Increasing Educational Value: The Transformation of MOOCs into Open Educational Resources

Abstract

MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) have developed into one of the most prominent instruments of technology-enhanced learning, and their much-praised potential has often been connected to one of their core components: openness. In theory, this feature not only ensures free access to content, but also affects other aspects that enable participants to make the most of their learning experience, like re-using and copying materials or even creating derivative works. In practice, however, most MOOCs do not subscribe to these more advanced principles of openness, especially those provided by for-profit platforms.

Full text

!"#$%&'$#()*+",-.&
/0,,1&231&4+56%"#78+1&931&:&;"''8+'$##1&<3&=>?@AB3&C#*+8$)"#7&DE(*$-"0#$%&F$%(8.&GH8&G+$#)I0+'$-"0#&0I&299<)&"#-0&9,8#&
DE(*$-"0#$%&J8)0(+*8)3&C#&<3&K8%7$E0&/%00)1&L3&M8+'$##1&23&LN+8OPQ$#$7()-R#1&K3&G3&Q8$-0#1&:&Q3&SH"-8&=T+)73B1&Digital'Education:'
Out'to'the'World'and'Back'to'the'Campus&=UE3&@?>VW1&Q3&>>XY>X>B3&<H$'.&Q,+"#78+&C#-8+#$-"0#$%&L(6%")H"#73&
GH8&I"#$%&,(6%"*$-"0#&")&$Z$"%$6%8&$-.&H--,).[[%"#\3),+"#78+3*0'[*H$,-8+[@?3@??A]>!^A_PXPX@^PV^?WWP_`>A&
Increasing educational value: the transformation of MOOCs into Open
Educational Resources
Michael Kopp1, Ortrun Gröblinger2, Claudia Zimmermann1
1 Academy for New Media and Knowledge Transfer, University of Graz, Austria
{michael.kopp, claudia.zimmermann}@uni-graz.at
2 New Media and Learning Technology Department, University of Innsbruck, Austria
ortrun.groeblinger@uibk.ac.at
Abstract. MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) have developed into one of the most prominent instruments of
technology-enhanced learning, and their much-praised potential has often been connected to one of their core
components: openness. In theory, this feature not only ensures free access to content, but also affects other aspects that
enable participants to make the most of their learning experience, like re-using and copying materials or even creating
derivative works. In practice, however, most MOOCs do not subscribe to these more advanced principles of openness,
especially those provided by for-profit platforms.
In this paper, we would like to discuss one particular strategy to improve the current situation. OER (Open Educational
Resources) generally adhere to higher standards regarding the meaning of openness, and we argue that this strong focus
on the reusability of learning materials would present a tremendous improvement to the educational value of MOOCs.
We conclude that the transformation of MOOCs into OER shows promising potential in the areas of financing,
collaboration and usability, with a particular focus on benefits from the students’ perspective.
Keywords. MOOCs – OER – openness – higher education.
1 Introduction
At the end of their first decade in existence, MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) have already come a long way.
They appear in various types (like cMOOCs, xMOOCs and mixtures of them [1] [2]) and have developed into an
established component in the educational landscape that has gained much awareness from the public. A lot of research on
MOOCs has been conducted [3] [4] [5], but several questions still lack comprehensive answers. Some of them concern
the openness of MOOCs.
Generally, MOOCs are considered courses that can be accessed for free at anytime from anywhere. However, this is
only partially correct. The availability, accessibility and affordability of MOOCs mostly depends on their providers, and
they often tend to restrict the openness of MOOCs due to economic motives.
These circumstances can be considered a growing disadvantage for (higher) educational institutions and learners
because it affects the educational value of MOOCs. In this context, the concept of OER (Open Educational Resources)
could provide a viable attempt at a solution. In this paper, we will discuss how MOOCs may (re)gain openness by
transforming them into OER, and what impact on (higher) educational institutions and students might be associated with
this approach.
2 The meaning of “openness” in MOOCs
Openness is an undisputed feature of MOOCs, but the defining criteria with regard to what does and does not constitute
openness are still subject of debate [6]. After explaining the meaning of the term “openness” in the broader context of
education, we will then discuss the use of the concept in the field of MOOCs.

2.1 Variations in meaning
In (higher) education, openness has a broad range of meanings and many phrases like “open content”, “open access”,
“open data” or “open science” contain the term “open”. However, the term is interpreted in different ways. There are
various definitions with regard to teaching and learning, depending on the respective context, which makes it impossible
to formulate a consistent definition of the term. As early as 1975, MacKenzie et al. stated that “open learning is an
imprecise phrase to which a range of meanings can be, and is, attached. It eludes definition” [7].
Nevertheless, some general statements can be made about the term “open” when it is used in the context of open
education. Stewart [8] states that “open” “tend[s] to be tied in some way to the paths by which the Internet bypasses closed
and traditionally monetized systems”. In relation to data and content, the Open Group provides the following definition:
“Open means anyone can freely access, use, modify, and share for any purpose (subject, at most, to requirements that
preserve provenance and openness)” [9]. Weller [10] distills the following principles of openness: freedom to reuse; open
access; free cost; easy use; digital, networked content; social, community based approaches; ethical arguments for
openness; openness as an efficient model.
Even though “openness” can be defined in many different ways, there are some core aspects that most definitions have
in common: availability, affordability, and accessibility. Openness in the sense of open education is also assumed to foster
a supportive framework for teaching and learning. Thus, Groom [11] states that “[a]t its best openness is an ethos not a
license. It's an approach to teaching and learning that builds a community of learners online and off.”
2.2 Openness of MOOCs
Many aspects of openness mentioned above apply to MOOCs, but not all of them to the same extend. It is therefore
appropriate to have a closer look at what is meant by “open” in connection with MOOCs.
Since at least 2012 – the year that was deemed “Year of the MOOC” by the New York Times [12] – MOOCs were
celebrated as a promising branch of open education. However, at the beginning of the MOOC-hype the meaning of
openness in MOOCs had already changed from a focus on open collaboration for creating new material towards an
emphasis on the accessibility of course content.
In 2008, George Siemens and Stephen Downes introduced the course “Connectivism and Connective Knowledge”
(CCK08), which is considered the first MOOC, and more specifically the first so-called connectivist MOOC (cMOOC).
In 2005, Downes [13] had already mentioned openness as one of the main characteristics of connective knowledge in
addition to autonomy, diversity and interactivity. Based on these principles, cMOOCs emphasize the learner´s autonomy,
peer-to-peer-learning and social networking. They are “characterized by openness of criteria for participation. Since there
is no central organizational structure, the credentialism, which tends to put limits in participation, does not exist in c-
MOOCs” [14]. Therefore, the concept of openness in cMOOCs focuses on making connections, collaboration and the
joint development of materials across the open Internet.
When Sebastian Thrun offered his online course on artificial intelligence in 2011 with about 160,000 enrollees, the era
of so-called xMOOCs began. This was a turning point: the didactic model shifted from a constructivist to a behavioristic
approach [15]. Based on a tutor-centric model that establishes a one-to-many relationship to reach massive numbers,
xMOOCs can be viewed as learning management systems bundled with high quality content [14]. As a result, there is an
increased need for professional institutions to ensure the efficient provision of xMOOCs. These providers can operate for
profit (like e.g. Coursera, Udacity or the German platform iVersity) or as non-profit platforms (like e.g. edX or Future
Learn). However, bundling courses within a central platform means that all these courses are subject to the terms of that
specific platform. This restricts openness: first, because typical xMOOCs are not designed to encourage the extensive use
of open collaboration tools (e.g. wikis), which means that enrollees are not well-equipped to work together on certain
topics and/or to produce additional materials, and second, because legal conditions usually do not permit the re-use and
modification of the provided materials.
Still, xMOOCs (the dominant MOOC type nowadays) are typically open in other ways. Courses are accessible with
almost no temporal, regional or educational restrictions (as long as there is an Internet connection during use) and they
may be attended without paying fees (although many MOOC-providers charge for certificates and in-depth offers).
However, the conditions with regard to how long, to what extent and in which ways the materials may be accessed and/or
used are set by MOOC providers and not by instructors and learners. This is where OER come into the game.
3 Expanding openness – the impact of OER on MOOCs
“Open” is the one term that MOOCs (Massive OPEN Online Courses) and OER (OPEN Educational Resources) have
in common. However, there are significant differences with regard to the respective meanings of “openness”, especially

concerning the licensing of materials. This section provides a brief introduction of OER followed by arguments as to why
and how MOOCs should be provided as OER, with special emphasis on the students’ perspective.
3.1 OER – a brief outline
OER have a longer tradition than MOOCs. Originating in earlier work around “learning objects”, the OER movement
began in earnest when MIT announced its OpenCourseWare initiative in 2001. This allowed access to learning materials
from 1,800 courses via the Internet, and these resources could be used and repurposed without charge [10]. Since then,
the use of OER has steadily increased. Creative Commons states that 50 million OER objects were licensed in 2006. In
2015, this figure rose to 1.18 billion [16]. OER, however, never quite achieved the same popularity as MOOCs.
For a better understanding of the OER concept, it is helpful to clarify the eponymous terms, starting with “educational
resource”. The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation provides the following definition: “OER include full courses,
course materials, modules, textbooks, streaming videos, tests, software, and any other tools, materials, or techniques used
to support access to knowledge” [17]. UNESCO [18] proclaimed a similar definition within the Paris OER Declaration
in 2012 [19]. This means that almost any learning object – including MOOCs – qualifies as an educational resource.
The more complex eponymous term is of course “open”. In general, openness in the concept of OER has a more
extensive meaning than it does with MOOCs. Many publications on OER [20] [21] [22] focus on the same issue: “open”
must not only be understood in the way that learning materials are accessed for free, but that they must also be reusable.
As UNESCO states: OER “are any type of educational materials that are in the public domain or introduced with an open
license. The nature of these open materials means that anyone can legally and freely copy, use, adapt and re-share them”.
[18]
Thus, licensing schemes are crucial to OER. A wide range of legal frameworks regulate the way in which OER are
licensed. The most well-known among them is the Creative Commons licensing framework [23]. This framework
“provides legal mechanisms to ensure that authors of materials can retain acknowledgement for their work while allowing
it to be shared, can seek to restrict commercial activity if they wish, and can aim to prevent people from adapting it if
appropriate” [24].
3.2 Arguments why MOOCs should become OER
Based on the Gartner Hype Cycle, MOOCs have reached the slope of enlightenment and are heading towards the
plateau of productivity rather quickly [25]. OER could be worthwhile companions in the future development of MOOCs,
and there are many plausible reasons for transforming MOOCs into OER. As previously stated, OER contain a valuable
feature that most MOOCs do not possess: an open licensing model in the form of the Creative Commons licensing
framework. MOOCs are likely to benefit from the integration of this particular aspect in several areas, including MOOC
business models, networks and collaborations as well as their educational value.
Business Models
It has been pointed out quite often that MOOCs – although they have been on the market for almost ten years by now
– do not have efficient and sustainable business models [10] [26] [27] [28] [29]. The leading MOOC platforms [29] are
either funded by venture capital (e.g. Coursera) or by foundations (e.g. edX), at least for the most part. Refinancing models
like charging for credentialing or individual support for participants are not profitable, most of the time they do not even
cover their costs. By seeking to satisfy their venture capitalists, for-profit companies increasingly move away from an
open access model. This means that enrolment is often restricted to certain periods and partnerships are limited to elite
institutions. And – most important of all – the provided contents are not openly licensed [10]. In the end, it may well be
that for-profit MOOC platforms will be fully commercialized. If this is the case, universities will no longer be able to
offer free, accessible courses via these platforms.
Due to their different financing concepts, some open platforms like edX or Future Learn do not need to operate in a
profit-oriented way. However, they too have to cover high production and implementation costs for their MOOCs.
Currently these costs are often understood as marketing investments, which leads to the possibility that MOOCs might
become “another form of broadcast controlled by a few” [10]. Thus, if MOOCs shall retain or even increase their value
as tools for open education, universities (as non-commercial content providers) need to find solutions to distribute the
share of costs.
Since OER are not oriented towards profit, they will not be supported by for-profit MOOC providers. Nevertheless,
non-profit MOOC providers can benefit from offering their courses as OER: open licenses facilitate the sharing of
resources, and an average university lacks the ability to employ an expert in every field [30]. In the long run, this will
reduce the costs for both platform and content providers.

Cooperation and Collaboration
Stakeholders in the context of MOOCs are MOOC platforms and content providers on the supply side and students
and the broad public on the demand side [29]. Platform operators do not cooperate much among each other, but they
certainly cooperate with content providers. These in turn use various platforms to share their courses with formal and
informal learners. The distribution and use of MOOCs therefore takes place based on networks on the supply side,
whereby the operators usually specify the rules of use. This often prevents content from being interchanged between
universities.
One way for content providers to make the system more open is to use a free and open source platform like Open edX
[31]. If MOOCs or their individual parts are then provided as OER, collaboration between institutions would be more
efficient: materials can be used and in some cases even modified without restrictions (license permitting). This way,
content can be used by a larger number of students, and it can be adapted (e.g. as translations) leading to lower production
costs.
If MOOCs become OER, collaboration between content providers as well as between enrollees will be fostered. When
MOOC contents are openly licensed, enrollees get the opportunity to contribute their knowledge and experience to the
provided materials, which not only improves collaboration but also the educational value of MOOCs.
Educational value
Open access to knowledge, enhanced pedagogy and continuous improvement of teaching are the main reasons why
universities decide to provide OER [32] [33]. These aims apply to MOOCs as well, with a few restrictions. Concerning
open access, the terms “anywhere” and “anytime” are based on some prerequisites. In order to attend a MOOC, the
participants need a broadband Internet connection, and courses may be attended only at any time if they have a self-paced
course structure (which is rarely the case). In contrast, OER may be downloaded and used on computers not connected to
the Internet, so that they really are available anytime. For example, due to the insufficient technical infrastructure in
Rwanda, MOOCs are only valuable if they can be used offline, which is possible when they are provided as OER [34].
MOOCs show great potential as parts of hybrid models combining online learning with classroom teaching. Again,
their value increases when they are provided as OER: instructors may only use certain parts of a MOOC in their own
lectures, and these parts must be available exactly at the time they are needed. MOOCs may also support innovative
didactic models like the inverted classroom concept [35]. In this context, the integration of curriculum resources and
teaching designs is only possible if lecturers and students have full access to MOOC material. Thus, the opportunity to
re-use and re-mix – which is guaranteed by OER – is crucial to boost learning efficiency.
Of course, educational value is not only an issue for content providers, but also for learners. Therefore, the potential
impact of OER on MOOCs from the students’ perspective will be discussed in more detail.
3.3 How students benefit from MOOCs as OER
Weller states that MOOCs can be seen as a subset of OER [5]. As described above, this assumption is not true in every
detail, because it heavily depends on the definition of “open”, and because most MOOC providers do not use similar
licensing models as specified for OER. It is, however, a useful categorization for the following contemplation, because it
implies that most assumptions that apply to OER also apply to MOOCs.
Most MOOCs are designed to meet the demand of registered students, but in order to see the opportunities that come
with OER, it is helpful to understand that a narrow focus on this particular target group is rather limiting.
In the context of OER use, Lane looks at three different groups of students: prospective students, registered students
and alumni. Prospective students tend to use OER (in special open courses as well as MOOCS) for three main reasons:
first, as a showcase, which functions as a window into the institutional ethos, second as a guide that helps them to decide
if a topic is or is not of interest for long-term-studies, and third to build up a community, for example to approach potential
fellow learners. Registered students use OER for different reasons. They strengthen what they have already learned, for
example by watching a video lecture several times. They can use the material as a fallback when they miss a lesson. Some
of the materials can be quoted as a primary source in an assignment. Since there are usually parts of a class that cannot
be discussed in-depth, OER material can enrich the given information, or main study subjects can be enriched by using
material from completely different courses. There is also the community factor, for example when students from different
locations, maybe even different universities, are connecting in one open course. Often overlooked is the fact that OER
can be seen as a public product that is not only composed by lecturers, but students too. This connects to another reason
why registered students use OER according to Lane: as a training ground for publishing material, sometimes under their
own name, sometimes under the name of their teachers. The use of open learning material by alumni is less complex, it
is usually seen to act as a refresher or to enrich the daily professional practices [36].
As mentioned above, enrolled students should not be the only target group of MOOCs, but they can be seen as the
pivot point of production and distribution. While there are regional differences in study conditions that can affect the

possibilities of implementing MOOCs, there are also some aspects from the student’s perspective that universities should
always consider if they want to provide successful MOOCs, like credit systems, types of assessments and learning
outcomes [37].
In 2013, the OER research hub project [38] proposed eleven hypotheses about the impact of OER. Four of them are
directly connected to the students’ interests: use of OER leads to improvement in student performance and satisfaction;
use of OER is an effective method for improving retention for at-risk students; OER adoption at an institutional level
leads to financial benefits for students and/or institutions; open education acts as a bridge to formal education, and is
complementary, not competitive, with it. While there seems to be no clear evidence yet that OER and MOOCs lead to
better student performance or higher satisfaction, one weakness of MOOCs has already been found to be improved by
more openness, namely the typically high dropout rate, which has been established many times and is subject to a lot of
debates and improvement efforts [6]. Alraimi et al. find that increasing openness in MOOCs – in addition to reputation –
is an excellent way to “enhance an individual's intention for continued MOOCs enrollment” [30].
Investing in OER for MOOCs can lead to financial benefits for students, because supplementary material in
conventional MOOCs are often subject to a charge (and this material might be indispensable in order to complete the final
exam for the MOOC). As was mentioned above, current business models of MOOC production are not sufficiently
sustainable, and the costs of producing new MOOCs from scratch are substantial. Without investments in OER, the worst-
case scenario could be that the costs for production and distribution have to be taken on by the students themselves.
OER in general and MOOCs in particular are largely developed by lecturers and instructional designers. In addition to
the possibility of feedback from their peers, open licensing changes the nature of the relationships between teachers and
learners [21] [36], so that there is more room for contributions from students. Thus, OER can also be seen as an
opportunity to rewrite the traditionally ascribed roles of teachers and students, with students becoming producers of
knowledge themselves.
Summing up, what are the benefits for students when MOOCs become OER? First, they will probably develop a better
understanding for the impact that producing, providing and sharing content can have on the educational sector, and with
more responsibility for their own studying environment, they will likely get accustomed to a higher level of independence.
Second, the increasing number of OER-MOOCs will probably lead to a higher number of “untypical” students at
universities. These students might be no longer interested in getting a formal degree, but they may be keen on learning
things that match their private interests and/or are useful for their vocational training.
4 Conclusion
In this paper, we argued that MOOCs are currently not as open as they are perceived to be. None of the leading MOOC
platforms use open licensing models, which are also not common among content providers. However, some providers
have already integrated the OER concept into their MOOC platforms [39], for example the Austrian platform iMooX [40]
and the German platform mooin [41]. On these platforms, all courses and all course materials are released under a creative
commons license.
In summary, OER can have a strong impact on MOOCs in several ways:
• Increasing collaboration among institutions and among students
• Improving efficiency in matters of cost and quality
• Transition to flexible educational content by the use of open licenses
• Enhancing pedagogy through the individualization of content
• Building reputation for institutions and individuals due to the wider distribution of educational materials
However, a transformation of MOOCs into OER will not happen in the short term, and it does not make sense for all
MOOC providers. MOOCs as well as OER need conducive conditions on institutional, educational and economic levels
[37] [42] for a prospering development, and particularly for their potential integration. As a start, and because of the
associated benefits, more (higher) educational institutions should consider providing MOOCs as OER. This will establish
a basis for further research, which would allow for a closer examination of the considerations presented in this paper.
References
1. Rosselle, M., Caron, P.-A., Heutte, J.: A typology and dimensions of a description framework for MOOCs. In:
European MOOCs Stakeholders Summit 2014, eMOOCs 2014, 130–139 (2014).
2. McGuire, W., Raaper, R., Nikolova, V.: Three perspectives on hybridising x and c MOOCs to create an online
course on digital CVs. International Multidisciplinary Journal. 3, 20–33 (2016).

3. Yousef, A.M.F., Chatti, M.A., Schroeder, U., Wosnitza, M., Jakobs, H.: A Review of the State-of-the-Art. In:
Proceedings of CSEDU2014, 6th International Conference on Computer Supported Education. pp. 9–20 (2014).
4. Liyanagunawardena, T.R., Adams, A.A., Williams, S.A.: MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature
2008-2012. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 14, 202–227 (2013).
5. Veletsianos, G., Shepherdson, P.: A Systematic Analysis and Synthesis of the Empirical MOOC Literature
Published in 2013–2015. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. 17, (2016).
6. Zimmermann, C., Lackner, E., Ebner, M.: Facets of Openness in MOOCs - A Review. In: Towards open
education and information society. , Prague (2016).
7. MacKenzie, N., Postgate, R.S., Scupham, J.: Open learning: systems and problems in post-secondary education.
Unesco Press, Paris (1975).
8. Stewart, B.: Massiveness + openness = new literacies of participation? Journal of Online Learning and Teaching.
9, 228–238 (2013).
9. The Open Definition - Open Definition - Defining Open in Open Data, Open Content and Open Knowledge,
http://opendefinition.org/.
10. Weller, M.: The Battle For Open: How openness won and why it doesn’t feel like victory. Ubiquity Press (2014).
11. Groom, J.: OSU Keynote,
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1PZz2q3B5O5fPKv0isBbc0HZcxbOGc_3PfB0O43JOq8g/edit?usp=embed_fac
ebook.
12. Pappano, L.: The Year of the MOOC, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/massive-open-
online-courses-are-multiplying-at-a-rapid-pace.html, (2012).
13. Downes, S.: An Introduction to Connective Knowledge, http://www.downes.ca/post/33034.
14. Rodriguez, O.: The concept of openness behind c and x-MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses). Open Praxis.
5, 67–73 (2013).
15. Conole, G.: MOOCs as disruptive technologies: strategies for enhancing the learner experience and quality of
MOOCs. Revista de Educación a Distancia. (2015).
16. State of the Commons, https://stateof.creativecommons.org/report/.
17. Open Educational Resources, http://www.hewlett.org/strategy/open-educational-resources/.
18. What are Open Educational Resources (OERs)? | United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization, http://www.unesco.org/new/en/communication-and-information/access-to-knowledge/open-educational-
resources/what-are-open-educational-resources-oers/.
19. UNESCO: 2012 Paris OER Declaration,
http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/CI/WPFD2009/English_Declaration.html.
20. Wiley, D.: Open Education License Draft, http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/355.
21. Lane, A.: The impact of openness on bridging educational digital divides. The International Review of Research
in Open and Distributed Learning. 10, (2009).
22. Commonwealth of Learning, UNESCO: Guidelines for open educational resources (OER) in higher education.
(2011).
23. When we share, everyone wins, https://creativecommons.org/.
24. Butcher, N., Kanwar, A., Uvalic-Trumbic, S.: A basic guide to open educational resources (OER).
Commonwealth of Learning ; UNESCO, Vancouver; Paris (2011).
25. Bozkurt, A., Ozdamar Keskin, N., De Waard, I.: Research Trends in Massive Open Online Course (MOOC)
Theses and Dissertations: Surfing the Tsunami Wave. Open Praxis. 8, (2016).
26. Abeywardena, I.: The Role of OER in a New World of MOOC, https://oerresearchhub.org/2014/07/08/the-role-
of-oer-in-a-new-world-of-mooc-2/, (2014).
27. Fischer, H., Dreisiebner, S., Franken, O., Ebner, M., Kopp, M., Köhler, T.: Revenue vs. Costs of MOOC
Platforms. Discussion of Business Models for xMOOC Providers, based on Empirical Findings and Experiences during
Implementation of the Project iMooX. In: ICERI2014 Proceedings. pp. 2991–3000. IATED, Seville (Spain) (2014).
28. De Corte, E., Engwall, L., Teichler, U.: The hype of MOOCs. (2016).
29. Peters, G., Seruga, J.: A supply sided analysis of leading MOOC platforms and universities. Knowledge
Management & E-Learning: An International Journal (KM&EL). 8, 158–181 (2016).
30. Alraimi, K.M., Zo, H., Ciganek, A.P.: Understanding the MOOCs continuance: The role of openness and
reputation. Computers &amp; Education. 80, 28–38 (2015).
31. Open edX Portal, https://open.edx.org/.
32. McGill, A., Falconer, I., Dempster, J.A., Littlejohn, A., Beetham, H.: Journeys to Open Educational Practice:
UKOER/SCORE Review Final Report. JISC (2013).
33. William and Flora Hewlett Foundation: White Paper: Open Educational Resources – Breaking the Lockbox on
Education. William and Flora Hewlett Foundation (2013).
34. Bartholet, J.: Hype and Hope. Scientific American. 309, 53–61 (2013).

35. Bishop, J.L., Verleger, M.A.: The Flipped Classroom: A Survey of the Research. Presented at the 120th ASEE
Annual Conference & Exposition , Atlanta (2013).
36. Lane, A.: Design and Development of OER: A Student Perspective. In: Glennie, J., Harley, K., Butcher, N., and
van Wyk, T. (eds.) Open Educational Resources and Change in Higher Education: Reflections from Practice. pp. 141–
153. Commonwealth of Learning (2012).
37. Kopp, M., Ebner, M., Dorfer-Novak, A.: Introducing MOOCs to Austrian Universities - Is It Worth It to Accept
the Challenge? The International Journal for Innovation and Quality in Learning. 46–52 (2014).
38. OER Impact Map, http://oermap.org/hypothesis-list/.
39. Ebner, M., Lorenz, A., Lackner, E., Kopp, M., Kumar, S., Schön, S., Wittke, A.: How OER Enhances MOOCs—
A Perspective from German-Speaking Europe. In: Jemni, M., Kinshuk, and Khribi, M.K. (eds.) Open Education: from
OERs to MOOCs. pp. 205–220. Springer Berlin Heidelberg (2017).
40. iMooX, http://imoox.at/wbtmaster/startseite/.
41. mooin, https://mooin.oncampus.de/.
42. Ebner, M., Kopp, M., Freisleben-Teutscher, C.F., Gröblinger, O., Rieck, K., Schön, S., Seitz, P., Seissl, M.,
Ofner, S., Zimmermann, C., Zwiauer, C.: Recommendations for OER Integration in Austrian Higher Education. In:
Ubachs, G. and Konings, L. (eds.) Enhancing European Higher Education “Opportunities and impact of new modes of
teaching.” pp. 34–44. EADTU, Rome (2016).