The study as a Memoir of professional master degree. 20,000 word count 25 days for draft version 20 days for final version (4.20 – 5.15, 5.15 – 6.5)
OER : new emerging phenomenon, knowledge sharing movement, altruism, institutional/individual reputation (retrospective) National: national concern to establish knowledge sharing system, no national level research (experience + forward looking) Reason of National policy : - reduce inequality of access - less capacity of private sector, institution - coordinate stakeholders - efficient resource allocation - avoid redundant functions, more effective outcomes - central government can align OER policy with national policy and strategy => provide long term enabling environment Policy framework: international aspect, not specific country context, development project in the future (forward looking) Exploratory : literature review, no previous study, no hypothesis further study with factors, policy component priorities, country categories, development strategies, limited verification Formulation of the problem What are the national policy issues in the area of OER that emerge from the work of international organizations(OECD, UNESCO)? What are the contextual and policy related factors which can be expected to influence the components of national OER policy? Can the suggested framework be verified through analysis of the influence of the identified factors on the components of national OER policy in selected countries? Objectives of the study To identify the major factors of national OER policy To derive policy components to formulate a national OER policy To propose a systematic OER policy framework on a national level Methodology Literature study OER policy issues and priorities (UNESCO, OECD) national ICT policy framework (KERIS) international statistical data (GER, DOI, E-readiness, ARWU) Exploratory synthesis and interpretation Verification of Framework Three exemplary case countries : India, Netherlands, Korea Policy document (OECD, Country Reports) Study visit (India)
Not cover institutional/individual concern : The application of a tentative OER policy framework could be limited: - various contextual factors exist exist; - , this study focuses on major relevant factors with constraints of data availability and consistency. context of tertiary education , especially the higher education context, National policy for OER should consider not only technological infrastructure but also organisational and legal framework s in the education sector.
- Disparities of ICT development among/within countries and region Strong positive correlation r=+0.78 DOI, GER : secondary data The reason why select GER 65% and DOI 0.5 developed country avg. : 66%, UNESCO category of GER developing country avg. : 17% - DOI structure: internet usage, broadband penetration, device, affordability, coverage of ICT service E-readiness : connectivity and technology infrastructure, business environment, social/cultural environment, legal environment, government policy, consumer/business adoption group 1: 1 Group 2: 19 (Korea) Group 3: 92 (India) Group 4: 30 (Netherlands)
GER : high -> quality of HE -> QA low -> expansion of HE -> Organization Structure DOI : high -> Equity -> interoperability low -> access -> infrastructure
Infrastructure : more influenced by DOI factor Organization structure has different issues according to DOI and GER Legal framework, QA, Sustainability are more influenced by GER Interoperability is an issue of higher DOI context.
Implication of the study identified as follows : - national OER policy should consider Contextual factors of nation such as GER, DOI - sector priorities influence OER policy, alignment of sector policy is important - relevant OER policy component depend on factors Further study : participatory process through OER community with collaboration of UNESCO Development aspect -> general framework as OER development project
Analysis of the contextual factors for developing national oer policy
Analysis of the contextual factors for developing national OER policy Hye-Kyung YANG KERIS Republic of Korea
Contents 1. Rationale and Background 2. Research Outline 3. National OER Framework 4. Application of case countries 5. Conclusion and the way forward
Rationale and background An exploratory study of developing a national OER Policy framework
Research Outline <ul><li>Methodology </li></ul><ul><li>Literature study </li></ul><ul><ul><li>OER policy issues and priorities (UNESCO, OECD) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>national ICT policy framework (KERIS) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>international statistical data (GER, DOI, E-readiness, ARWU) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Exploratory synthesis and interpretation </li></ul><ul><li>Verification of Framework </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Three exemplary case countries : India, Netherlands, Korea </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Policy document (OECD, Country Reports) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Study visit (India) </li></ul></ul>
Research Outline <ul><li>Scope and Limitation of the study </li></ul><ul><ul><li>National level issues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ICT policy and higher education policy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Factors and Components of OER policy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Verification : limited countries with national OER policy </li></ul></ul>
ICT development stage : ISI- DOI Regions DOI less than 0.50 DOI more than 0.50 Arab States 15 4 Central Asia 9 - Central & Eastern Europe 7 13 East Asia & the Pacific 15 7 Latin America & the Caribbean 24 9 North America & Western Europe - 23 South & West Asia 8 - Sub-Saharan Africa 42 1 Total number of countries 120 57
GER in tertiary education Regions GER≤ 15% 15% <GER≤30% 30% <GER≤45% 45% <GER≤65% GER >65% Arab States 4 7 5 2 - Central Asia 1 3 2 2 - Central & Eastern Europe - 2 6 3 7 East Asia & the Pacific 5 6 2 2 3 LA & C 6 9 7 2 2 NA & WE 2 - 2 9 9 South & West Asia 6 1 - - - Sub-Saharan Africa 30 2 - - - Total number of countries 54 30 24 20 21
GER and ISI-DOI Group 1 : higher GER > 65% and lower DOI<0.50 CEE (Ukraine) Group 2 : higher GER > 65% and higher DOI >= 0.50 CEE (Russian Federation, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Hungary, Estonia) EA&P (New Zealand, Korea, Australia) LA & C (Argentina) NA&WE (Italy, Spain, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, USA, Greece, Finland, Monaco, Iceland) Group 3 : lower GER < 65% and lower DOI < 0.50 AS (14), CEE (4), CA (8) EA & P (10), LA & C (19) SWA (6), SSA (31) Group 4 : lower GER < 65% and higher DOI >= 0.50 AS (Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain) CEE (Turkey, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Czech, Poland) EA & P (Japan, Brunei, Macao, Malaysia) LA & C (Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, Chile) NA & WE (Malta, Switzerland, Austria, France, Portugal, Israel, Ireland, UK, Netherlands , Belgium, Luxembourg, Cyprus) SSA (Mauritius)
Contextual Factors and OER policy Category Group1 Group2 Group3 Group4 GER High High Low Low DOI Low High Low High OER policy options Access of OER Quality of HE Equity of OER Quality of HE Access of OER HE expansion Equity of OER HE expansion OER policy components Infrastructure QA Legal-Framework Organization-Structure QA Interoperability Sustainability Infrastructure Organization- Structure Organization- Structure Interoperability
Policy Issues and OER Components OECD UNESCO/IIEP KERIS this study Promote lifelong learning Issue guidelines Policies Awareness raising Policy Organizational -Structure Capacity Development HRD Digital learning resources Quality Assurance Accessibility Infrastructure Quality -Assurance Infrastructure Educational- Content Copyright legislation Copyright Legal -Framework Open access Open content license Funding Financing, Sustainability Sustainability Public-private partnerships Open content standards Standardization Information -Service Interoperability
OER Components and Contextual Factors Contextual Factors Lower DOI Higher DOI Lower GER Higher GER Infrastructure -Build backbone network -Rural area ICT penetration -Community learning centers -Price policy for education -Broadband development -Upgrade infrastructure -Technical support - - Organizational Structure -OER policy with national e-strategy -PPP - OER policy with distance learning - Legal Framework - - - -Copyright guideline -Open license policy Quality Assurance - - - -Quality guidelines -online peer review Sustainability - Public funding mechanism - Public funding mechanism Interoperability - -National OER repository -Open Source S/W -National standard - -
Policy Framework and case countries Countries India Netherlands Korea Contextual factors Lower DOI & Lower GER Higher DOI & Lower GER Higher DOI & Higher GER Sector-policy Factors Access & Equity Excellence Excellence Quality OER Components Infrastructure Organization Structure Interoperability Organization Structure Sustainability Legal framework Interoperability Quality Assurance Organization Structure Interoperability Quality Assurance Sustainability Major emphasis of OER policy Expand network Build OER partnership Standard Platform Leadership of OUNL Business Model Competitive Prize National Standard Copyright Guidelines Business Model
Conclusion and the way forward <ul><li>Conclusion </li></ul><ul><li>The suggested national OER policy framework seems to be valid based on the analysis of the three case countries. </li></ul><ul><li>Implication of the study </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Contextual factors of national OER policy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Sector priorities and OER policy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Relevant policy components </li></ul></ul><ul><li>The way forward </li></ul><ul><ul><li>OER policy with many interrelated issues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Simplifica tion of more complex interplay of factors </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Further empirical verification of different country cases </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Exploration of supplementary variables </li></ul></ul>
A particular slide catching your eye?
Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.