If we open it will they come? Towards a new OER Logic Model (by Ulf-Daniel Ehlers)


Published on

The paper presents the result of a multilingual empirical survey on the ‘micro level factors’ of using, creating sharing and reusing open educational resources. It starts from the assumption that current models of OER integration are often lacking factors to support the creation of a sustainable open educational practice culture in organizations. This results into a low absorption capacity: Even if OER then are available and accessible in an organization, they are often not used. Micro level factors for integration of OER into teaching and learning on basis of the results of an empirical survey are presented and interpreted. They are used to enhance the OER logic model(s) into an “enhanced OER logic model” which, in addition to create equalized access, is capable of creating a culture of open educational practices, as well.

Published in: Education
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

If we open it will they come? Towards a new OER Logic Model (by Ulf-Daniel Ehlers)

  1. 1. IF WE OPEN IT – WILL THEY COME? TOWARDS A NEW OER LOGICMODELUlf-Daniel Ehlers, University Duisburg-Essen, Universitaetsstr. 9, 45141 Essen, Germany[http://www.ude.de]AbstractThe paper presents the result of a multilingual empirical survey on the ‘micro level factors’of using, creating sharing and reusing open educational resources. It starts from theassumption that current models of OER integration are often lacking factors to support thecreation of a sustainable open educational practice culture in organizations. This results intoa low absorption capacity: Even if OER then are available and accessible in anorganization, they are often not used. Micro level factors for integration of OER intoteaching and learning on basis of the results of an empirical survey are presented andinterpreted. They are used to enhance the OER logic model(s) into an “enhanced OER logicmodel” which, in addition to create equalized access, is capable of creating a culture ofopen educational practices, as well.1.  Introduction  In 2012 it will be 10 years since the UNESCO has coined the term “open educationalresources” (OER)(UNESCO 2002). A few years down the line the concept had becomepopular. The OECD suggested with their report in 2007 that the concept of “Giving awayknowledge for free” had made a considerable carrier and outlined areas in which furtherwork would be necessary to boost openness for educational resources, amongst thempredominantly emphasizing to improve access to OER on a global scale (OECD 2007). Thepublic debate on OER became more and more aligned with the UNESCO decade program“Education for All” which strives for universal access to primary education by 2015. Itaims at building equal access for everyone to education. In the same year of the OECDreport, Atkins et al. (2007) made a global analysis of OER initiatives for the HewlettFoundation and developed the “OER Logic Model”. It suggests that equal access to (open)educational resources can only be developed if certain factors were met. In their model theystated as the ultimate goal of OER activities to build more and better access but alsoincluded emphasis on aspects beyond access, stresses the need to further develop OER 1
  2. 2. usage aspects and also mentions reduction of barriers. The model is an important step in thehistory of understanding the impact and perception of OER because it stresses for the firsttime in OER research the importance of addressing OER micro level factors like OERusage, whereas before initiatives and programmes had largely focused on macro levelfactors, as for example infrastructure and access. In an analysis of publicly funded and Foundation funded OER initiatives worldwide,Stacey (2010) shows that focus of current well known OER initiatives is on creation andpublication of OERs. Use and reuse are still somewhat underrepresented; strategic aspectslike business models, incentive strategies for creation use and reuse are not broadly touchedupon (Stacey 2010). Stacey’s paper marks an additional step in research literature claimingthe importance of additional efforts complementing infrastructural and access-relatedinitiatives. If OER are to gain relevance in mainstream higher education (HE) more effortsto understand motivations, incentives, and creating an open culture in educationalorganisations is seen as important (ibid). Today it can be summarized that although OERare high on the agenda of social and inclusion policies and supported by many stakeholdersof the educational sphere, their use in HE has not yet reached the critical threshold. In thisresearch paper we suggest that this has to do with too little consideration of how tounderstand, introduce, foster and support OER on the micro level of organisations, whereas‘micro level’ is defined as the practice level of creating, sharing or using OER, or short:open educational practice (OEP). OEP constitute the range of practices around the creation,use and management of open educational resources with the intent to improve quality andto innovate education (Ehlers 2011). In chapter two we are outlining the research design. We are describing the macro andmicro level model for OER implementation in organisations and explain the importance ofbalancing both factors with each other. In addition we describe the data gatheringmethodology, target group and field phase of the multilingual online survey. In chapter three we are analyzing and presenting the result of the empirical research. Wewill first give an overview of the extent of usage of OER according to the respondent’sanswers, and will then step-by-step describe the empirical evidence of each micro levelfactor for OER implementation. In a concluding chapter we will present the idea of ‘OEPabsorption capacity’ of institutions which is better when micro level factors are taken intoconsideration.2.  Macro  Level  and  Micro  Level  of  Open  Educational  Practices  Our point of departure is the assumption that the use of OER can generate innovativepractices – Open Educational Practices (OEP). We are focussing our attention of the field 2
  3. 3. of HE and AE and present research on the micro level conditions, or practice level, whereOER are integrated into educational organisations. Current models, like the OER logicmodel (Atkins et al. 2007) or the OER framework (Stacey 2010), are addressingpredominantly macro level factors, like infrastructure, public funding policies, technologiesand access issues. The OER logic model, for instance, is focussing on a number of factorsdesigned to achieve equalized access to OERs within the given context. It consists of a) Fund and support high quality open content b) Removing barriers (on a macro level this can relate to e.g. infrastructure and access) c) Understand and stimulate use (e.g. through policies) d) Equalize accessAlthough factor c) “understanding and stimulate use” is touching the micro, i.e. the practicelevel, the model stays vague as to what exactly would stimulate use of OER. Theexplanation “(c) Create networks of builders and users to share and collaborate; (d) supportR&D analyses of ways to increase effectiveness and make evaluation stronger” (Atkins etal.) hints at operations on a macro level in organizations or on national level. While theultimate goal of the model is improved access to OER it is not sufficiently elaboratingfactors for supporting OEP. Figure  1:  The  OER  Logic  Model  (Atkins  et  al.  2007)  Another OER framework designed by Paul Stacey (2010) on basis of a global analysis ofOER initiatives outlines further elements, and takes into account policy, legal and business/funding issues (figure 2). However, most of these elements are as well directed to themacro level structure of providing conditions for creating, access and sharing of OER, and 3
  4. 4. are less elaborated in the field of stimulating the development of open educationalpractices. Figure 2: OER Framework (Stacey 2010)We therefore suggest to extent the described models with components on the micro level.These address primarily the motivational framework, suggesting incentives, addressingattitudes and removing everyday practice barriers. The micro level model for OEP containsthe impacting surrounding and influencing factors for the creation, use, sharing and reuse ofOER for individuals, organisations and policy makers, and is capable of suggesting wayshow to support the establishment of OEP.1 In order to achieve an environment in whichOEP can develop there is a need to understand the micro/ practice level of OER integration.It is our assumption that, if understanding this micro level better, we could derive successfactors for supporting OEP in education.An initial model of such factors has been elaborated in a desk research and case studyanalysis phase. The micro level factors have then been operationalized into researchquestions and questionnaire items and presented to the participants of the online survey inorder for them to determine the relevance from their point of view. The research questionthus is: What happens on the micro level of OEP in which OER are actually used,produced, and shared in order to improve quality of education. As suggested above, themicro level of OER is thus the practices level where educators, learners, educationalprofessionals and also organisational leaders in educational institutions are actually using1  As  defined  in  chpt.  1:  OEP  constitute  the  range  of  practices  around  the  creation,  use  and  management  of  open  educational  resources  with  the  intent  to  improve  quality  and  innovate  education.   4
  5. 5. OER, producing it, sharing it, reusing and assembling it, improving it and assessing it. Inline with OECD (2007), Atkins (2007) and recently Stacey (2010) we argue that theintroduction of OER into educational process through macro level initiatives needs to becomplemented by efforts on the micro level in institutions. Whereas there is currently onlylittle attention given to this issue, the need for understanding the influencing factors forsuccess of OER initiative on such a micro level is evident, also in the cited research.Nevertheless, no considerable approach has been presented so far. We conclude that animbalance of efforts on macro and micro level leads to an inability of an organization toabsorb the innovation potential of OER. While macro level efforts enable organisations togain or improve access, micro level achievements support the creation of an open culturefor learners, educational professionals and managers. Micro level readiness would thusraise an organisation’s OER absorption capability which helps OER to become relevant toteaching and learning. The multilingual, research study presented in this paper (Ehlers et al. 2011) is addressingthis issue specifically. It is operationalizing this issue by asking participants from differentstakeholder groups in higher education and adult education about their views on micro levelfactors. The results allow us to elaborate a differentiated picture of the micro level impactfactors of OER in educational organisations (figure 3). Figure 3: Micro level factors for Open Educational PracticesOur aim is to present an extension to the existing (above described) models and frameworkswhich would enable these to be more balanced between macro level factors (buildingaccess, policies and funding streams) and the micro level factors (building a culture of openeducational practices within an organisations). 5
  6. 6. The research study was initiated in 2010 by the Open Educational Quality Initiative(OPAL, www.oer-quality.org) which is partly supported by funding from the EuropeanCommission. An initial model was derived from literature and case studies. Two groups ofmicro level factors were selected as important to establish open educational practices inorganisations (figure 3): a) Creating enabling contexts: a. Infrastructures for creation and use of OER: In this category we are looking at software, tools, and networks within an organization to share knowledge, resources and experiences. Apart from creating and usage of OER these tools are important to enable the creation of a sharing culture. b. Cultures of Innovation: In this category we are exploring if OER demands for a cultures of innovation. c. Institutional Policies: Rules and regulations to support integration of OER within organizations. b) Perceptions, Attitudes and Barriers a. Fostering Perception of Usefulness: There is a need to address stakeholders motivation through raising perception of usefulness of OER. b. Reduce perceived barriers: An extensive catalogue of barriers has been derived from existing literature and exploratory case analysis. c. Support positive Attitudes towards OER: Positive attitudes are an important factor for the success of OER initatives.3  Research  Design  The research survey is intended to carry out a quantitative study on the use of OpenEducational Resources (OER) and Open Educational Practices (OEP) in Higher Educationand Adult Learning Institutions. The activity was carried out as an online survey availablein four languages (EN, ES, FR and PT) covering more than 8 EU countries. It elicitsquantitative information from four educational stakeholder groups:• Educational  Policy  Makers  • Managers/Administrators  (also  institutional  policy  makers)  • Educational  Professionals  • Learners  The survey targets adult education institutions as well as higher education institutions.Although the survey has been open and answered by the international community of OERactors, the main respondents came from the following countries: Germany, UK, Portugal, 6
  7. 7. Finland, Spain, France, The Netherlands, Ireland. Furthermore respondents came from theEU countries at large and others regions, as well. The field phase of the survey has been from mid-July 2010, when the first invitationswere sent out, to 30 September 2010. In total 470 respondents were taken into account inthe data analysis. The Respondents had the choice of completing the survey in one of fourlanguage versions. Their choice favoured English (61.5% of all respondents), followed byPortuguese (24.7%), French (8.3%) and Spanish (5.5%). 78.7% of the respondents statedthe country where they work or study was a member of the European Union, while 21.3%are from outside the EU. As to the gender of the respondents, there is a balance, both whenconsidering all respondents and when analysing their distribution by sector (48,3% female,51,7% male). A clear majority of respondents belong to the educational professional role(68%), followed by the institutional policy maker/manager role (19%), the learner role(9%) and, last, the educational policy role (4%). Higher education respondents account forover 75% of the sample while adult learning provided the remaining of those surveyed.36.4% of respondents replied that they are having OER initiatives or materials at theirinstitution, and 30.4% negatively.4.  Results  of  the  data  analysis  In the participants’ responses it becomes apparent that OER have become a reality in manyeducational organisations and processes. A specific section of the survey was devoted tothis issue (“Your experiences with the use of open educational resources”) to ascertain towhat extent and in what form are OER being used. In chapter 4.1 we will present the extentof respondents’ usage and experience with OER. In chapter 4.2 we will analyse the macrolevel factors of OER usage in detail.4.1  Extent  of  OER  usage  and  experiences  with  OER  Until now OER have been in development and use, often pioneering, since 2002. Roger’stechnology adoption lifecycle would suggest that OER have come through the innovationphase, are striving for adoption, and aspire to cross into early majority (Rogers, 1983).More than three quarters (77%) of all respondents are often or sometimes using OER.2 Inthe adult education sector the percentage is a bit higher than in higher education. Mostly,OER are used by educational professionals, followed by learners, institutional policymakers. Policy makers on national or European level reported least usage of OER.2   Q2.1   Open   educational   resources   are   resources   which   are   freely   available   and   can   be   used,   shared   or  adapted.  Please  tell  us  if  you  have  ever  used  or  produced/provided  such  materials  for  teaching  or  learning.  1.   Using   existing   OER   for   teaching/training/learning,   2.   Creating   OER   myself   and   publishing   them,   3.  Adapting  existing  OER  to  fit  my  needs  for  teaching/  training/learning,     7
  8. 8. Considerably less respondents, 57,5% of all, are also reporting experiences with thecreation of OER.3 The distribution is varying only little between higher education and adulteducation, with slightly less OER creation in adult education field. More than two thirds ofthe respondent (67,2%) claim to adapt OER to make them fit for their own purposes, inhigher education slightly more than in adult education. We can conclude, that overall, OERare beginning to shape the reality in higher education and adult education, whereas mostrespondents claim occasional (sometimes) usage, creation or adaption of OER.4 Overall thenumbers reveal a European environment in which educational institutions – and withinthem foremost the educational professionals – have started to absorb OER as an educationalmeans into the reality of higher and adult education. When asking educational professionals which kind of OER they are using5 we can seethat complete courses (12,1%) are the least used OER, whereas it is more popular to usejust those parts of courses/ programs which fit into the educational activity (29,9%) andmost teachers or trainers are using ‘other openly available educational bricks’, likewebsites, documents, videos and build them into their course (53,3%). The purpose OERare used for, finally, reveals a clear picture. Almost half of those respondents using OERuse it for providing students or learners in some form with self-study materials or additionalmaterials for learning, as figure 4 reveals (self-study, provide e-learning materials tolearners, substitute teaching in class).63  For  all  stated  percentages  N  is  varying  between  450  and  480  participants.  4   However,   it   has   to   be   noted   that   the   sample   of   the   survey   is   subject   to   self-­‐selection   processes   and   not  representative.  5   Q2.2   How   would   you   describe   the   kind   of   OER   that   you   use   for   teaching/   learning?   Complete  courses/programmes,  Parts  of  courses/programmes,  Other  materials  for  learning  (e.g.,  individual  websites,  documents,  videos,  etc.),  Other.  Please  specify.  6  Educational  professionals:  Q2.3  For  what  purpose  do  you  use  OER?  (You  may  choose  all  the  options  that  fit  your  personal  case)  I  am  using  OER:  1.  To  prepare  for  my  teaching/training  or  get  new  ideas  and  inspiration,  2.   To   teach   in   the   classroom,   3.   To   give   to   learners   as   self-­‐study   materials,   4.   To   substitute   my  teaching/training   in   the   classroom,   5.   To   offer   online   and/or   distance   education/training,   6.   To   provide   e-­‐learning   materials   to   learners,   7.   To   compare   them   with   my   own   teaching/training   materials   in   order   to  assess  the  quality  of  my  materials,  8.  Other,  9.  I  am  not  using  OER.     8
  9. 9.   To compare them w ith my ow n I am not teaching/training Other. Please using OER materials in order specify .; 9; 1.1% 1% To prepare for my to assess the teaching/training quality of my or get new ideas materials.; 95; and inspiration.; 11.3% 170; 20.3% To prov ide e- learning materials To teach in the to learners.; 153; class-room 18.3% 15% To offer online and/or distance To giv e to education/training. learners as self- To substitute my study materials.; ; 74; 8.8% teaching/training 174; 20.8% in the classroom.; 28; 3.3%   Figure  4  –  Purpose  of  OER  usage  (N=470)  4.2  Exploring  the  OER  Micro  Level  The micro level is defined as the level of practice with creating, developing and using OER.It is our assumption that these factors are determining the use, reuse and sharing of OERand is the decisive success factor for developing an open culture of educational practiceswithin educational organisations. Whereas research has largely concentrated to analyse themacro level factors of OER usage so far, we believe that for the development of openeducational practices within organisations the micro level factors are playing an importantrole. As micro level factors we are analysing a) enabling contexts for the use of OER and b)perceptions and attitudes of stakeholders (figure 3).4.2.1  Enabling  Contexts  for  Open  Educational  Practices    The first set of enabling factors which was surveyed is called ‘enabling contexts’ and isrelating to factors which constitute the context of open practices. These are a) the existenceof cultures of innovation in institutions, b) institutional policies and c) infrastructures forcreation and use of OER. 9
  10. 10. A. Cultures of InnovationEvidence of the existence of cultures of innovation is of particular interest to the researchstudy, in that OER and OEP are closely associated with pursuing new forms of facilitatinglearning for individuals and customising learning resources to the particular needs of theindividual learner. In this regard, a number of questions from the survey enable us to elicitinformation that sheds light on this important attribute. The respondents were overallstating that in their view, the use of OER in teaching and learning changes the educationalscenario. This issue was reported in various ways (figure 5). Figure  5:  Innovation  Cultures  for  OER  Overall the factors addressed in the survey can be summarized in four quadrants (figure 5):a) Drivers for an OER innovation cultures, b) OER Innovation in institutions, c) Existenceof innovation barriers of the organisation and d) Innovation barriers from the learners’perspective. The four quadrants are listing only those items from the survey which turnedup with high values of confirmation in the respondents’ answers.• Q I: Within the first quadrant we included items which all suggest that OER is a driver for innovation in institutions. Those items are scoring with more than two thirds of all respondents stating that they strongly agree or agree to the statements. These 10
  11. 11. judgements were both true for adult education as well as for higher education. They all suggest that the usage of OER is not just a process of ‘using just another digital material’ but that with the usage of OER certain innovation potentials are triggered, such as pedagogical changes, increased autonomy and participation of the learners, changing teachers’ role and a potentially improved quality.• Q II: The second quadrant lists those items which are addressing factors for innovation on an institutional level and which were specifically mentioned by institutional policy makers and educational professionals. Again more than two thirds of all respondents were in average stating that they strongly agree or agree to the statements (items) represented in the quadrant. The respondents clearly agreed that OER evokes innovation processes on an institutional level, is challenging for institutions existing educational practices and changes pedagogical environments.• Q III: The third quadrant comprises barriers for the introduction of OER perceived by educational professionals and managers of educational institutions. They are outlining aspects which address the question why OER can fail to take effect in organisations. In average more than half of the respondents were agreeing that these were important barriers for failure of OER in organisations.• Q IV: The fourth quadrant lists innovation barriers from the learner’s perspective, two items which specifically were addressed to learners and reveal that the introduction of OER demands for productive environments in which they are encouraged to create and share their self-produced learning materials, share it with others, and change the learning environment to adapt it to open educational resources.B. Institutional Policies for Supporting Open Educational PracticesInstitutional policies for OER are viewed as very important by educational policy makers.But how does the reality look in organisations? Respondents were queried on the existenceof a number of supporting institutional policy factors in their educational institutions: 71. An explicit institutional policy or OER: Individual efforts to implement OERs in institutions (27,4%) are prevailing by far. Inexistence of any explicit institutional policy ranges at 22,7%. Policy support through the whole organisation received only 12.7%. The clear picture that emerges here is that organisation-wide explicit policies in support of the use of OER are the least prevalent. 7  Q4.3.  In  your  higher  education  institution,  how  would  you  rate  the  following  factors  in  support  of  the  use   of   OER?   (Question   for   Institutional   policy   makers/managers,   educational   professionals)   N   ranges  between  450  and  480     11
  12. 12. 2. An OER partnership with other organisations: Respondents report, that only little institution wide, strategic efforts are made so far to develop partnerships in order to work on innovation fields such as OEP.3. Specific quality assurance processes for OER: For higher education and adult learning, there is a prevalent notion that there are no specific quality assurance processes in place for OER. Again, on individual level, indications exist that efforts are undertaken to quality assure OER with specific approaches but this does not register on an entire organisational level yet.4. Specific pedagogical scenarios and models for OEP: About one third (33,3%) of individuals make efforts to develop pedagogical scenarios specific to OERs. Again, we note that organisation-wide implementation gathers the least opinions overall, at 6.8%.5. Specific skill support at institutional level is needed to stimulate the adoption of OER: The combination of positive responses from the institutional policy makers/managers to this sub-question reaches 73.6% overall, with a similar pattern in each sector.While institutional policy makers and educational professionals respond that in their viewOER stimulates institutional innovations (with the highest values in adult learning, at71.2%), the respondents also state that there are insufficient reward system for educationalprofessionals (61.7%), insufficient support from the management level (61,7%) and a lackof policies at institutional level to support the creation or use of OER (63.4%). It becomesobvious that OER are often still quite far from impacting on the educational institutions as awhole. The perception by respondents that using OER can lead to institutional innovationsdoes not seem to translate, to the same extent, into the existence of organisation-wideimplementations, which points to the need for considerable efforts to be made in thisregard.C. Supporting OER Adoption on the Micro LevelInfrastructures are an enabling factor for the creation and use of OER, as well as for theimplementation of OEP. Respondents were queried on a series of potential barriers to theuse of OER, three of which are directly connected to the availability of infrastructures:81. Lack of Internet connectivity: 42.5% of all respondents feel this barrier is very unimportant or unimportant while 30.6% rate it as very important or important.2. Lack of software to adapt the resources to the user’s purposes: Overall, the majority of respondents considers this barrier very important or important, but the adult 8   All   educational   roles:   Please   evaluate   the   relevance   of   the   following   barriers   to   the   use   of   OER   from  your   personal   experience:   Lack   of   Internet   connectivity,   Lack   of   software   to   adapt   the   resources   to   the  user’s  purposes,  Lack  of  access  to  computers.   12
  13. 13. learning respondents more so than their counterparts. It indicates that actions are needed to make available appropriate software, in particular when considering the repurposing of existing OER to better suit the users’ educational needs.3. Lack of access to computers: Almost half of all respondents (45.5%) felt this was very unimportant or unimportant, with only 28% considering it to be important or very important.Overall we can conclude that technological infrastructures are an important enabling factorfor implementing OEP on a micro level towards creating OEP but can be understood as ahygienic factor. This means that in the eyes of the respondents, it constitutes a necessity butdo not automatically lead to implementation of an open culture in educational institutionsfavouring OEP and the greater use of OER.4.2.2  Perceptions,  Attitudes  and  Barriers  towards  OER  The following section presents the research regarding a) perceptions towards OEP, b)attitudes and c) barriers. These attributes are representations of respondents regarding OER.A. Perceptions Towards OEPThree aspects were addressed: Did the participants believe that OEP within organisationswere mature? Did they feel that OER were useful? And were they content with the qualityof OER?1. Perceived maturity:9 Overall more than half of the respondents (50.9%) consider that open practices in education are currently undeveloped in educational institutions, and only a small minority is satisfied with the state of development of OEP (3.1%). Both sectors – higher education and adult education follow this trend closely. 9  Q4.1.  What  is  your  view  on  open  educational  practices  in  higher  education  institutions/adult  learning  organisations  today?  Do  you  think  that…  they  are  sufficiently  developed?,  they  are  moderately  developed?,  they  are  underdeveloped?,  they  are  not  developed  at  all?   13
  14. 14. No reply ; 87; ...they are not 20.4% dev eloped at ...they are all; 36; 8.5% sufficiently dev eloped; 13; 3.1% ...they are ...they are moderately underdev el- dev eloped; oped; 217; 73; 17.1% 50.9% Figure  6:  State  of  open  practices  in  educaion  /  training  institutions   The unequivocal nature of the opinions expressed seems to confirm that for respondents the use of OER does not equal the prevalence of open educational practices in institutions; this suggests the need for further efforts to be made within educational institutions in promoting OEP and adopting a supporting internal framework and appropriate measures to favour both the emergence, the sustainability and the recognition of OEP.2. Perceived Usefulness of OER:10 Respondents show agreement with the statement that OER raises the efficiency because materials can be re-used.3. Perceived Quality of OER:11 Based on respondents’ experiences, the majority (68.9% overall) agrees that the quality of OER can be a problem; from the adult learning sector even 78%. This very clear opinion points to the need for actions to promote the quality of OER, which should lead to a boost in usage and support also OEP.B. Barriers to use OERPreviously carried out desk research and case study analysis resulted into a set of 19barriers to the development of OEP. A list of these barriers was presented to allrespondents.12 The answers were grouped through development of an index and then10  Q3.3  Please  tell  us  what  in  your  experience  is  the  value  of  OER  for  education/training  (formal,  non  formal,  informal),  by  rating  the  following  statement:  OER  raise  efficiency  because  materials  can  be  re-­‐used.  11   Educational   policy   makers;   institutional   policy   makers   /managers;   learners:   Q3.3   Please   tell   us   what   in  your   experience   is   the   value   of   OER   for   education/training   (formal,   non   formal,   informal),   by   rating   the  following  statement:  The  quality  of  OER  can  be  a  problem.  12   All   respondents:   Please   evaluate   the   relevance   of   the   following   barriers   to   the   use   of   OER   from   your  personal  experience:  1.  Not  invented  here  syndrome:  no  trust  in  others’  resources.  2.  Lack  of  time  to  find   14
  15. 15. categorized into 3 groups whereas group 1 represents the barriers which are perceived asthe most relevant and group 3 is representing the barriers which are perceived as havinglowest relevance.Table  1:  Barriers  to  the  development  of  OEP  Barrier to the Development of OEPGroup 1: Barriers with highest relevance 1. Insufficient reward system for educational professionals devoting time and energy to OER 6,0 development. 2. Lack of policies at institutional level to support the creation or use of OER. 5,8 3. Insufficient support from the management level of higher education institutions. 5,7 4. Lack of policies at national/regional level to support the creation or use of OER. 5,7 5. Lack of interest in pedagogical innovation among educational professionals. 5,6 6. Educational professionals lack the time to create or use OER. 5,6Group 2: Barriers with medium relevance 7. Lack of interest in creating or using OER. 5,5 8. Educational professionals lack the skills to create or use OER. 5,5 9. Lack of time to find suitable materials. 5,4 10. OER are not embedded into the learning scenarios. 5,2 11. Lack of OER that are culturally relevant to the user. 5,1 12. Lack of OER in the user’s native language. 5,1Group 3: Barriers with lowest relevance 13. Lack of quality of the OER. 5,0 14. Not invented here syndrome: no trust in others’ resources. 4,8 15. Lack of software to adapt the resources to the user’s purposes. 4,8 16. Learners lack the skills to create or use OER. 4,8 17. Learners lack the time to create or use OER. 4,8 18. Lack of Internet connectivity. 4,2 19. Lack of access to computers. 4,1suitable  materials.  3.  Lack  of  Internet  connectivity.  4.  Lack  of  software  to  adapt  the  resources  to  the  user’s  purposes.   5.   Lack   of   access   to   computers.   6.   Lack   of   quality   of   the   OER.   7.   Lack   of   OER   that   are   culturally  relevant  to  the  user.  8.  Lack  of  OER  in  the  user’s  native  language.  9.  OER  are  not  embedded  into  the  learning  scenarios.   10.   Insufficient   reward   system   for   educational   professionals   devoting   time   and   energy   to   OER  development.   11.   Lack   of   interest   in   pedagogical   innovation   among   educational   professionals.   12.  Insufficient   support   from   the   management   level   of   higher   education   institutions.   13.   Lack   of   policies   at  national/regional   level   to   support   the   creation   or   use   of   OER.   14.   Lack   of   policies   at   institutional   level   to  support  the  creation  or  use  of  OER.  15.  Lack  of  interest  in  creating  or  using  OER.  6.  Educational  professionals  lack   the   skills   to   create   or   use   OER.   17.   Learners   lack   the   skills   to   create   or   use   OER.   18.   Educational  professionals  lack  the  time  to  create  or  use  OER.  19.  Learners  lack  the  time  to  create  or  use  OER.   15
  16. 16. In addition an exploratory principal components analysis (PCA) enabled the identificationof five relevant dimensions in representation of those barriers (see table 1) with whichindividuals are faced when they want to use OER (see table 2). The PCA is designed toanalyse which underlying dimensions (principal components) are influencing the answersof the respondents. The following table shows the result of this analysis and respectivelyidentified dimensions, which we sought to name according to the content of their mainindicators: 1. Lack of institutional support 2. Lack of technological tools 3. Lack of skills and time of users 4. Lack of quality or fitness of OER 5. Personal issues (lack of trust and time)Table  2:  Matrix  of  principal  components   Components 1 2 3 4 5Insufficient support from the .814 .089 .028 ,065 .062management level of higher educationinstitutions/adult learning organisations.Lack of policies at institutional level to .795 .102 .035 .210 -.057support the creation or use of OERLack of policies at national/regional .729 .060 .159 .205 -.085level to support the creation or use ofOERLack of interest in pedagogical .681 .123 .093 .082 .063innovation among educationalprofessionalsLack of interest in the creation or use of .666 .246 .115 -.066 .071OER.Insufficient reward system for .522 -.064 .157 .307 .133educational professionals devoting timeand energy to OER developmentLack of access to computers .140 .894 .052 .127 -.050Lack of Internet connectivity .141 .874 .092 .123 -.084Lack of software to adapt the resources .173 .726 .116 .101 .227to the user’s purposesLack of quality of the OER -.021 .428 .179 . .361Learners lack the time to create or use .074 .098 .812 .21. .060OER.Educational professionals lack the time -060 -.132 .721 .139 .266to create or use OER. 16
  17. 17. Learners lack the skills to create or use .150 .237 .716 .166 -.102OER.Educational professionals lack the skills .382 -276 .579 -.035 -.033to create or use OER.Lack of OER that are culturally relevant .129 -198 .264 .759 .124to the userLack of OER in the user’s native .207 .199 .163 .704 -.161languageOER are not embedded into the learning .372 -.006 .022 .533 .255scenariosNot invented here syndrome: no trust in .090 -.078 -.129 .090 .750others resources.Lack of time to find suitable materials .000 -.017 .304 .001 .627 N=302 Total of Variance Explained: 61.572% KMO Test: 0.810 | Bartletts Test of Sphericity: Approx. Chi-Square: 2236.333 (171), p<0.001 Rotated Component Matrix Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis, listwise. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations.3. Attitudes to Usage of OERThe attitudes of respondents vis-a-vis the use of OER were addressed in two questions ofthe survey. The first one (Q3.2) inquired about the experiences of respondents in usingOER and was aimed at educational professionals.13 Overall the attitudes towards OER arepositive with a stable group of about one fourth to one third of the respondents displayingcritical or sceptical attitudes towards OER usage.1. About half (48,4%) of the respondents feel relieved that they can use OER and do not have to create their own materials. voted stated they Attitudes of educational professionals towards creating their own materials.2. Only about one third (35,4%) of the respondents feels uneasy because of quality concerns with OER.13   Educational   professionals:   Q3.2   How   do   you   feel   about   using   OER   in   your   educational   practice?   1.   I   am  relieved,  because  I  do  not  need  to  create  my  own  materials.  2.  I  am  uneasy,  because  I  do  not  know  how  to  assess  the  quality  of  the  OER.  3.  I  feel  uncomfortable,  because  as  an  educational  professional,  I  feel  that  I  am  obliged  to  create  the  learning  materials.  4.  I  feel  uncertain,  because  I  do  not  know  what  learners  might  think  of   me,   if   I   use   another   person’s   educational   resources   instead   of   creating   my   own.   5.   I   feel   challenged,  because   it   is   not   so   easy   to   understand   how   exactly   they   fit   into   my   course   programmes.   6.   I   feel   uneasy  about  openly  sharing  the  learning  resources  that  took  me  a  lot  of  time  and  effort  to  produce.  7.  I  have  no  interest  in  using  OER.   17
  18. 18. 3. Only one third (36,9%) feels uncomfortable because they feel that they have to provide their own materials as educational professionals.4. A little more than every forth professional (27,8%) is feeling uneasy with using OER because they feel that learners’ might expect them to bring their own resource.5. Deciding the most appropriate way to fit OER into one’s course programmes is felt as a challenge by almost half of all educational professionals (47.2%). In adult learning, as much as 54.3% replies were in agreement and strong agreement.6. Investing time and effort in creating learning resources that others may use openly is an attitude denied by 58.3% of all respondents.7. The overwhelming majority states to be interested in OER (96,9%).Educational professionals and organisational leaders were also asked about their confidencein the value proposition of OER – did they feel that OER bring value to their context?14Only about one third (35,2%) of the respondents state they feel that OER lack relevancebecause they do not fit into fixed curricula. Half (50,6%) of the participants do not acceptOER because they consider OER as not being their own achievement.5.  Conclusion:  Emerging  Model  of  Open  Educational  Practices  For the first time, the survey elaborates the importance of efforts on the micro level forintegrating OER into educational organisations in order to create a culture of OEP. Microlevel factors are elaborated in depth and participants views and ratings, and a pattern offactors emerges which can be viewed as a complement to current OER frameworks ormodels which are often more targeted to the description of macro level factors. Wetherefore suggest adapting the OER logic model to a new, enhanced version in which thedescribed micro level factors are added. In figure 7 we are presenting a new enhancedversion of the OEP logic model where the micro level factors, aiming to stimulate an openeducational culture are forming an extension to the original factor “understand andstimulate use”. Both categories “create enabling contexts” and creating favourableconditions for “perceptions, attitudes, and barriers” and of importance to raise anorganizations OEP absorption capacity. Without a culture of OEP, any given infrastructure,or content modules will not find sustainable introduction into teaching and learningprocesses.14   Next   two   answers   are   given   to   this   question:   Educational   policy   makers,   institutional   policy  makers/managers;   learners:   Q3.3   Please   tell   us   what   in   your   experience   is   the   value   of   OER   for  education/training   (formal,   non   formal,   informal),   by   rating   the   following   statements:   3.   OER   are   not   so  relevant  for  me,  because  educational  institutions  usually  have  fixed  curricula  in  which  OER  often  do  not  fit.  4.  Using  OER  often  is  not  accepted,  because  they  are  considered  as  not  being  one’s  own  achievement.   18
  19. 19. Figure  7:  the  enhanced  OER  Logic  model   6.  References    1. Atkins, Daniel E., Brown, John S., and Hammond, Allen L. (2007), A Review of the Open Educational Resources (OER) Movement: Achievements, Challenges, and New Opportunities. http://www.oerderves.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/a-review-of-the- open-educational-resources-oer-movement_final.pdf, Abruf am 2009-12-18.2. Ehlers et al. (2011): Beyond OER: Shifting Focus from Resources to Practices. Lisbon, Essen3. Ehlers (2011): From Open educational resources to open educational practices. E- Learning Papers. Vol 17, Nr. 1. ISSN 1887-15424. OECD (2007): Giving Knowledge Away for free. Paris5. Stacey, P. (2010): Foundation Funded OER vs. Tax Payer Funded OER - A Tale of Two Mandates. In Open ED 2010 Proceedings. Barcelona: UOC, OU, BYU. [Accessed: dd/mm/yy].< http://hdl.handle.net/10609/5241>]6. UNESCO (2002),‘Forum on the Impact of Open Courseware for Higher Education in Developing Countries’ in 2002, report available online at 19
  20. 20. http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=5303&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html,   last   accessed  21/04/10.20