly dedicated to learning such as presentations,
lesson plan outlines, and educational software, and not to list learning items such as Google Im-
ages, forums, or newsletters, most of the participants still reported only Little repositories such as
Wikipedia and YouTube. The small number of participants who did report using the relevant re-
positories (Big repositories) referred to pre-paid repositories, which did not fit the OER defini-
tion. Therefore, the results presented in this section could not be subjected to statistical analysis.
The Usage of External Little Repositories
The popular Little repositoriesYouTube, Google Images, Wikipedia, Flicker, and TEDwere
presented to the participants, and they were asked whether they use these repositories and at what
level. In addition, participants were able to report their usage of other Little repositories. As
shown in Table 2, YouTube is the most popular repository among participants of the current
study; 47 participants (96%) referred to this repository and reported that they use it when they
develop learning materials. Google Images was also found to be a popular repository for develop-
ing learning materials, used by 44 participants (90%). Wikipedia was found to be a slightly less
popular repository, with 34 participants (69%), and similarly, the TED repository was reported as
used by 27 participants (55%). The Flicker repository was hardly used by participants for the pur-
poses of learning development, and, in fact, the usage of this repository was so negligible that a
statistical analysis was not computed. Only 10 participants reported that they use other reposito-
ries for learning development; 5 participants reported that they use pre-paid ShutterStock, which
makes it irrelevant to the current study. Other repositories that were mentioned by individuals
were Safaribooks (online professional literature), short medical videos and movies found online,
internet articles, webinars, and Slideshare.
Table 2. Usage of external Little repositories
Remix
Creates changes
and combines
different learn-
ing items
Revise
Creates chang-
es and adjust-
ments to item
Reuse
Uses the item
just as it is
Usage
Popularity*
Repository
Content
23% 26%
51% 47 )96%(
Videos and
Movies
YouTube
27% 62%
11% 44 )90%(
Pictures
Google Images
53% 32%
15% 34 )69%(
Text
Wikipedia
18% 15%
67% 27 )55%(
Videos and
Movies
TED
- - - 5 )11%(
Pictures
Flicker
* Usage Popularity column presents the number of participants using the repository and their percentage.
Merkel & Cohen
247
The participant usage level of these repositories can be seen in the last two columns of Table 2.
Regarding Google Images, Revise and Remix were found to be 89% of all usage levels, and Re-
use represented only 11%. With the YouTube videos repository, Revise and Remix uses were
found to be 49% of all usage types. Wikipedia also had high rates of Revise and Remix uses
(85% of usage), and Remix was especially prominent and represented 53% of all usage. When
comparing the TED video repository to YouTube, there was a similar trend. It seems that Reuse
was the most popular level of use as it represented 67% of all usage, while Remix was 18% of all
usage, and Revise was only 15%. As mentioned previously, statistical analysis was not conducted
on the Flicker repository due to the low level of participant usage; as was the case for other repos-
itories with low levels of participant usage.
Sharing of Adapted OERs
The participants were asked to report whether they share the adapted learning resources that they
retrieve from repositories and modify for their needs, and if yes, how the sharing process is car-
ried out; 26 participants (58%) answered positively. As for the sharing processes (Figure 5), e-
mail was the most common sharing tool (54%). Another popular sharing process was to upload
the learning resource to the organization’s internal repository (33%). Together, other types of
sharing processes accounted for 13%; and interestingly, a small portion of participants chose to
give back” the resource to the repository (3%).
Figure 5. Sharing practices of changed learning objects
The Differences between Instructional Designers and Training
Managers Regarding OER Reuse Level
In the current study, no significant differences were found between instructional designers and
training managers regarding their usage levels, except for two cases. The first significant differ-
ence was found regarding the Reuse level of resources from the internal repositories and the fre-
quency of this Reuse [t(42) = -2.375, p < 0.05]. Thus, training mangers create more changes in
learning resources to fit their needs than instructional designers do. The average change frequen-
cy for instructional designers (M = 3.33, SD = 1.41) is lower than the average for training manag-
ers (M = 4.2, SD = 0.9). The second significant difference was found regarding the Reuse level of
the Google Images repository [t(47) = -1.171, p < 0.05]. Instructional designers usually Reuse the
OER usage
248
learning items as they are, with no changes (M = 2.73, SD = 1.09), while training managers tend
to make changes to learning objects in order to fit them to their needs (M = 3.06, SD = 0.69).
Discussion and Conclusions
Characteristics of Developed OERs in Corporations
Corporate training and learning development are mainly focused on topics such as sales, service,
and technical subjects, which constitute 70% of their learning development content. This finding
is not surprising, since many organizations deal with these domains, train their employees, and
manage departments, which are tasks that are all targeted to these objectives. Similarly to other
studies conducted in higher education (Cohen et al., 2013), the current study found that presenta-
tions and lesson plan outlines (classical learning items) were commonly used in corporate learn-
ing development. A significant gap was found between these learning items and those considered
more advanced, such as educational software, tutorials, courseware, interactive videos, and simu-
lations. This finding indicates the preferences of the instructional designers, and thus the organi-
zations’ preferences to use standard learning means rather than other learning means.
The Usage of Internal Repositories
Most of the organizations in this study have internal repositories containing learning resources,
and the majority of participants use them. This finding suggests that corporations attribute im-
portance to employee development through learning. Naturally, the operation of learning resource
repositories involves an investment of numerous organizational resources, both financial and
managerial. These resources might include technological infrastructure such as servers, storage,
and licensed information management software. The maintenance of these infrastructures requires
additional workforce employment and training, which adds to the organization’s financial costs.
Furthermore, resources of time and management are also required to manage these repositories,
constantly checking that materials are beneficial, of good quality, indexed correctly, and updated.
Instructional designers and training managers use learning materials from internal repositories in
various ways and at a similar frequency. However, a preference to Revise and Remix learning
materials rather than Reuse them was identified. This finding is significantly different than the
findings of former studies (Hilton et al., 2012), although it is important to emphasize that the ma-
jority of literature deals with general OER usage and did not focus on internal repositories. Still,
this finding indicates the preferences of corporate instructional designers; and although internal
repositories might contain items that can be useful just as they are, corporate instructional design-
ers often choose to alter them.
The Usage of Big External Repositories
A significant portion of participants reported that they use Big external repositories. However,
when asked to specify which Big external repositories they use, the majority of participants gave
names of Little repositories, in spite of the fact that the questionnaire explicitly requested not to
mention Little repositories when answering this particular question. Other participants mentioned
repositories that were not free for use, and thus are not defined as OERs and not included in the
analysis. Lacking the ability to indicate a Big OER repository may suggest that such repositories
are not common among corporations. Actually, this lack might indicate characteristics of the cor-
porations’ learning development. Commercial secrets are considered to be a type of knowledge,
which might contain potential competitive advantage for the organization (Liebeskind, 1996),
thus it is reasonable to assume that a commercial organization will try to avoid sharing its infor-
mation as much as possible. This might indicate the differences between OER initiatives as part
Merkel & Cohen
249
of the open access movement in education, which are supporting the sharing and distribution of
information, and the commercial organizationsperception, which gives preference to the use of
internal repositories, without the sharing of information.
The Usage of Little External Repositories
Corporate instructional designers and training managers are using Little external repositories. The
current study reveals that the majority of the examined Little repositories – YouTube, Google
Images, Wikipedia, TEDare indeed used extensively for the purpose of learning development
(compared to the lack of Big repositories). This finding supports the first hypothesis, that instruc-
tional designers use Little repositories, sometimes extensively.
While the literature suggests high rates of Reuse and low rates of Revise and Remix usage (Hilton
et al., 2012), the current study found high rates of Revise and Remix use of pictures, videos, and
Wikipedia. This finding supports the second hypothesis that Revise and Remix use is more fre-
quent among instructional designers than the literature reports. These differences may derive
from the availability of Big repositories in different fields for educators while it seems that there
is a lack of such repositories for instructional designers in the corporate world. Thus, they are re-
quired to use Little repositories, which often necessitate changes and adjustment. However, these
findings might also imply differences in learning material development approaches in education
compared to the corporate world. It is possible that instructional designers change, adjust, and
customize learning materials to fit their trainers. This assumption may be supported by the find-
ings that show that Revise and Remix are significantly higher when using learning resources from
internal repositories, as well.
Little repositories of pictures were found useful for learning development in the current study.
Google Images is significantly more popular in relation to Flicker, and the usage of its resources
was characterized by the Revise and Remix levels of use. Actually, in the current study, only a
few participants reported Reuse of the Google Images repository, while most Revise and Remix
the images (89%). However, this can be explained by the fact that the repository contains only
pictures. Naturally, a picture is not a stand-alone learning material but it may be integrated into an
item such as a presentation or educational software. In addition, a picture which is integrated into
a learning resource usually requires adjustment, such as resizing or changing the brightness. Ad-
justments can be made relatively easily with free and available editing tools, resulting in a higher
level of Reuse.
Little repositories of videos were found to be useful, as well. The current study shows that
YouTube is a significant repository, specifically when compared to TED. Actually, most of the
participants reported using YouTube (96%), while half of them reported using TED (55%). A
high level of Reuse was found in these video-based repositories. Half of the participants Reuse
videos from YouTube and the other half (49%) Revises and Remixes the videos. In regard to
TED videos, slightly different findings were found; more than half Reuse TED videos (67%) and
only one third (33%) of the participants Revise and Remix TED videos. Similar to the picture
repository usage, video repository usage may be explained by the fact that a video usually will
not stand alone, but will be part of a learning resource such as a presentation or educational soft-
ware. Like a picture, a video is considered to be raw material that requires editing and adjustment
to produce the final learning resource. Nevertheless, Revise and Remix usage rates are substan-
tially lower for videos (89% vs. 49% and 33%). This gap can be explained by the fact that video
editing is more complex than picture editing. It requires the use of complicated editing tools that
are not as standard or available as picture editing tools.
The usage level of Wikipedia (a Little repository) was found to be similar to that of Google Im-
ages: the Reuse is almost negligible (15%) while Revise and Remix represent most of the usage
OER usage
250
(85%). A specific article in Wikipedia, as a repository, does not fulfill the instructional designers
needs during the learning resource creation process. Learning resources are composed of several
information pieces from several articles, meaning that the information retrieved from Wikipedia
is edited, adjusted, and even combined with additional objects.
Research Limitations and Future Research
The main limitation of the current research is connected to the fact that the participants were in-
troduced to five specific Little external repositories, and they were asked to report whether they
use these repositories and at what level. These repositories were chosen due to their popularity.
However, such an approach might affect the free choice of the participants, although participants
were given the option to add additional repositories on their own. Another limitation is related to
the targeted population, which was only partially homogenous. The study focused on two stake-
holders – instructional designers and training managers – assuming they have quite similar work
conditions in the development of learning materials. Differences between these two stakeholders
regarding their learning material usage levels might have created a diversion in the results; alt-
hough the statistical analyses reveal that the differences, if existent, have a minor effect on the
results. This limitation might be a basis for further research, investigating the possibility of other
differences between the two groups. Furthermore, this research focused only on Israeli organiza-
tions, and thus, in future work it will be interesting to address cultural differences. Additionally,
the differences that were found between instructional designers and training managers regarding
OER Reuse level were based on a rather small sample size; subsequently, further research ad-
dressing this issue should include a bigger sample size.
In future research, further and deeper exploration of the differences between corporate instruc-
tional designers, and instructional designers from the academic and educational domains will be
considered, along with the attempt to understand the influence of different environments on their
approaches and level of Reuse. However, it seems that the key to understanding the differences in
usage levels among instructional designers lies in a better understanding of the Little repositories.
In many ways, during the process of developing learning materials, corporate instructional de-
signers have no choice but to use the Little repositories, due to (as the current study suggests) the
lack of Big repositories that can fit their needs. Little repositories do not contain structured learn-
ing resources, but they do have different objects which almost always require changes, adjust-
ments, and even combinations of several objects. Thus, it will be interesting to investigate in a
complementary study whether instructional designers from educational institutions will use Little
repositories at the same high level of Reuse as corporate instructional designers do. Furthermore,
the finding that videos from Little OERs were reused mainly without any changes, most likely
due to the difficulty of altering videos, may lead to follow up research which asks about the users
technical skills and explores whether the Reuse level has a correlation to technical skills, e.g.,
editing images or videos.
In summary, although the literature refers to the usage of non-institutional Little repositories for
the purposes of learning, it does not describe the usage level of these repositories (Keegan & Bell,
2011; Rolfe et al, 2012; Weller, 2010). This current study describes the usage levels of these re-
positories in corporations and suggests that instructional designers consider the Little repositories
as significant to their work. The findings of this study give a specific glimpse into OER usage by
instructional designers and training managers in corporations, and in the broadest sense, these
findings contribute to the existing body of knowledge which is mostly focused on the educational
and academic point of view.
The term OER can be used to describe repositories more flexibly, thereby broadening the term
and making it more encompassing. Consequently, further research regarding Little repositories
Merkel & Cohen
251
and their influence on developing learning resources is needed, whether in the corporate training
world or in the higher education domain.
References
Burrus, C. S. (2014). Open Educational Resources (OER) and Connexions. Rice University, Houston, Tex-
as, USA.
Cohen, A., Kalimi, S., & Nachmias, R. (2013). The use of digital repositories for enhancing teacher peda-
gogical performance. Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 9, 201-218. Re-
trieved from http://www.ijello.org/Volume9/IJELLOv9p201-218Cohen0861.pdf
D’Antoni, S. (2009). Open educational resources: Reviewing initiatives and issues. Open Learning, 24(1),
3–10.
d’Oliveira, C., Carson, S., James, K., & Lazarus, J. (2010). MIT OpenCourseWare: Unlocking knowledge,
empowering minds. Science, 329 (5991), 525-526.
Duncan, S. (2009). Patterns of learning object reuse in the Connexions repository. Dissertation Abstracts
International (Vol. 70, p. 73). Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International.
Friesen, N. (2009). Open educational resources: New possibilities for change and sustainability. The Inter-
national Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(5), 1-13.
Geith, C., Vignare, K., Bourquin, L. D., & Thiagarajan, D. (2010). Designing corporate training in develop-
ing economies using open educational resources. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 14(3),
3-12.
Gordon, J. & Zemke, R. (2000). The attack on ISD. Training, 37 (4), 4253.
Hilton, J., Gaudet, D., Clark, P., Robinson, T. J., & Wiley, D. (2013). The adoption of open educational
resources by one community college math department. The International Review of Research in Open
and Distance Learning, 14(4). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1523
Hilton, J., Robinson, T. J., Wiley, D., & Ackerman, J. D. (2014). Cost-savings achieved in two semesters
through the adoption of open educational resources. The International Review of Research in Open and
Distributed Learning, 15(2)
Hilton, J., Wiley, D. A., & Lutz, N. (2012). Examining the reuse of open textbooks. International Review of
Research in Open & Distance Learning, 13(2).
Hilton, J., Wiley, D., Stein, J., & Johnson, A. (2010). The four ‘R’s of openness and ALMS analysis:
frameworks for open educational resources. Open Learning, 25(1), 37-44.
Hylén, J. (2006). Open educational resources: Opportunities and challenges. Paper presented at the 2006
Open Education Conference. Retrieved from:
http://www.knowledgeall.com/files/Additional_Readings-Consolidated.pdf
Johnstone, S. M. (2005). Open educational resources serve the world. Educause Quarterly, 28(3), 15 .
Keegan, H., & Bell, F. (2011). YouTube as a repository: the creative practice of students as producers of
Open Educational Resources. European Journal of Open and Distance e-Learning.
Liebeskind, J. P. (1996). Knowledge, strategy, and the theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal,
17(S2), 93-107.
Mesgari, M., Okoli, C., Mehdi, M., Nielsen, F. Å., & Lanamäki, A. (2015). The sum of all human
knowledge: A systematic review of scholarly research on the content of Wikipedia. Journal of the As-
sociation for Information Science and Technology, 66(2), 219-245
Murphy, J., Hashim, N. H., & OConnor, P. (2007). Take me back: Validating the Way back Machine.
Journal of Computer
Mediated Communication, 13(1), 60-75.
OER usage
252
Nash, S. (2005). Learning objects, learning objects repositories, and learning theory: Preliminary best prac-
tices for online courses. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 1, 217-228.
Retrieved from http://www.ijello.org/Volume1/v1p217-228Nash.pdf
Orri-Badia, X., (2015). MOOCs for employees training as an upcoming elearning trend. eLearning Indus-
try. Retrieved from
http://elearningindustry.com/moocs-for-employees-training-upcoming-elearning-trend
Rolfe, V., Williams, J., & Windle, R. (2012). HEA/JISC open educational resources case study: Pedagogi-
cal development from OER practice. Retrieved from
http://www-new1.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/Documents/oer/Health_Education.doc
Roytek, M. A. (2010). Enhancing instructional design efficiency: Methodologies employed by instructional
designers. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 170-180.
Shmueli, E., Reisman, S., & Sperling, B. (2010). The new learning communities: MAOR-The Israeli learn-
ing object repository. Emerging Technologies for Online Learning.
Smith, M. S., & Casserly, C. M. (2006). The promise of open educational resources. Change
,
38(5), 817.
Weller, M. (2010). Big and little OER. In open Ed
2010
Proceedings, Barcelona. Retrieved from
http://openaccess.uoc.edu/webapps/o2/bitstream/10609/4851/6/Weller.pdf
Wiley, D., & Gurrell, S. (2009). A decade of development…. Open Learning, 24(1), 11-21.
World Forum of UNESCO Chairs. (2002). Proposal for launching the “academics across borders” initia-
tive. Paris. Retrieved from
http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/file_download.php/ba88fefb95a301b90e6395044552516baab_do
c_2002.pdf
Zervas, P., Alifragkis, C., & Sampson, D. G. (2014). A quantitative analysis of learning object repositories
as knowledge management systems. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An International Journal
(KM &EL), 6(2), 156–170.
Merkel & Cohen
253
Appendix
Knowledge repository usage by the training community
General
Age:
Gender: Male/Female
What is your primary role definition?
Instructional designer/training manager/other (please specify)
Company name (optional):
Years of experience in the training field:
Which training topics do you deal with? (you may choose more than one)
Sales/Service/Technical/Regulation/Other (please specify)
How frequently do you develop the learning items described in the table below?
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Mostly
Presentations
Lesson plan outlines
Educational software
Educational software
script
Software simulation
Other 1
Other 2
Other 3
If you chose Other 1/Other 2/Other 3 – please specify
Internal repositories
Is there an internal repository of learning items at your workplace?
(An “internal repository” is a repository that belongs to a corporation and can only be ac-
cessed by employees. The question is referring to a repository that includes learning
items such as presentations, lesson plan outlines, etc.)
Yes/No
If yes, do you use it?
Yes/No
OER usage
254
If yes, what learning items do you look for, and how frequently?
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Mostly
Presentations
Lesson plan outlines
Educational software
Educational software
script
Software simulation
Other 1
Other 2
Other 3
If you chose Other 1/Other 2/Other 3 – please specify
During training development, in which way do you use the internal repository learning
items, and how frequently?
Never
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Mostly
Use the learning item
for informational pur-
poses only
Use the learning item in
its original form, just as
it appears in the reposi-
tory
Make changes and ad-
justments to the learning
item according to my
needs
Make changes and
combine different learn-
ing items according to
my needs
External repositories
During training development, do you use repositories existing on the internet, containing
learning items?
Please note!
Learning items” refers to items significantly targeted for learning needs, such as presen-
tations, lesson plan outlines, etc. Please dont mention repositories where learning is not
the main objective such as Google images, forums, or newsletters.
Yes/No
If yes, please specify (up to 5 repositories)
Repository 1=
Repository 2=
Repository 3=
Repository 4=
Repository 5=
Merkel & Cohen
255
In which way do you use the repository learning items you mentioned above?
Use the item
just as it is
Make changes
and adjustments
to the item
Make changes and
combine different
learning items
Repository 1
Repository 2
Repository 3
Repository 4
Repository 5
In the table below, there are repositories of different types containing all kinds of items
(which don’t necessarily contain learning items). Please choose the way you use the re-
pository items during training development.
Use the learn-
ing item for
informational
purposes only
Use the learn-
ing item in its
original form,
just as it ap-
pears in the
repository
Make chang-
es and ad-
justments to
the learning
item accord-
ing to my
needs
Make changes
and combine dif-
ferent learning
items according to
my needs
YouTube
Google Images
Flicker
Wikipedia
Ted
Other 1
Other 2
Other 3
If you chose Other 1/Other 2/Other 3 – please specify
If needed, please elaborate regarding the way you use the repositories mentioned in the
table above, or any other remark you may have.
Sharing changes
In cases where you make changes to a learning item, do you share these changes?
Yes/No
If yes, how do you share the changes? (you may choose more than one)
o By mail
o By uploading to an internal repository of the corporation
o By uploading to the repository where the item was found, which is not an internal
repository
OER usage
256
o By uploading to a repository, which is not the repository where the item was
found and not an internal repository
o Other (please specify)
Remarks
In case you would like to add a comment or remark regarding the questions and/or the
answers, please use the text box below.
Biographies
Eli Merkel is a Graduate student in Tel-Aviv University's School of
Education, the Math, science, and technology education depart-
ment. Eli holds a B.Sc. in Electrical Engineering. His thesis deals with
benefits derived from integrating technology into the learning process
in corporations, under the supervision of Dr. Anat Cohen. The thesis is
based on his work as an instructional designer in a corporate.
Dr. Anat Cohen (PhD) is a senior academic staff member (on tenure
track) at Tel Aviv University at School of Education; Head of the
Learning and Technology program in The Department of Education in
Mathematics, Science and Technology; A research and pedagogical
coordinator of Web-Supported Academic Instruction at Tel-Aviv
University. Dr Cohen’s dissertation analysed the cost-effectiveness of
Web-based Education, based on theoretical and computational models
and empirical data using web-mining techniques. She has vast
experience in research and teaching in the field of learning and cyber
technologies after 14 years of development of online learning
materials, training of academic staff, characterization of learning-
management features fit to the University's needs, as well as research activities focusing on
research areas such as social networks and privacy perception on the cyber space, internet
implementation in higher education, innovative pedagogical practices using ICT, open
educational resources (Learning object repositories and MOOCs), learning analytics and
educational data mining. .
... However, limited research investigated IDs' role in the OER creation and application in postsecondary institutions (Merkel and Cohen 2015). Therefore, there is a need to explore what role IDs may play in creating and adopting open educational materials in higher education. ...
... OER repositories Moreover, the platform to retrieve these open materials can be categorized as either big or little repositories (Merkel and Cohen 2015). Big repositories can be defined as institutional archives to save quality open educational materials, which are developed under professional guidance. ...
... However, little repositories often refer to the archives, which hold open content created by individuals, and most of this open content lacks quality control and a systematic teaching plan. The little repositories include Wikipedia, YouTube, and personal blogs (Merkel and Cohen 2015). Because of lack of quality control, open materials in these little repositories often lead to a quality assessment concern. ...
Article
Full-text available
The paper aims to discuss the role of instructional designers (IDs) in supporting the Open Educational Resources (OER) movement in higher education. Due to the increasing cost of higher education, previous studies indicated the feasibility of adopting OER to lower students’ educational expenses and to equalize their learning opportunities (Murphy in Distance Education, 34(2), 201–217, 2013; Okamoto in Public Services Quarterly, 9(4), 267–283, 2013). However, many instructors and staff are facing various barriers to adopting OER, such as the lack of time, motivation, and knowledge of quality evaluation (Taylor and Taylor in Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 21(2), 1–8, 2018). IDs often serve as learner analysts, instructional innovators, and leaders in educational technology to assist instructors in developing teaching materials. However, limited research studied their partnerships to overcome the barriers of creating and adopting OERs in universities and colleges. Hence, the paper will propose a viable solution to include IDs in overcoming OER adoption barriers and promoting the OER movement in higher education. The findings may contribute to the field of OER movement and pave the way for future research.
... The reusing of OER in an individual space makes a vibrant community through activities, like writing, commenting, rating, suggesting, sharing learning exercises, and peer auditing, and building trust in the nature of the posted and collected content. This develops the learner's cognitive skills (Merkel & Cohen, 2015). ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
My conference paper is about the advantages and disadvantages of using open education resources in East Africa.
Article
Full-text available
p>An important element of open educational resources (OER) is the permission to use the materials in new ways, including revising and remixing them. Prior research has shown that the revision and remix rates for OER are relatively low. In this study we examined the extent to which the openly licensed Flat World Knowledge textbooks were being revised and remixed. We found that the levels of revision and remix were similar to those of other OER collections. We discuss the possible significance and implication of these findings. <input id="jsProxy" onclick="if(typeof(jsCall)=='function'){jsCall();}else{setTimeout('jsCall()',500);}" type="hidden" /
Article
Full-text available
Textbooks represent a significant portion of the overall cost of higher education in the United States. The burden of these costs is typically shouldered by students, those who support them, and the taxpayers who fund the grants and student loans which pay for textbooks. Open educational resources (OER) provide students a way to receive high-quality learning materials at little or no cost to students. We report on the cost savings achieved by students at eight colleges when these colleges began utilizing OER in place of traditional commercial textbooks.
Article
Full-text available
Wikipedia may be the best-developed attempt thus far to gather all human knowledge in one place. Its accomplishments in this regard have made it a point of inquiry for researchers from different fields of knowledge. A decade of research has thrown light on many aspects of the Wikipedia community, its processes, and its content. However, due to the variety of fields inquiring about Wikipedia and the limited synthesis of the extensive research, there is little consensus on many aspects of Wikipedia's content as an encyclopedic collection of human knowledge. This study addresses the issue by systematically reviewing 110 peer-reviewed publications on Wikipedia content, summarizing the current findings, and highlighting the major research trends. Two major streams of research are identified: the quality of Wikipedia content (including comprehensiveness, currency, readability, and reliability) and the size of Wikipedia. Moreover, we present the key research trends in terms of the domains of inquiry, research design, data source, and data gathering methods. This review synthesizes scholarly understanding of Wikipedia content and paves the way for future studies. Open access version: http://spectrum.library.concordia.ca/978652/
Article
Full-text available
Learning Object Repositories (LORs) are a core element of the Opening up Education movement around the word. Despite, the wide efforts and investments in this topic, still most of the existing LORs are designed mainly as digital libraries that facilitate discovery and provide open access to educational resources in the form of Learning Objects (LOs). In that way, LORs include limited functionalities of Knowledge Management Systems (KMSs) for organizing and sharing educational communities’ explicit and tacit knowledge around the use of these educational resources. In our previous work, an initial study of examining LORs as KMSs has been performed and a master list of 21 essential LORs’ functionalities has been proposed that could address the issue of organizing and sharing educational communities’ knowledge. In this paper, we present a quantitative analysis of the functionalities of forty-nine (49) major LORs, so as (a) to measure the adoption level of the LORs’ functionalities master list and (b) to identify whether this level influences LORs’ growth as indicated by the development over time of the number of the LOs and the number of registered users that these LORs include.
Article
Full-text available
This research examines the usage of local learning material repositories at school, as well as re-lated teachers’ attitudes and training. The study investigates the use of these repositories for en-hancing teacher performance and assesses whether the assimilation of the local repositories in-creases their usage of and contribution to by teachers. One hundred and three teachers from four schools took part in this research. In the first school, a local open repository was developed and assimilated as part of the school institutional and pedagogical culture. In the second school, a lo-cal repository was developed and assimilated as well, but was divided into two sections: one that is open to all and the other closed. In the third school, a local repository was developed, but its use was not assimilated. The fourth school has no local repository at all. It was found that most teachers use a variety of repositories and mainly their local one, which allows them to effectively utilize their school’s information resources and integrates their common experiences. Further-more, the use of a local repository provides the initial results for set internal standards, leads to professional staff development, and enables institutional information management. Moreover, different types of use of the repositories were found: offline use involves exams, worksheets and presentations; online use includes viewing videos and listening to music files; interactive online use involves computer applications, simulation and remixes; and Creative use was displayed in the creation of adapted instruction processes. Finally, levels of teacher contributions to the reposi-tories varied among the three schools that maintain them.
Article
The Food Safety Knowledge Network (FSKN) is a collaboration between Michigan State University, the Global Food Safety Initiative of the Consumer Goods Forum, and other food industry and public sector partners. FSKN's goal is to help strengthen the food industry's response to the complex food safety knowledge and training challenges that affect emerging markets by providing free access to high-quality, standardized learning resources. The resources were designed to be available on demand and as a structured learning experience which can support face-to-face training and fully online training. The pilots thus far have shown that participants in FSKN training demonstrate a significant increase in knowledge. The paper will share the processes used to set up an efficient open educational resources initiative including understanding licensing, using open software, establishing competencies and working with corporate and other international partners.
Article
In this paper we present a history of the idea of Open Educational Resources, overview the current state of the Open Educational Resources movement, report on critical issues facing the field in the immediate future, and present two new projects to watch in 2009.