- 1 -

Department of Information & Strategic Analysis

(DISA)

Briefing on Open Educational Resources (OER)

Report: Phase 1

5 September 2011

Yuraisha Chetty, Director: Institutional Research1

1 The author acknowledges Dr Liz Archer for her considerable efforts in sourcing relevant literature

and for reviewing the document.

Open Education

- 2 -

Table of Contents

1. Introduction and Context....................................................................................................................... - 3 -

2. Origins of OER: The Pedagogical and the Digital Dimensions ................................................ - 5 -

3. Understanding OER: Definitional and Conceptual Issues .......................................................... - 8 -

4. Benefits/Opportunities of OER ......................................................................................................... - 16 -

5. Challenges associated with OER ...................................................................................................... - 19 -

5.1 Copyright ......................................................................................................................................... - 19 -

5.2 Quality Assurance ......................................................................................................................... - 20 -

5.3 Sustainability .................................................................................................................................. - 22 -

5.3.1 Funding models from Downes .................................................................................. - 23 -

5.3.2 Funding models from Dholakai ................................................................................. - 25 -

5.3.3 An Alternative Model ................................................................................................ - 27 -

5.3.4 Other Sustainability Issues ........................................................................................ - 28 -

6. Responsibilities/Guidelines for Key Stakeholders: Creating an Enabling Environment for

OER - 29 -

6.1 Governments ................................................................................................................................... - 29 -

6.2 Higher Education Institutions .................................................................................................... - 30 -

6.3 Teaching Staff ................................................................................................................................. - 30 -

6.4 Student Bodies ................................................................................................................................ - 31 -

6.5 Quality Assurance/Accreditation Bodies ............................................................................... - 31 -

7. Flagship OER Projects & Initiatives in Higher Education ........................................................ - 32 -

7.1 MIT Open Courseware (OCW).................................................................................................. - 32 -

7.2 The Rice Connexions Project .................................................................................................... - 33 -

7.3 Utah State University (USU) ...................................................................................................... - 33 -

7.4 Carnegie Mellon Open Learning Initiative (OLI)................................................................ - 34 -

7.5 Creative Commons and Internet Archives ........................................................................... - 34 -

7.6 WikiEducator................................................................................................................................... - 35 -

7.7 Learning 4 Content....................................................................................................................... - 36 -

8. Other OER Initiatives ............................................................................................................................. - 36 -

9. OER on the African Continent ........................................................................................................... - 36 -

10. Open Educational Practice (OEP)................................................................................................. - 37 -

11. Conclusion............................................................................................................................................ - 39 -

12. References ............................................................................................................................................ - 40 -

- 3 -

1. Introduction and Context

Increasing and widening participation in higher education has been a global

phenomenon of the 21st century. In a climate of globalisation, the drive to achieve

knowledge-based economies has resulted in many countries prioritising higher

education provision. This is starkly evident in the United Kingdom and the United

States and also among developing economies such as India and China who have

accelerated higher education provision and participation. Interestingly, Siemens

(2011), in a keynote address at Unisa in September 2011, asserted that the challenge

of increasing higher education provision differs for universities within different

economic contexts. While the challenge for universities in advanced economies (e.g.

US, UK, Canda, Australia) is one of sustainability, the challenge for universities in

emerging economies appears to be one of meeting the demand for higher

education. The magnitude of the growing numbers seeking access to tertiary

education is astounding. Siemens (2011) quoted a 2009 figure of 150.6 million

students in higher education globally – this would have changed since then and is in

all likelihood higher. The phenomenon of accelerated higher education provision is

hardly surprising given the important role that higher education plays in the

knowledge-driven economy. Amongst other roles, higher education pursues

knowledge, contributes to social development and supports national economic

competitiveness (Unesco-COL, 2011). However, increasing enrolments are often

incommensurate with financial and human resources available at universities, posing

a very real tension. This tension has provided a compelling rationale for exploring

alternative ways of increasing access to knowledge, including embracing the Open

Educational Resources (OER) movement. Importantly, OER initiatives are seen as

mediums for outreach to non-traditional groups of students and widening

participation, thereby bridging the gap between non-formal, informal and formal

learning and promoting lifelong learning (OECD, 2007).

OER is a fairly recent movement which has gained increasing attention and

momentum in higher education across the world. At the heart of this almost decade-

- 4 -

long movement which is fundamentally changing the way knowledge is provided, is

a commitment to open access to high quality education on a global scale. The

increasing number and range of OER initiatives and programmes globally is a

testament to its recognised potential to change traditional modes of higher

education provision. These initiatives are furthermore enabled and given impetus by

the rapid rise of various information and communication technologies (ICTs) and

software technologies (e.g. Web 2.0), which are being employed in varying forms in

teaching and learning practice, and have led to an increasing focus on virtual

learning environments (VLEs). The OER phenomenon can be seen as the “emergence

of creative participation in the development of digital content in the education

sector” (OECD, 2007, p. 21).

OER initiatives span both distance and contact modes of education provision, even

more so now with the growing blurring of boundaries between contact and distance

(Subotzky & Archer, 2011) Importantly though, these initiatives‟ aspiration to open

access resonates most strongly with the fundamental principle underpinning distance

education, which is that spatial, geographical, economic and demographic

boundaries must be reduced to facilitate and increase access to higher education. It

can be argued, therefore, that OER within Unisa‟s ODL environment could be the next

logical step to complement and solidify institutional efforts to open access.

The primary aim of DISA‟s OER research project, commissioned by the Pro-Vice

Chancellor‟s Office, is to provide guidance on the feasibility of initiating OER at Unisa.

This briefing will attempt to provide an overview of the global OER terrain including a

discussion on conceptual issues, OER stakeholders, key OER projects and initiatives,

benefits and challenges, sustainability and funding models, OER in Africa and OER

practice. In essence, this briefing will attempt to map the landscape. In parallel, an

investigation is underway into establishing if there are any OER initiatives at Unisa.

- 5 -

2. Origins of OER: The Pedagogical and the Digital Dimensions

The Commonwealth of Learning (Butcher, 2011) identifies two closely related

dimensions emerging from the numerous debates, discussions and conferences on

OER, namely, pedagogical and digital. While the pedagogical dimension locates the

origins of OER in developments in open and distance learning (ODL) and the shift

towards resource-based learning, the digital dimension foregrounds the upsurge of

ICT-related activity in education. The close relationship between the two is premised

on the understanding that the pedagogical potential of OER with its links to

resource-based learning and ODL would not have been realised in the absence of the

rapid growth and expansion of ICT. These two dimensions will be explored briefly,

drawing from COL‟s 2011 Basic Guide to Open Educational Resources (Butcher,

2011).

Developments in distance education characterised the 20th century and provided an

opportunity to offer education to those who could not access it through face-to-face

delivery, whether due to lack of affordability or inhibiting circumstances. The

explosion of ICT over the past 20 years has made it increasingly difficult to

understand exactly what “distance” means. It has also contributed to the boundaries

between distance and contact education becoming less clear over time, with some

suggesting the existence of a continuum of education provision, with distance on the

one end and contact on the other (Butcher, 2011). According to Butcher (2011), this

“blurring” of boundaries can be advantageous in that it affords educators the

opportunity to engage with the learning and educational benefits of a course‟s

structure and content, rather than debating which method of educational provision is

best.

[N]o method of educational provision is intrinsically better than another;

rather the appropriateness of a particular method or combination of

methods selected is determined entirely by the context in which they are

to be used and the educational needs they are to fulfil.

(Butcher, 2011, p. 25)

- 6 -

Butcher (2011) is of the view that this conceptual shift is crucial in changing the

higher education system. He (Butcher, 2011) regards the emergence of resource-

based learning as a sensible consequence of the limited distinctions between contact

and distance education. This approach to learning followed the shift from “contact”

to “dual-mode” institutions, wherein both face-to-face and distance programmes

were offered. He explains that the concept is not new and essentially means that “a

significant but varying proportion of communication between students and

educators is not face-to-face, but takes place through the use of different media as

necessary” (Butcher, 2011, p. 26). From a critical perspective, he emphasises that

resource-based learning is not the same as distance education. While distance

education refers to a “set of teaching and learning strategies (or educational

methods) that can be used to overcome spatial and temporal separation between

educators and learners”, resource-based learning involves “communication of

curriculum between students and educators through use of resources

(instructionally designed and otherwise) that harness different media as necessary”

(Butcher, 2011, p. 27).

Given our understanding of resource-based learning and an acknowledgement that

it has been strongly enabled by ICT, OER can be regarded as a logical movement

which is giving practical expression to this. This leads on to the second dimension of

OER explored by Butcher (2011), namely, the digital dimension. Following the rapid

explosion of ICT, educational institutions and national systems have had to tackle the

challenge of using ICT effectively to benefit students, educators and countries. The

creation and distribution of educational materials can now be successfully achieved

through a variety of digital applications. Within the education context, some trends

in ICT have clearly influenced and enabled the OER movement (Atkins, Brown, &

Hammond, 2007; OECD, 2007; OER Africa, 2008; Butcher, 2011).

- 7 -

The following trends are most pertinent:

ICT use is expanding the range of options available to educational

planners in terms of the teaching and learning strategies they choose

to use, providing an often bewildering array of choices in terms of

systems design options, teaching and learning combinations, and

strategies for administering and managing education.

ICT use is allowing for exponential increases in the transfer of data

through increasingly globalized communication systems, and

connecting growing numbers of people through those networks.

ICT networks have significantly expanded the potential for

organizations to expand their sphere of operations and influence

beyond their traditional geographical boundaries.

ICT use is reducing barriers to entry of potential competitors to

educational institutions, by reducing the importance of geographical

distance as a barrier, by reducing the overhead and logistical

requirements of running educational programmes and research

agencies, and by expanding cheap access to information resources.

There has been an explosion in collective sharing and generation of

knowledge as a consequence of growing numbers of connected

people, and the proliferation of so-called Web 2.0 technologies.

Consequently, collective intelligence and mass amateurization are

pushing the boundaries of scholarship, while dynamic knowledge

creation and social computing tools and processes are becoming

more widespread and accepted.

Digitization of information in all media has introduced significant

challenges regarding how to deal with issues of intellectual property

and copyright. Copyright regimes, and their associated business

models, that worked effectively prior to the development of ICT are

- 8 -

increasingly under threat, and in some cases rapidly becoming

redundant.

Systemically, ICT use is tending to accentuate social disparities

between rich and poor.

(Butcher, 2011, p. 30).

The emergence of open source was an additional development which preceded the

OER movement. The term “open source” arose within the context of software

development, and was launched as the Free Software Movement. Essentially, this

meant that source codes could be shared and adapted without limitations on

redistribution or reuse. Furthermore, there were licensing requirements to govern

reuse and availability (Butcher, 2011). Simultaneously, the idea of “open source” in

relation to learning materials began to gain momentum, as educators and

educational content developers attempted to investigate ways of producing digital

materials for easy reuse within a variety of teaching and learning environments

(Butcher, 2011). Clearly, the burgeoning “open source” movement which began in

1983 in software development facilitated the move by educators to explore OER, and

gave impetus to the OER movement itself.

At this point, it is appropriate to pause and reflect on both the pedagogical and

digital dimensions in relation to OER. This is interpreted eloquently by Butcher (2011,

p. 34) who states that when both dimensions are brought together, the concept of

OER “has emerged as having powerful transformative potential”.

3. Understanding OER: Definitional and Conceptual Issues

OER has been a topical issue among policy-makers in education circles since it was

first coined almost a decade ago. Its precise definition and conceptualisation has

been the subject of much debate and discussion since its debut, and will

consequently be given due attention in this section of the report. The actual term

Open Educational Resources (OER) was adopted at a UNESCO Forum on Open

Courseware in 2002 to refer to the “open provision of educational resources, enabled

- 9 -

by information and communication technologies, for consultation, use and

adaptation by a community of users for non-commercial purposes” (UNESCO, 2002,

p. 24). The initial concept was crystallised further as follows:

...technology‐enabled, open provision of educational resources for

consultation, use and adaptation by a community of users for non-

commercial purposes. They are typically made freely available over the

Web or the Internet. Their principle use is by teachers and educational

institutions to support course development, but they can also be used

directly by students. Open Educational Resources include learning objects

such as lecture material, references and readings, simulations, experiments

and demonstrations, as well as syllabuses, curricula, and teachers guides.

(Wiley, 2007)

Exploring the concept of open courseware, Prasad and Ambedkar from the Open

University in India (as cited in Downes, 2007, p. 1) stated that “the open courseware

concept is based on the philosophical view of knowledge as a collective social

product and so it is also desirable to make it a social property”. The notions of

serving the public good and sharing knowledge is given further expression by the

William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, a donor and major champion of the OER

movement. In a report to this foundation (Atkins, et al., 2007, p. 5), it is made explicit

that “at the heart of the movement toward Open Educational Resources is 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 knowledge. OER are the parts of

that knowledge that comprise the fundamental components of education – content

and tools for teaching, learning and research”. This resonates very strongly with the

primary goal of the William and Hewlett Foundation which is to “equalise access to

knowledge and educational opportunities across the world” (Atkins, Brown, &

Hammond, 2007, p. 5).

- 10 -

Within this context of knowledge sharing, Hylén (2006) from the Organisation for

Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) provides us with a paradox. He

(Hylén, 2006, p. 1) states that “although learning resources are often considered as

key intellectual property in a competitive higher education world, more and more

institutions and individuals are sharing their digital learning resources over the

internet openly and for free, as Open Educational Resources”. Noting this trend, it is

probably safe to assert that the benefits of sharing learning resources are in all

likelihood fuelling this movement, while the management of intellectual property as

part of sharing initiatives can reduce unnecessary risks for institutions. The issue of

intellectual property licenses does surface in definitions of OER, signalling the need

to share on the one hand, while protecting intellectual property on the other.

In attempting to refine and further clarify what OER is, Hylén (2006) stated that OER

was said to include:

Learning Content: Full courses, courseware, content modules, learning

objects, collections and journals.

Tools: Software to support the development, use, re-use and delivery of

learning content including searching and organization of content, content and

learning management systems, content development tools, and on-line

learning communities.

Implementation Resources: Intellectual property licenses to promote open

publishing of materials, design principles of best practice, and localization of

content

Clearly, from this definition it is important to note that resources are not limited to

content only, but include the additional areas of tools and implementation resources.

Furthermore, it is evident that intellectual property licenses have been given

attention. At the time, Hylén (2006) stated that a clearer and more succinct definition

would be provided upon conclusion of an OECD/CERI study, and this is evident in the

report which followed. The report: Giving Knowledge for Free. The Emergence of Open

- 11 -

Educational Resources, described OER as “learning content, software tools to develop,

use and distribute content, and implementation resources such as open licenses”,

and used the term to refer to “accumulated digital assets that can be adjusted and

which provide benefits without restricting the possibilities for others to enjoy them”

(OECD, 2007, p. 10).

Hylén (2006) further explores each term encompassing OER, these being “open”,

“educational” and “resources”, noting their ambiguity. Each of these terms will be

discussed in turn, beginning with the term “open”. Walker (as cited in Hylén, 2006, p.

2) defined “open” as “convenient, effective, affordable, and sustainable and available

to every learner and teacher worldwide” and Sir John Daniel (as cited in Hylén, 2006,

p. 2) spoke of the four As: “accessible, appropriate, accredited, affordable”. In

response to these definitions of “open”, (Downes, 2007) notes the very important

difference between “affordable” and “free”. He states that concept of “open” entails

little or no cost to the user or consumer of the resources. However, he states that it is

not clear whether resources which involve some sort of payment by the user should

be called “open” and that there is no consensus that “open” means “without

limitation whatsoever” (Downes, 2007, p. 32). D‟Antoni (2008) contributes further to

the debate by trying to explain “free” within the context of the underlying principle of

the Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) and OER movements. In this regard,

D‟Antoni (2008, p. 4) cites Vukovic & Martin who stated: “The fundamental principle

underlying both FOSS and OER is the freedom to share knowledge – whether this

takes the form of making software code open for collaborative modification and

improvement, or allowing unrestricted access to learning materials”. She (D'Antoni,

2008) argues that in this context, free is taken in the context of “free speech” rather

than “free beer”. Also exploring the question of whether OER is really free, Butcher

(2011) interrogates the issue of freedom and its definition within the context of OER,

balancing a discussion of types of freedoms with a discussion on the notion of cost.

He refers to Open Source and Free Software definitions which specify four types of

freedoms:

- 12 -

a. The freedom to run the programme, for any purpose

b. The freedom to study how the programme works, and adapt it to your

needs

c. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbour

d. The freedom to improve the programme, and release your

improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits.

(Butcher, 2011, p. 14)

Echoing other authors, Butcher (2011), states that another important dimension of

“freedom” is the notion of cost. While it is in fact true that open content is free,

where it can be shared without asking permission and without paying license fees, he

cautions against a simplistic understanding of reduced costs. He is of the view that

this conceals the associated costs of OER and advises education institutions to be

aware of personnel and other related expenses.

In further exploring the concept of “open”, an important distinction has been that

between open access publishing and OER which are related but distinct. While open

access publishing usually refers to research publications of some sort released under

an open licence, OER refers to teaching and learning materials released under such a

licence (Unesco-COL, 2011).

Having dealt with the term “open” in OER, it is now worth exploring the other key

terms. Hylén (2006) also questions the clarity of the term “educational” in OER,

arguing that it is not unambiguous. In particular, he questions whether it only refers

to materials produced with the purpose of being used within formal educational

settings. If this is the case, he states that it would therefore exclude resources

developed outside of the formal educational environment of schools and universities

used in formal courses, as well as materials produced inside such institutions which

were used for informal or non-formal learning outside of the institutions.

- 13 -

The meaning of the term “resources” is also debatable. He (Hylén, 2006)

distinguishes between the type and media of the resource. Examples of resource

types could include courses, animations, simulations, games, etc, while resources

media might include web pages on the internet, radio, television or paper (Hylén,

2006). Evidently, in most contexts, discussions of OER are limited to digital resources.

In line with the legal element creeping into the definition and understanding of OER,

the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, incorporates intellectual property issues

more purposefully into their proposed definition of OER as follows:

...teaching, learning and research resources that reside in the public

domain or have been released under an intellectual property license that

permits their free use or re-purposing by others. Open educational

resources include full courses, course materials, modules, textbooks,

streaming videos, tests, software, and any other tools, materials or

techniques used to support access to knowledge.

(Atkins, et al., 2007, p. 4)

While the various definitional permutations of OER have attempted to capture the

essence of OER, the Open eLearning Content Observatory Services (OLCOS), a

Transversal Action funded by the European Commission, notes that there is no

authoritative or established definition of OER. Instead, it identifies three core

attributes which characterise OER:

a. access to open content (including metadata) is provided free of charge

for educational institutions, content services, and the end-users such as

teachers, students and lifelong learners;

b. the content is liberally licensed for re-use in educational activities,

favourably free from restrictions to modify, combine and repurpose the

content; consequently, that the content should ideally be designed for

easy re-use in that open content standards and formats are being

employed;

- 14 -

c. for educational systems/tools software is used for which the source code

is available (i.e. Open Source software) and that there are open

Application Programming Interfaces (open APIs) and authorisations to

re-use Web-based services as well as resources (e.g. for educational

content RSS feeds).

(Open eLearning Content Observatory Services, 2007, p. 20)

Clearly, “free” in terms of this conceptualisation does in fact mean “free of charge”.

Furthermore, it is evident that this conceptualisation incorporates elements from

various definitions for a more coherent and integrated understanding of OER.

Interestingly, OLCOS does acknowledge that these three attributes do create high

expectations and that the reality is that repositories of educationally relevant

resources do not completely adhere to them.

Very recently, Butcher (2010) summarised OER as a simple concept both legal and to

a large extent economic. He (Butcher, p. 1) describes “educational resources that are

freely available for use by educators and learners, without an accompanying need to

pay royalties or license fees”. He indicates that a range of frameworks are being

developed to govern how OER are licensed for use. While some simply allow for

copying, others make allowance for users to modify the resources. He provides the

example of the well-known Creative Commons licenses which allow people to share

work while retaining acknowledgement, to prevent commercial activity if desired and

to prevent modification of work (Butcher, 2010).

Importantly, the distinction between e-learning and OER has also been evident in

conceptual discussions. The UNESCO-COL guidelines (2011, p. 3) are emphatic that

OER is not synonymous with online learning or e-learning. It defines e-learning as

referring to “structured learning opportunities mediated through the use of digital

resources (usually combinations of text, audio and visual/video files) and software

applications”. It explains that e-learning can be offered online and synchronously

(e.g. real-time conference) and online and asynchronously (e.g. text-based discussion

- 15 -

forum) or off-line (e.g. interactive CV/DVD/flash drive). Furthermore, e-learning can

be used in both contact and distance programmes. The key point being made here is

that while many OER can be shared in digital format, they can also be printed.

According to the guidelines, printable resources are more likely given the

connectivity and bandwidth problems experienced in some developing countries –

therefore OER is not designed only for use in on-line learning (Unesco-COL, 2011).

Butcher (2010) provides a similar argument and notes that many people wrongly

associate OER with the sharing of content for e-learning due to the fact that it is the

digital architecture of the internet that has enabled the sharing of content. He asserts

that this is illogical given that printable materials can now be stored in digital formats

and shared online as any form of multimedia.

More locally, within the South African context, conceptual issues have been given

expression in the Cape Town Open Education Declaration, wherein the concept of

OER is situated more broadly within the context of open education:

Open education is not limited to just open educational resources. It also

draws upon open technologies and facilitates collaborative, flexible

learning and the open sharing of teaching practices that empower

educators to benefit from the best ideas of their colleagues. It may also

grow to include new approaches to assessment, accreditation and

collaborative learning.

(Gray, 2008, p. 1).

OER in this context are seen as making education more accessible particularly where

monetary resources are limited. According to the declaration, they are also seen to

“nourish the kind of participatory culture of learning, creating, sharing and

cooperation that rapidly changing knowledge societies need” (Gray, 2008, p. 1).

Clearly, while the use of OER can support open education/learning, the two concepts

are not synonymous. Butcher (2011) provides a succinct distinction between these

concepts, in which open education/learning is viewed as an approach, while OER is

- 16 -

regarded as way of practically supporting this approach. He (Butcher, 2011, p. 6)

describes open education learning as “an approach to education that seeks to

remove all unnecessary barriers to learning, while aiming to provide students with a

reasonable chance of success in an education and training system centred on their

specific needs and located in multiples arenas of learning”. On the other hand,

Butcher (2011) views OER as giving practical expression to this approach, concluding

that these two concepts are in fact different in scope and meaning.

4. Benefits/Opportunities of OER

The benefits of OER are to some extent self-evident from the various definitions and

conceptualisations of this concept. However, given that Unisa is considering greater

participating in the OER movement, a more in-depth exploration of its perceived

benefits and value becomes necessary. The benefits for institutions, governments

and individual teachers and researchers will be explored. Hylén (2006) discusses five

arguments for institutional involvement in OER and these are highlighted below:

The altruistic argument that sharing knowledge is a good thing to do

and also in line with academic traditions

The argument that educational institutions should leverage on taxpayers‟

money by allowing free sharing and reuse of resources developed by

publicly funded institutions

The argument that by sharing and reusing, the cost for content

development can be cut, thereby making better use of available

resources

The argument that it is good for public relations and can function as a

show window attracting new students

The argument that given the growing competition as a result of

globalisation of higher education, there is a need to look for new

business models, new ways of making revenue, such as offering content

for free both as advertisements and as a way of lowering the threshold

- 17 -

for new students that still would need to pay for tutoring and

accreditation

(Hylén, 2006, pp. 5-6)

The OECD report states that a further motivation identified by some distance

institutions, is the risk of not doing anything in a fast changing environment (OECD,

2007).

At this point, it is pertinent to pause and reflect on the following question: What are

Unisa‟s motivations for embracing the OER movement and becoming a willing

participant in OER provision? While we may identify with each of the above

arguments, perhaps with varying degrees of agreement or disagreement on some,

clearly OER resonates most strongly with our ODL character and our social justice

mandate. It can be regarded as a logical step in the right direction. With Unisa

reengineering its organisational architecture to create an ICT-conducive

environment, a strategic imperative and undertaking championed by the Pro-Vice

Chancellor, Professor Baijnath, it is perhaps not premature to state that this

reconfigured environment will enhance the development and provision of OER at our

institution.

According to the OECD report, from the perspective of governments, there are three

key arguments to support OER projects:

They expand access to learning for everyone but most of all for non-

traditional groups of students and thus widen participation in higher

education.

They can be an efficient way of promoting lifelong learning for both the

individual and the government.

They can bridge the gap between non-formal, informal and formal

learning.

(OECD, 2007, p. 11).

The report also identified particular benefits for teachers and researchers:

- 18 -

The altruistic motivation of sharing (as for institutions), which again is

supported by traditional academic values.

Personal non-monetary gain, such as publicity, reputation within the

open community or “egoboo” as it is sometimes called.

Free sharing can be good for economic or commercial reasons, as a way

of getting publicity, reaching the market more quickly, gaining the first-

mover advantage, etc.

Sometimes it is not worth the effort to keep the resource closed. If it can

be of value to other people one might just as well share it for free.

(OECD, 2007, p. 12).

Downes (2007) discusses the benefits of OER in terms of their impact on stakeholders

in an OER network. These stakeholders include authors, readers, publishers and

funding agencies. Authors benefit as open publication grants allow access to the

broadest possible audience. The Open Citation Project (as cited in Downes, 2007, p.

30) reported that articles from open publication are cited more frequently. Readers

benefit as open access grants allow access to a significant body of literature, while

publishers also benefit as open access enables the widest distribution of the articles

they publish. Finally, funding agencies get a good return on their investment and

universities gain greater exposure for their scholarship (Downes, 2007).

We have reviewed the benefits of OER for institutions, governments, individual

researchers and educators, and other stakeholders in an OER network. This begs the

question: Do OER projects and initiatives improve the academic enterprise? Butcher

(2011, p. 38) argues that if utilised strategically, “OER has the potential to contribute

to improving the quality and effectiveness of education”. According to him, this

centres around three related possibilities:

a. Increased availability of high quality, relevant, need-targeted learning

materials can contribute to more productive students and educators.

- 19 -

b. The principle of allowing adaptation of materials provides one

mechanism among many for constructing roles for students as active

participants in educational processes who learn best by doing and

creating, not by passively reading and absorbing.

c. OER has the potential to build capacity by providing institutions and

educators with access, at low or no cost, to the means of production with

regard to high quality materials.

(Butcher, 2011, p. 38)

The second possibility which speaks about students as active participants resonates

with the participative pedagogical model highlighted by Salmon (2011), in her

keynote address at Unisa in September 2011. Critically reflecting on OER with this

lens, it seems that OER can play an influential the role in transforming students from

being passive recipients of knowledge to co-constructors of this knowledge.

5. Challenges associated with OER

Hylén (2006) highlights three key challenges to the burgeoning OER environment: a)

a lack of awareness of copyright issues, b) quality assurance and c) sustainability of

OER initiatives. Each of these will be discussed briefly in turn, also drawing from the

contribution of other authors.

5.1 Copyright

While academics are eager to share their work, they would also like some guarantee

on how this could be done in a way which does not result in them losing all their

rights. Some do disseminate their work publicly, and not surprisingly, would like to

maintain some rights over their work (Hylén, 2006). Exploring this further, Hylén

(2006, p. 7) cites the RoMEO project in the UK which surveyed 542 researchers (2002-

2003) about the rights they would like to retain. Findings revealed that over 60% of

researchers were comfortable with allowing third parties to display, print, save,

excerpt from and distribute their papers, provided they were acknowledged as the

- 20 -

authors and on condition that all copies were made verbatim. The report concluded

that the “protection offered to research papers by copyright law is in excess of what

is required by most academics” (Hylén, 2006, p. 7). The open content licenses of the

Creative Commons and the GNU Free Documentation License have been developed

to address the issue of the protection of intellectual property. Through these licenses,

sharing is balanced with some rights being reserved to the author. For authors, this

removes uncertainty and a lack of clarity about the process (Hylén, 2006).

The RoMEO project also found that 41% of authors indiscriminately assign copyright

to publishers without completely understanding the implications. Earlier findings

from the OECD study found that teachers and researchers have a low awareness of

the importance of making use of open licenses (Hylén, 2006).

This leads Hylén (2006) to conclude that a key challenge in the OER environment is

the lack of awareness of copyright and licenses. He argues that easier methods are

needed to ensure that authors retain only those rights they would like to retain and

that institutions must also provide advice and support. Hylén (2006, p. 7) cites Sale

on recent research on seven Australian universities which found that “ relying solely

on voluntary deposits by academics of research articles to open access archives will

result in approximately 15% contribution” and that “requirements to deposit research

output in an open archive coupled with an effective author support policy, results in

much higher deposit rates”.

5.2 Quality Assurance

While there are an increasing number of OER resources available to teachers,

students and self-learners, these users might not be sufficiently able to determine

the quality or relevance of these resources. While Hylén (2006) does not go into

detail about the quality of resources, he does acknowledge that this is a fundamental

issue. Instead he puts forward some different approaches to quality management

which are stated below:

- 21 -

Some institution-based providers use the brand or reputation of the

institution to persuade the user that the materials on the website are of good

quality. Here, Hylén (2006) states that they probably use quality checks for

dissemination. If not, the prestige of the institution is at risk.

Another approach is to have the resources reviewed by peer reviewers. The

peer review process is one of the most used quality assurance process in

academia. Further exploring the idea of peer review schemes as a credible

approach, Hylén (2006, p. 8) cites Taylor who argues that “the process can be

used to come to terms with the lack of a reward system by giving recognition

and reward to the creator of a learning resource, as well as a dissemination

method”.

A third quality management approach is to allow individuals to make

decisions about whether a learning resource is useful or of high quality,

placing the responsibility on individuals and avoiding a centrally-designed

process. According to Hylén (2006), this can be done by getting users to rate

or comment on materials and monitoring the number of downloads. He

states that the argument for such an approach would be that:

quality is not an inherent part of a learning resource, but rather a

contextual phenomenon. It is only in the specific learning situation

that is can be decided whether a resource is useful or not, and

therefore it is the user who should be the judge. (Hylén, 2006, p. 8)

On the point of quality, it is pertinent to refer to Butcher (2011) discussed earlier,

who highlighted the main reasons for his assertion that OER can potentially

contribute to the quality and effectiveness of education. In relation to this, he draws

attention to a problematic assumption being made within the OER movement, that

“simply making content freely available for use and adaptation will improve

education delivery” (Butcher, 2011, p. 38). According to him, while content is one

matter, the reality is that good educators are required to ensure effective use of

- 22 -

educational content. He sees higher education institutions as playing a pivotal role in

building capacity to design and deliver high quality programmes and courses within

current budgets, and is of the view that “without this growing institutional and

human capacity, OER will not be able to fulfil its transformative potential” (Butcher,

2011, p. 39).

5.3 Sustainability

Wiley (2007, p. 5) puts forward a working definition of sustainability, which he says

needs to encapsulate the “ability of a project to continue its operations” and “also

needs to include the idea of accomplishing of goals”. He identifies two key

sustainability challenges facing OER projects: a) sustaining the production and

sharing of OER and b) sustaining the use and reuse of OER by end users (teachers

and/or learners). The first challenge has two elements, firstly sustaining the

production of OER and secondly, sustaining the sharing of resources. The production

of OER, he argues, requires “human resources, workflow processes and supporting

technology” (Wiley, 2007, p. 5). Capturing and digitising content, checking for

intellectual property issues and simultaneously resolving these, and ensuring quality

assurance, are all functions which require human resources. Furthermore, this must

be achieved within the context of computers, access to the network and software

tools (Wiley, 2007). The costs are real and involve “people time, developing workflow

policies, purchasing computers, connecting to the network, and acquiring and

administering software” (Wiley, 2007, p. 6). Clearly, these are important

considerations for Unisa to take into account as it contemplates its OER future.

The second challenge, which involves sustaining the use and reuse of OER, is

important if an OER project is to achieve its goals. Importantly, it is

counterproductive to spend a significant amount of time and resources producing

and sharing OER which teachers and learners do not find useful. Wiley (2007)

identifies key considerations for meeting this overall challenge:

Resources must be shared in a format that operates equally well across

hardware and operating system platforms

- 23 -

Resources must be sourced in such a way that local adaptations can be

made

Users may need technical tools for making effective reuse of resources

Users may need training or demonstrations of how such localisations

can be performed

Users need either a place to put their derivative works or a place where

they can tell others where their derivative works are located.

(Wiley, 2007, p. 6)

From Unisa‟s perspective, the resource and user considerations listed above, will

need to be interrogated and addressed as part of any envisaged OER

undertaking.

According to Hylén (2006, p. 8) there is a need for the development of a “strong

brand, user communities, increased site usability and improved quality of the

resources offered”. Clearly, this is just one part of the solution to ensuring

sustainability. He then goes on to draw attention to an important element of

sustainability, i.e. financial sustainability. While many OER projects have adequate

institutional financial support, it is very likely that this is start-up funding.

Furthermore, with the number of OER initiatives on the rise, there is increased

competition for funding. Therefore, the issue of sustaining these projects in the long-

term becomes imperative. Institutions initiating OER projects or programmes need to

look at different revenue models (Hylén, 2006). While this author does go on to

discuss these models, I will refer instead to Wiley‟s paper (2007, p. 15), in which he

cites the funding models of Downes and Dholakai and provides commentary.

5.3.1 Funding models from Downes

Endowment model

With this model, base funding is allocated to the project. This funding is

managed by the fund administrator and the interest earned sustains the

project.

- 24 -

Membership Model

Here, a group on interested organisations is invited to contribute a certain

sum, either as seed money or as an annual contribution or subscription. This

fund then generates operating revenues for OER provision. Wiley (2007, p. 15)

cites the Sakai Educational Partners Programme which is a for-fee community.

Members contribute USD 10 000 which affords them particular benefits such

early access to code releases, documentation and roadmap decisions.

Donations Model

This type model works on the principle that a project worthy of support

receives donations which are managed by a non-profit foundation. The

foundation may use them for operating expenses or to establish an

endowment. According to Wiley (2007), there are many open source initiatives

funded in this manner including Wikipedia and the Apache Foundation.

Furthermore, he states that the model can be applied differently. He cites the

example of the Apache Foundation (Wiley, 2007, p. 15) where contributions

are owned by the contributor and licensed to the project. To illustrate an

alternative approach, (Wiley, 2007, p. 15) cites Everitt in relation to another

model called the conservancy model, where contributions are allocated to the

organisation which then acts as a steward.

Conversion Model

Sterne and Herring (as cited in Wiley, 2007, p. 15) stated that “in the

conversion model, you give something away for free and then convert the

consumer of the freebie into a paying customer”. This approach, they assert, is

necessary as “there is a natural limit to the amount of resources the Donation

model can bring to an open source project, probably about USD 5 million per

year”.

- 25 -

Contributor-pay model

In this model, OER contributors pay for the cost of maintaining the

contribution, after which the provider makes the contribution available for

free. This model has received some support from publishers (Wiley, 2007).

Sponsorship Model

This model involves forms of open access easily available in homes, such as

radios and televisions. These can be used a mediums to either aggressively

advertise OER projects such as in the case of commercial television networks,

or to adopt a more toned-down approach in the form of “sponsorship”

messages. The sponsorship model was used for the Massachusetts Institute of

Technology (MIT) iCampus Outreach Initiative and the Stanford on iTunes

Project (Wiley, 2007).

Institutional Model

This can be regarded as a variation to the sponsorship model, where the

institution concerned takes responsibility for an OER project. The MIT

OpenCourseWare project is the most recognised example of this, where the

institution assigns funds to the project as part of its programme and

institutional mission (Wiley, 2007).

Government Model

In this model, OER projects are funded directly by government agencies such

as the United Nations (Wiley, 2007).

5.3.2 Funding models from Dholakai

Replacement Model

In this model, OER replaces the use of other technology software such as

virtual learning environments and course management systems, thus resulting

- 26 -

in cost savings. These savings can in turn be used to fund open educational

programmes (Wiley, 2007).

Foundation Model

In this model, if the open educational programme substantially increases in

size in a particular subject area and the number of users increases in a

particular location or geographical area, it can seek continuous funding from

foundations, philanthropic institutions, industry, professional societies,

individual firms, government and NGOs who are interested in this particular

niche (Wiley, 2007). In order to implement this model successfully, Wiley

(2007, p. 16) argues that one has to “identify an underserved user segment,

and then focus the programme‟s efforts and initiatives on serving this

segment, thereby creating a differentiated brand image”.

Segmentation Model

In this model, while providing open access to all educational content, specific

user segments can be provided with “value added” services for which they are

charged. Examples include sales of paper copies of culled content organised

around a particular topic, training and user support to users for annual fees

and housing and dissemination of copyrighted content within the same site

on a subscription basis (Wiley, 2007).

Voluntary Support Model

As the name suggests, this is based on funds being provided on a voluntary

basis through fundraising campaigns. According to Wiley (2007, p. 16), this

model mirrors fund-raising methods used by National Public Radio, National

Public Television and other media outlets in the US.

- 27 -

5.3.3 An Alternative Model

Having reviewed the various funding models, it is worth turning our attention to an

alternative model put forward by Hylén (2006), namely the Community Model. In

this model, individuals contribute their time, knowledge and resources on a voluntary

basis. Furthermore, a decentralised approach is used for the production, use and

distribution of resources. From this perspective, while assessing various revenue

models is important, it is equally important with regard to resources, to look at “who

creates them, how they are distributed and how one can work with them” Hylén

(2006, p. 9). In this regard, Hylén (2006) suggests that the following be considered:

Technical considerations such as discoverability of the resources

The kind of openness and constraints on access and use given to users

Different content models and issues of licensing

o To expand on this point, reference is made to Downes (2007, p.

37) who states that there needs to be “types of flexible content

that can be adapted to local needs and conditions”, thereby

ensuring usability.

Different staffing models and incentives for people to contribute

resources

o On this point it is pertinent to again draw from Downes (2007)

who expanded on the issue of staffing models. He states that the

traditional model involves the selection and hiring of staff to

undertake and complete the work. With the production of OER,

different models have emerged. Zalta (as cited in Downes, 2007,

p. 39) notes that OER production (and that of software) has been

driven by volunteer staff. In terms of the sustainability of an OER

project, it is important to acknowledge that incentives required

for volunteer staff are different given that their motivations are

largely altruistic (Downes, 2007, p. 39).

- 28 -

A move to models without a clear distinction between production and

use or between the user and the producer – coproduction

Maintaining and updating of resources.

(Hylén, 2006, p. 9)

Clearly, all of the above are important considerations for the sustainability of OER.

5.3.4 Other Sustainability Issues

Friesen (2009) reports on an informal survey which looked at the lifespan of OER

projects, and highlights the sustainability challenge facing these projects. He

concludes that:

OER projects suffer the same incompatibilities with existing institutional

cultures and priorities that have dogged learning object initiatives, and

they face the concomitant challenge of gaining access to the operational

funding support that experience shows is necessary for their survival.

(Friesen, 2009, p. 1).

Friesen (2009, p. 8) cites D‟Antoni who discusses the top concerns expressed by the

“OER international community of interest” in a survey report released by UNESCO.

Friesen (2009) argues that the top three concerns identified resonate with the

sustainability challenge. These are: a) awareness raising and promotion, b)

communities and networking of creators and users and c) capacity development as it

relates to the development and pedagogical application of OER. Interestingly, Friesen

(2009) points out that none of these have anything to do with technology or

technological solutions, which were in fact ranked only the 12th highest concern in

OER sustainability. D‟Antoni (as cited in Friesen, 2009, p. 8) discusses the

responsibilities of the four stakeholders identified for taking action in relation to all

the key policy concerns raised by the OER community. The stakeholders were higher

education institutions, international organisations, national governments and

academics. Higher education institutions were given responsibility for research and

supporting learning but also for awareness raising and capacity development.

- 29 -

International bodies were responsible for copyright issues, financing and standards as

well as awareness raising. National governments were required to provide policy

support, to ensure accessibility and to take on copyright and financing of OER.

6. Responsibilities/Guidelines for Key Stakeholders: Creating an Enabling

Environment for OER

While the previous section highlighted some responsibilities for some stakeholders,

the UNESCO-COL guidelines (2011) for OER crystallise responsibilities for a broader

spectrum of stakeholders including governments, higher education institutions,

teaching staff, student bodies and quality assurance/accreditation bodies, all of

whom are key role players in the OER environment. For OER to be successful as a

movement and as a practice, it will clearly require all critical stakeholders to work in

concert as catalysts for change. It will require a systematic and well-coordinated

effort overall.

The responsibilities/guidelines for each of the stakeholders will be simply listed. In

some cases, issues echo those discussed in the previous section. For more detail, it is

recommended that the guidelines document be referred to.

6.1 Governments

Support the use of OER provision through the revision of policy

regulating higher education

Contribute to raising awareness of key OER issues

Review national ICT/connectivity strategies for Higher Education

Consider adapting open license frameworks

Consider adopting open format standards

Support institutional investment in curriculum design

Support the sustainable production and sharing of learning materials

Collaborate to find effective ways to harness OER.

(Unesco-COL, 2011, pp. 7-8)

- 30 -

6.2 Higher Education Institutions

Provide incentives to support investment in high quality learning

material acquisition, adaptation and production. Institutional policies

should be reviewed to:

o Encourage judicious selection and adaptation of existing OER, as well

as production of new materials where necessary

o Promote collaboration both within and beyond the institution in

developing materials

o Provide staff appropriate incentives and rewards for the acquisition,

adaptation and production of learning material

o Ensure that staff workload models allow for curriculum, course, and

materials design and development, as well as research activities

Recognise the important role of educational resources within internal

quality assurance process

Consider the relative merits of creating flexible copyright policies that

apply open licenses to content by default

Undertake institutional advocacy and capacity building

Ensure ICT access for staff and students

Develop institutional policies and practices to store and access OER

Review institutional OER practices periodically

(Unesco-COL, 2011, pp. 9-10)

6.3 Teaching Staff

Update knowledge on, and develop skills to evaluate, existing OER

Start publishing OER – start “small”

Adapt and contextualise existing OER

Seek institutional support for OER skills development

Leverage networks and communities of practice

Publish about OER

Provide feedback about, and data on use of, existing OER

- 31 -

Update knowledge of intellectual property rights, copyright and privacy

policies

(Unesco-COL, 2011, pp. 10-11)

6.4 Student Bodies

While the role of universities has evolved over time, so too has the role of the

student. Students are expected to be active agents in their learning process rather

than passive recipients. With this in mind, it is clear that they have an instrumental

role to play in the OER environment. Students will need to:

Familiarise themselves with policies governing their educational

experience

Undertake advocacy of OER

Encourage their members to publish work as OER

Take an active role in assuring the quality of OER through social

networks

Participate in institutional decision-making processes about ICT

infrastructure and connectivity

Encourage student participation in activities to support OER

development

(Unesco-COL, 2011, pp. 12-13)

At this point it is worth pausing to reflect on the Unisa context. Given that a student-

centred approach is given expression in the strategic goals and objectives of the

university, students‟ active and facilitative role in any OER project will need to be an

important consideration.

6.5 Quality Assurance/Accreditation Bodies

Raise awareness of OER

Engage in debates on OER, in particular on intellectual property rights

Consider the effects of OER on quality assurance and recognition

Develop criteria for the assessment of OER integration

- 32 -

Undertake advocacy of OER

(Unesco-COL, 2011, pp. 13-14)

This brings to an end the responsibilities/guidelines for various stakeholders clearly

mapped out by UNESCO-COL (Unesco-COL, 2011) . It is worth reiterating my earlier

comment that it is clear that all stakeholders will need to work collaboratively and in

a systematic and coordinated fashion to ensure the success of an OER venture.

7. Flagship OER Projects & Initiatives in Higher Education

In their review of the OER movement, Atkins, et al. (2007) draw attention to key

examples of OER projects. These will be briefly highlighted in the sections which

follow, drawing from other authors where relevant.

7.1 MIT Open Courseware (OCW)

The MIT OCW project was a pioneering project which was the catalyst for the OER

movement. It is a success story which has provided evidence for the value and

influence of quality open educational resources (Atkins, et al., 2007). The key catalytic

questions asked by MIT were: “How is the internet going to be used in education and

what is our university going to do about it?”, and the corresponding answers from

faculty at MIT were: “We are going to make our educational material available to

students, faculty and other learners anywhere in the world, at any time, for free”

(Atkins, et al., 2007, p. 9).

In 2003, MIT began to provide users with open access to learning materials such as

lecture notes, syllabi, course calendars, problem sets and solutions, examinations,

reading lists, and also a selection of video lectures (Butcher, 2010). The MIT OCW

project (http://ocw.mit.edu) currently has about 1900 courses on the internet free of

charge and for non-commercial purposes (Butcher, 2010, p. 4).

- 33 -

7.2 The Rice Connexions Project

While the MIT OCW project is well recognised for the extent of its operations, its

quality and comprehensiveness, it must be noted that it is “basically a digital

publishing model of high-quality, pre-credentialed, static material” (Atkins, et al.,

2007, p. 10). The Rice Connexions Project, as the name suggests expands on the MIT

project by creating connections among communities of users and producers.

According to Atkins, et al., (2007, p. 10):

...it provides not only a rapidly growing collection of free scholarly material

but also a set of free software tools to help authors to publish and

collaborate; instructors to build rapidly and share custom courses; and

learners to explore the links among concepts, courses and disciplines.

This project has rapidly expanded into internationally territory and is inter-

disciplinary. Project leaders report that the user base is in the region of 1 million

people from 194 countries who are actively sourcing the 3,755 modules and 197

courses (Atkins, et al., 2007). Unlike the MIT model (but like Utah State University

which is discussed next), there is no target number of courses to be developed.

Furthermore, unlike MIT or USU, it has authors from a host of universities

contributing learning materials to the site (Wiley, 2007).

7.3 Utah State University (USU)

USU has become a major provider of open content (http://ocw.usu.edu/), and also

provides open learning support through the Centre for Open and Sustainable

Learning (COSL). Through an OCW management system (eduCommons), it assists

those who want to start OCW at their institutions with handling copyright, uploading

materials, ensuring quality assurance and publishing materials. COSL is currently in

the process of becoming a “clearing house for the evaluation of OER tools, systems

and best practice” (Atkins, et al., 2007, p. 11).

- 34 -

The USU model is different to the MIT model. According to Wiley (2007, p. 7), the

MIT model is “highly centralised and tightly coordinated in terms of organisation and

the provision of services, relying almost exclusively on paid employees”. By

comparison, he states that the USU model is “a hybrid of centralisation and

decentralisation of both organisation and services, and work is distributed across

some employed staff and a number of volunteers”. He also refers to the Rice

Connexions Model which he says is completely decentralised with the vast majority

of services being provided by volunteers.

7.4 Carnegie Mellon Open Learning Initiative (OLI)

The OLI (www.cmu.edu/oli/index.html) contributes to the OER portfolio on

instructional design “grounded in cognitive theory, formative evaluation for students

and faculty, and iterative course improvement based on empirical evidence” (Atkins,

et al., 2007, p. 12). According to these authors, some of its creative online teaching

components include virtual laboratories, cognitive tutors, group experiments and

simulations. This project aims to develop a community which will be instrumental in

course development and improvement. The modular development of courses allows

faculty from other institutions to teach the course as it has been designed or to

adapt it to serve the specific needs of the students or the course goals (Atkins, et al.,

2007).

7.5 Creative Commons and Internet Archives

The Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org) has the tagline “share, reuse

and mix legally”, and provides an infrastructure service for the OER movement. It

allows authors, scientists, educators and artists to decide what freedoms they would

like their work to carry. They have the option of reserving all rights or just some

rights (Atkins, et al., 2007). The Creative Commons now has a Web application which

enables the above process. Their licenses are designed for creative works and not

software, for example works such as websites, scholarship, music, film, photography,

literature, etc. Research in June 2006 showed that there were at least 140 million web

- 35 -

pages linked to a CC license and over 25 million CC-licensed photographs on Flickr

(Atkins, et al., 2007). This would have in all likelihood increased since then.

Internet Archives (http://www.archive.org/index.php) is another important infrastructure

for the OER movement. It is supported by William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and

provides scholars, researchers and scholars, with access to digitised historical

collections. Such initiatives are becoming more cutting-edge with the best known

example being the Brewster Kahle‟s Internet Archives (Atkins, et al., 2007).

Having reviewed some of the flagship projects discussed by Atkins, et al. (2007), it is

worth taking note of two more OER undertakings. The Open Education Resource

Foundation has two flagship OER projects: WikiEducator and Learning 4 Content,

both of which are significantly raising the bar in the OER environment. These are

discussed below.

7.6 WikiEducator

According to the Open Education Resource Foundation Annual Report (2009, p. 7),

the WikiEducator prototype was established in February 2006 as a “social software

experiment for educators to collaborate on the development of open education

teaching materials”. In its earlier years, WikiEducator was supported by the

Commonwealth of Learning (COL). The report states that it is currently one of the

most valuable wiki projects in the world. The Annual Report (Open Education

Resource Foundation, 2009, p. 8) cites the Vice-President of COL, Asha Kanwar, who

highlighted the benefits of WikiEducator:

Bringing people together for face-to-face training is a very expensive

approach. WikiEducator allows us to train large numbers of people

wherever they are able to develop OER collaboratively. WikiEducator

achieves two objectives: capacity development and open content creation.

Investing in people and free content is the only way to make „learning for

development‟ sustainable.

- 36 -

7.7 Learning 4 Content

Also driven by the OER Foundation and supported by the William and Flora Hewlett

Foundation, this project provides free training in wiki skills to educators and teachers

across the world through online face-to-face workshops. They subsequently become

WikiEducators, contributing one free content resource back to the WikiEducator

community (Open Education Resource Foundation, 2009).

8. Other OER Initiatives

In this section, a list of other OER initiatives will be provided with the relevant URLs:

The OpenCourseWare Consortium (http://www.ocwconsortium.org))

The Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and Teaching Online

(MERLOT) (http://www.merlot.org)

The Japanese OCW Consortium (http://www.jocw.jp)

The ParisTech OCW Project (http://www.paristech.fr/en/index.html)

A UK-based initiative called JORUM (http://www.jorum.ac.uk)

The OpenLearn Project of the Open University (http://openlearn.open.ac.uk)

(Butcher, 2010)

9. OER on the African Continent

There is only one African OCW initiative – that of the University of the Western Cape

(http://freecourseware.uwc.ac.za). However, there are other African OER initiatives,

including the recently formed UCT Open Content (http://opencontent.uct.ac.za), which

allows users to access open teaching and learning content from the University of

Cape Town. Furthermore, OER Africa (http://www.oerafrica.org) is an initiative of the

South African Institute for Distance Education (SAIDE) and actively promotes the use

of OER in Africa and also supports organisations or individual who want to create

OER (Butcher, 2010).

The University of Malawi has initiated a project at the Bunda College of Agriculture

which has resulted in the creation of a first year paper-based communication skills

- 37 -

textbook from freely available OER. Further afield, another African initiative is the

Teacher Education in Sub-Saharan Africa (TESSA) (http://www.tessafrica.net) which

provides guidance to teachers and educators of teachers on course design. A range

of OER has been developed in four languages to enable school-based teacher

education and training. In particular, the materials give attention to classroom

practice in the areas of literacy, numeracy, science, social studies and the arts and life

skills.

Four African universities were sponsored by the William and Flora Hewlett

Foundation in 2008 to develop health OER. They were the Kwame Nkrumah

University of Science and Technology (KNUST), the University of Ghana, the

University of the Western Cape and the University of Cape Town (Omollo, 2011a;

Omollo, 2011b).

10. Open Educational Practice (OEP)

The Open Education Quality Initiative (OPAL) is an international network which

“promotes innovation and better quality in education and training through the use of

OER” (Open Education Quality Initiative , 2011, p. 2). It receives partial funding from

the European Commission and is initiated through international organisations like

UNESCO, ICDE and EFQUEL and universities such as the Open University UK, the

Aalto University in Finland, University Duisburg-Essen and the Catholic University in

Lisbon.

Underpinning OPAL‟s focus is the acknowledgement that while a range of OER

initiatives focus on access and availability of open educational resources, they focus

less on assisting organisations and individuals to develop open educational practices.

With this in mind, OPAL has put forward guidelines in the form of a maturity model

which is called the Open Educational Practice Maturity Matrix. Simply, this provides

institutions with an indication of where on the maturity matrix they are positioned in

terms of the uptake of OEP (Open Education Quality Initiative , 2011). The 5-point

scale against which questions have to be measured is as follows: not yet started, early

- 38 -

stages/awareness, developing/commitment, established, and embedded/advanced.

Aspects of the matrix will be highlighted below, and are extracted from the guideline

document.

The critical questions linked to each overarching step/goal are as follows:

Step 1: Positioning your organisation in the OEP Trajectory

To what extent are you using and repurposing OER in your organisation?

Do you have a process for creating OER in your organisation?

To what extent are you sharing OER and open educational practices in your

organisation?

To what extent is your organisation working with open learning architectures?

Step 2: Creating a Vision of Openness and a Strategy for OEP in an Organisation

Is a vision for OEP shared across the organisation?

Are OEP included in existing policies and practices?

Are OEP embedded in the organisation‟s business model?

Are you involved in any partnerships in relation to OEP?

Are OEP perceived as relevant across the organisation?

Step 3: Implementing and Promoting OEP

Is an IPR, DRM and copyright regulations for OER in use?

Is there a motivational framework for OEP in existence (e.g. incentives)

Are OEP used?

Do you have tools to support sharing and exchanging information about open

educational practices?

Do you apply quality concepts to OEP?

What level of knowledge and skills do teachers have in relation to open

learning architectures and OEP?

Level of digital literacy skills

Are support mechanisms in place to support the development of OER?

(Open Education Quality Initiative , 2011, pp. 6-8)

- 39 -

For institutions planning an OER initiative or rolling out one, the above matrix

provides a useful benchmark for assessing “readiness” or maturity. One could venture

to say that an organisation‟s maturity “index” is likely to reflect the extent to which

OER will be sustainable.

11. Conclusion

This briefing on OER has attempted to provide the reader with an overview of the

global, African and local OER landscape. It is hoped that this document can be used

as one point of reference in discussions about OER at Unisa. While it may not provide

a definitive answer to the question of whether OER at Unisa will be feasible or not, it

does provide a focused review of the literature on OER to at least provoke thinking

and guide debates and dialogue on this issue.

With regard to further work on DISA‟s OER project, we are currently in the process of

documenting OER initiatives or practices underway at Unisa. Current indications are

that OER initiatives, while evident in some pockets, have not been systematically

adopted or driven within the institution. If OER does become a strategic imperative

of the institution which is strongly advocated, planned, funded, coordinated and

implemented, there is very likely to be an increase in such initiatives and practices

across the institution. I would like to conclude by reiterating a point made in the

introduction, that OER could be the next logical step to complement and solidify

institutional efforts to open access.

- 40 -

12. References

Atkins, D. E., Brown, J. S., & Hammond, A. L. (2007). A review of the open educational

resources (OER) movement: Achievements, challenges, and new opportunities.

San Francisco: OERDerves.

Butcher, N. (2011). A basic guide to Open Educational Resources (OER). Vancouver:

Commonwealth of Learning.

Butcher, N. (2010). OER Dossier: Open Educational Resources and Higher Education.

Johannesburg: Saide.

D'Antoni, S. (2008). Open Educational Resources the way forward: Deliberations of an

international community of interest. Paris: UNESCO.

Downes, S. (2007). Models for sustainable open educational resources.

Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects , 3, 29-44.

Friesen, N. (2009). Open Educational Resources: New possibilities for change and

sustainability. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning

, 10 (5), 1-13.

Gray, E. (2008, May 13). The Cape Town Open Education Declaration. Paper presented

at the the Teaching with Technology Seminar . Cape Town , South Africa:

OpeningScholarship Project.

Hylén, J. (2006). Open Educational Resources: Opportunities and Challenges. Retrieved

July 27, 2011, from www.knowledgeall.net/files/Additional_Readings-

Consolidated.pdf

OECD. (2007). Giving knowledge for free: The emergence of Open Educational

Resources. Paris: OECD Publishing.

- 41 -

OER Africa. (2008, July 8). OER Africa: Maximising the potential of OER for sustainable

higher education in Africa. Paper presented at the ACDE Pre-conference

workshop . Lagos, Nigeria.

Omollo, K. L. (2011a). Growing an institutional health OER initiative: A case study of

Kwame Nkrumah University of science and technology. San Francisco: Regents

of the University of Michigan and Saide.

Omollo, K. L. (2011b). Growing an institutional health OER initiative: A case study of

the University of Ghana. San Francisco: Regents of the University of Michigan

and Saide.

Open Education Quality Initiative . (2011). Beyond OER: Shifting focus to open

educational practices. Essen: Open Education Quality Initiative.

Open Education Resource Foundation. (2009). Open Education Resource Foundation

Annual Report 2009. Dunedin: OER Foundation Ltd.

Open eLearning Content Observatory Services. (2007). Open Educational Practices

and Resources: OLCOS Roadmap 2012. Salzburg: OLCOS.

Salmon, G. (2011, September 1). Reviewing the Learning Odyssey: A long series of

wanderings, filled with adventures and hardships. Pretoria, Gauteng, South

Africa: Paper presented at the 1st Teaching and Learning Festival at Unisa.

Siemens, G. (2011, Septermber 1). At the threshold: Higher Education, complexity and

change. Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa: Paper presented at the 1st Unisa

Teaching and Learning Festival.

Subotzky, G., & Archer, E. (2011, August 30). The blurring boundaries of blended

learning: Who is doing, and planning to do what in Distance Education in

South Africa? Johannesburg, Gauteng, South Africa: Paper presented as

Nadeosa, 20 August 2011.

- 42 -

Unesco-COL. (2011). Draft UNESCO/COL Guidelines for Open Educational Resources in

Higher Education. Vancouver: Unesco-COL.

Wiley, D. (2007). On the sustainability of Open Educational Resource Initiatives in

Higher Education. France: OECD publishing.