Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Openness at the University of Cape Town


Published on

Panel presentation from the University of Cape Town at Cambridge 2012: Innovation and Impact - Openly Collaborating to Enhance Education

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Openness at the University of Cape Town

  1. 1. From Project to Mainstream in a constrained environment:Towards openness at the University of Cape Town Laura Czerniewicz Gregory Doyle Glenda Cox Cheryl Hodgkinson- Williams Cambridge 2012, 16-18 April 2012
  2. 2. Structure of presentation Glenda Cox AcademicLaura Czerniewicz Institutional Student Technical tutor Cheryl Hodgkinson- Gregory Doyle Williams
  3. 3. Academic InstitutionalStudent Technical tutor
  4. 4. Inculcating openness at UCT: An institutional perspective Laura Czerniewicz Director: OpenUCT Initiative University of Cape Town
  5. 5. Institutional perspective Some premises • OERs overlap with Open access and Elearning Open access OER Elearning • OER part of a broader open movement • Innovation usually starts with soft funding (external & internal) • Institutional context and culture critical to how OER and open agenda play out
  6. 6. Institutional perspective Institutional cultural types Policy definition: Loose Collegium Bureaucracy Control of Control of implementation: implementation: Loose Tight Enterprise Corporation Policy definition: Tight McNay, I. (1995). From collegial academy to corporate enterprise: The changing cultures of universities.
  7. 7. Institutional perspective Institutional cultural types Policy definition: Loose Collegium Bureaucracy Control of Control of implementation: implementation: Loose Tight Enterprise Corporation Policy definition: Tight
  8. 8. Institutional perspective The collegium type • Characterised by – loose institutional policy definition – informal networks and decision arenas – and innovation at the level of the individual or – department. (McNay 1995) • The organisational response – ’laissez faire’, few targeted policies or processes (Rossiter, 2007). – Core value of collegium is freedom • Defines organizational expectations in terms of freedom from external controls (Yee-Tak 2006)
  9. 9. Institutional perspective University of Cape Town • Oldest South African university – Top ranked African university – QS World University Rankings – The Times Higher Education World University Rankings – Academic Ranking of World Universities • Medium sized – +/- 25 000 students – 982 permanent academics (of 5 442 total staff)
  10. 10. Institutional perspective Prestigious research university • 5 Nobel Laureates • Booker Prize winner • Numerous internationally recognised research initiatives – Africa Earth Observatory Network (AEON – The Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics is an international centre for research in the fields of cosmology and topology. – The Department of Physics is home to the UCT- CERN research centre, – The Department of Electrical Engineering is involved in the development of technology for the Karoo Array Telescope (KAT), a precursor to the Square Kilometer Array
  11. 11. Institutional perspective Teaching at UCT • Residential • Funding subsidy for • Face to face headcount & throughput (not curriculum or content) • Almost no distance ed • Centre for Higher Educational • Not set up for “non- Development active, strong traditional” courses academic development
  12. 12. Open agenda at UCT: projects Scholar Scholar Scholar Scholar Student Community2007 Opening Scholarship2008200920102011201220132014
  13. 13. Our approach tothe openness agendain the light of UCT’s culture
  14. 14. Institutional perspective Strategic approaches • Individual agency/ control • Maximum flexibility • Network / community building • Enabling (not requiring) • Champions at different levels Collegium culture: loose institutional policy definition informal networks and decision arenas and innovation at the level of the individual or department. (McNay 1995)
  15. 15. Institutional perspective Historically • Opportunities for open agenda in the eLearning space (CHED)(rather than OA ) – Contributed to change strategy • No institutional repository
  16. 16. Institutional perspective Multiplicity • Multiple strategies • Many small sites of innovation and activity, aiming for agglomeration across the institution, to achieve critical mass • Change at all levels of the university • Develop networks and build community
  17. 17. Champions• At senior level – DVC signs Cape Town Declaration (2008) – VC signs Berlin Declaration (2011)
  18. 18. Institutional perspective Champions • Senior & middle level • OER Health Sciences - Dean
  19. 19. Institutional perspective Champions • Bringing the work of “early adopters” above the radar
  20. 20. Institutional perspective Champions & change • In our experience of our cultural context – Senior level support symbolic – Vertical relationships do not cause change per se, only when actual projects in place (eg HS) – Champions work best in horizontal networked relationships, building communities of practice • New roles and reconfigurations – The rise of the non-specialist “expert,” (or the “extended professional”)
  21. 21. Incentives: small grants • 9 small grants in 2011 • £ 800 each • Health Science, Engineering, Law, CHED, Science • To create and/ or adapt OER • From course level to smaller resources
  22. 22. Incentives: small grants
  23. 23. Institutional perspective Academic agency • Decentralised uploading – Individual academics upload and maintain their resources directly • Pride of authorship – Quality assurance with the individual – Quality assurance part of broader teaching and learning systems, not separate • Minimal moderation – Copyright compliance
  24. 24. Institutional perspective Flexibility • Granularisation of resources important • Whole courses • Single resources – Ebooks – Presentations – Podcasts – Lecture notes – Animations – Images
  25. 25. Institutional perspective Institutional Community • IP Law Unit • Knowledge Co-op • Citizen Science projects in COL • Enterprise Content Management Project • Eresearch • Library • Communications Office • Faculties
  26. 26. Institutional perspective New IP policy • Work enabled by new UCT IP Policy – Specifically addresses issues relating to the creation of OER resources and the licensing processes to be followed – Expressly states the support for publication of materials under Creative Commons licenses
  27. 27. How we are doingin terms of institutional participation
  28. 28. Institutional perspective 50 100 150 200 250 001-201001-201102-201002-201103-201003-201104-201005-201106-201006-201107-201007-201108-201008-201109-201009-201110-201010-201111-201012-201011-2011 1-201212-2011 2-2012 Growth to date 3-2012 Resources added Growth of total content
  29. 29. Institutional perspective Faculty contributions Centre for Higher Education 11% Development 3% 24% Commerce Engineering and the Built Environment Health Sciences 8% Humanities 34% 4% Law 16% Science Faculty contributions February 2010- March 2012
  30. 30. Institutional perspective Types of resources Video 10% Audio 28% Text/HTML Webpages Audio 20% Downloadable Documents Graphics/Photos Other Text/HTML Webpages Other Video 3% Downloadable Documents Graphics/ 38% Photos 1%
  31. 31. Institutional perspective Concluding comments • A steady upswell rather than mainstream • Integration of resourcing requirements into existing structures • Acceptance of non-linear organic process • Slow approach more likely to be sustainable & effective • A research-based approach to inform strategy
  32. 32. Institutional perspective References • Czerniewicz, L and Brown, C (2009) study of the relationship between institutional policy, organisational culture and e- learning use in four South African universities in Computers & Education 53 (2009) 121–131 • McNay, I (1995) From collegial academy to corporate enterprise: The changing cultures of universities. In T. Schuller (Ed.), The Changing University. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press • Rossiter, D (2007) Whither e-learning? Conceptions of change and innovation in higher education. Journal of Organisational Transformation and Social Change. 4 (1), pp.93–107 • Yee-Tak , W (2006) Student Expectations in the New Millennium: An Explorative Study of Higher Education in Hong Kong, Dissertation, unpublished dissertation
  33. 33. Technological considerations when creating OER - “the nuts and bolts” Gregory Doyle Faculty of Health Sciences: Education Development Unit
  34. 34. Academic InstitutionalStudent Technical tutor
  35. 35. Technical perspective Technical issues Institution OER team
  36. 36. UCT signs Cape Town Open Education Declaration 2008Technical perspective
  37. 37.
  38. 38. The ‘ordinary’ academic • Enabling factorsTechnical perspective • Division of Labour: Time and effort
  39. 39. Technical perspective
  40. 40. Raise OER Source content Clear copyright awareness and (volunteers) (dScribe) interestTechnical perspective Production Package OER Process Publish OER Review OER Publicize OER (internal) (repository)
  41. 41. Content creation • Creating interactive modulesTechnical perspective – e.g., click and drag, simulations • Lecture recording – Convert PPT to video – Automatically • Video recording – Procedures / lectures – Converting videos – Camtasia or similar
  42. 42. Copyright clearance & packaging • dScribeTechnical perspective – Images – substitute / redraw / permission • Packaging – Bandwidth (video, compressing, annotating) • OER-tech mailing list – Recommended Practices for Packaging and Distributing OER
  43. 43. Institutional issues • How will resources be distributedTechnical perspective • What software platform to use
  44. 44. Technical perspective How do people find UCT OER
  45. 45. Technical perspective OER Support @ UCT
  46. 46. Technical perspective Conclusion
  47. 47. Technical perspective Conclusion
  48. 48. “Why would you do it, ... would a studentactually be interested?” Understanding the barriers and enablers to academic contribution to an OER directory Glenda Cox Centre for Educational Technology University of Cape Town
  49. 49. Academic perspective Organisational issues Student Technical tutor issuesperspective
  50. 50. Academic perspective About the research 6 interviews Science. Engineering, Commerce and Humanities From Professors to Lecturers Purposive sampling for range of faculty and rank 3 who have not contributed- to find out why not And 3 who have contributed, to find out why and also why they feel their colleagues have not added Pilot study more to follow Test Activity theory as a lens for understanding OER contribution and non-contribution
  51. 51. Tools: OpenContent Directory, PDF’s, PPT< Video,Academic perspective Podcasts Subject: Object: Teaching Outcome: Open The Education resources academic materials for sharing Rules: explicit and Division of implicit norms that Community: regulate the Labour: academics, Academic as university (e.g. departments, the Promotion is based teacher and as institution, OER researcher, CET on research team, students, published) as facilitators users of Open (Power and Content status) The Activity system ( Engeström 1987)
  52. 52. Framing the interviews Tools: Are their aspects about the directory itself that prevent academics adding materials? Subject: Object: Teaching Outcome: Open The Education resources academic materials for sharingRules: Are Division ofconcerns around Community: Arethe rules of Labour: Are their concerns you concernedpromotion being around peers in thebased on research about the time department not and effort it willoutput and not supporting OER? Areteaching take? there concernsmaterials? Are around poor qualitythere concerns materials?about IPinfringement orviolation? The Activity system (Interview questions)
  53. 53. FINDINGS
  54. 54. Barriers: purpose of OERs Tools Outcome: Subject Object Open Education resources Division ofRules Labour CommunityImplicit rule: Pedagogical Concerns about the purpose and use of OER
  55. 55. “why would you do it;...would students actually be interested? And mymaterials “...may not make any sense to anybody else without lots ofstructure, and notes...”“Who cares?”“Not convinced it would make a big difference to someone”
  56. 56. Academic perspective Barriers: concerns about quality Tools Object Subject Division of Rules Labour Community (implicit) Concerns about the quality of materials
  57. 57. “ would take some time to get to the quality that I will be happy withto getting it online...”
  58. 58. Barriers: culture of sharing Tools Subject Object Division ofRules Labour Community The influence of colleagues, no culture of sharing
  59. 59. “...It is not valued by my unit, so I wouldn’t worry about it”
  60. 60. Barriers: time Tools Subject Object Time Division ofRules Labour Community Time
  61. 61. “there is a lot of extra work here...I do not have the time...”
  62. 62. Enablers: an obligation to share Tools Enablers Outcome: Open Subject Value Object Education Resources Division ofRules Labour Community
  63. 63. “ ... I think its an obligation to share our knowledge with people whocan’t afford these resources...""...increase reachability of resources that were previously only availablein a few places..."
  64. 64. Enablers: Content shareable Tools Outcome: Open Subject Content Object Education shareable resources Division ofRules Labour Community
  65. 65. “ Not all teaching materials are readily accessible in terms of structureand content...other courses we teach are not so full of such richmultimedia materials...”
  66. 66. Enablers: Technological ability Tools Technological ability Outcome: Open Subject Object Education Resources Division ofRules Labour Community
  67. 67. “...I have set up a system over the years and it easy for me to recordlectures and share’s going to be hard to get everyone to buy intothis sort of uniform model...”
  68. 68. Enablers: Small grants Tools Outcome: Open Subject Object Education resources Division ofRules Labour Community Small grant
  69. 69. “...the grant bought student time to adapt the materials...”
  70. 70. Enablers: stage in career Tools Outcome: Open Subject Object Education Stage in resources career Division ofRules Labour Community
  71. 71. “...I am at the stage in my career where I am not worried about makingmoney from text books...’...”
  72. 72. In the light of these findingsWHAT CAN BE DONE?
  73. 73. Transforming academic practice Tools e.g. lecture recording, reposi tory Outcome: Open Subject Object Transform Education the activity resources Awareness of need and purpose Division ofRules Labour Community Alt Part of academic metrics, Citati Cases of use practice, support and ons and credit and feedback small grants in University reward system
  74. 74. Academic perspective Open Education: some questions Is it a personal philosophy or can ‘we’ grow a culture of sharing within our institutions? What are the enabling factors to support open practices for academics?
  75. 75. “It’s part of my campaign” Using Perceived Attributes as a framework tounderstand postgraduate students’ adaptation of academics’ teaching materials as OER Cheryl Hodgkinson-Williams & Michael Paskevicius Cambridge 2012 Conference 16-18 April 2012
  76. 76. Academic perspective Organisational issues Student Technical tutor issuesperspective
  77. 77. Enablers and barriers to OER contributionStudent tutor perspective Organisational Technical Academic Signing of CTOED UCT Champions OpenContent Willingness  Incentives  directory  No policy Limited technical Lack of time expertise    No rewards
  79. 79. Student tutor perspective Post-graduate students’ participation • One way to support academics to rework existing materials is to use postgraduate students – Masters’ level – tutors, graduate assistants and interns • Shuttleworth Foundation funding for 3 students in a department and 2 in the Centre for Educational Technology, Hewlett Foundation funding for 1 student in the Health OER project • Process similar to that devised by the University of Michigan – DScribe process – participatory model for creating OER
  80. 80. Research study • Little published on practice or theoreticalStudent tutor perspective explanation of: – “What might encourage postgraduate students to rework existing materials?” • Case study research of 6 students – 3 employed by a department (interviewed) – 3 by OER projects • 2 from the UCT OER project (interview & questionnaire) • 1 from the UCT Health OER project (interviewed)
  81. 81. Theory • Use Moore and Benbasat’s extension ofStudent tutor perspective Rogers’ Theory of Perceived Attributes to explain the adoption of the new innovation of creating OER: Rogers (1983) Moore and Benbasat (1991) Voluntariness Image/Status 1. Relative Advantage Relative Advantage 2. Compatibility Compatibility 3. Ease of use Ease of use 4. Observabiity Result demonstrability Visibility 5. Trialability Trialability
  82. 82. Student tutor perspective Compatibility Departmental policy of sharing Departmental open initiatives Departmental website with open materials Academics’ personal websites I like to link to university Academics’ online textbooks sites to help answer other peoples’ Students’ community engagement questions. It’s part of my campaign. (Student 2) Students’ online research activities Students’ engagement with social media Students’ interest in the OER content Students’ altruistic dispositions
  83. 83. Student tutor perspective Relative advantage • Relative advantage (more institutional than personal) – Institutional OER directory and/or repository – Indexing system of materials – Licensing system I think it’s good for their PR in some – Funds available ways, just to have a centralised presentation from UCT [department] to say this is what we can provide, and say to anybody this is what you can look at. (Student 1)
  84. 84. Student tutor perspective Ease of use Familiarity with dScribe process Ability to find alterative images Ability to use a range of software Knowledge of Creative Commons licensing So it takes work for the lecturers to create new content. Whereas what we did it did not require that much work from the lecturers side (Student 3).
  85. 85. Student tutor perspective Status Perception that institution’s image will be enhanced Perception that department’s profile will be raised Perception that OER development enhances their CVs A good thing to be a part of; it looks good on your CV that always motivates people (Student 2).
  86. 86. Student tutor perspective Voluntariness Willing to participate without payment Developing OER as part of community service I think we could have done it without being paid. Being paid was just a nice bonus (Student 1). … As you know we were paid to do this process, and we may have done it anyway, but it was good to get paid in order to help prioritize (Student 2). There is a specific amount of community service and volunteer that you must do. I don’t see why this can’t be on the list, this thing is so big like building a house, important … they should put that on the list (Student 4).
  87. 87. Student tutor perspective Visibility Presence of OER platform For many academics, there would have been no place previously where they could share teaching resources they were really proud of. So the project provided avenues for academics to share the content they created, providing visibility for themselves and the university (Student 6).
  88. 88. Student tutor perspective Result demonstrability Alterative metrics for measuring use of OER As one can … track when social media is accessed, one can develop new metrics for measuring impact and engagement with the wider community (Student 6).
  89. 89. Student tutor perspective Trialability Control over uploading of OER Yea there will be a link on the [departmental] web site. So perhaps what I can do is also put the links on the OpenContent. But we are sort of in the middle of trying to decide whether to post them locally or put them on YouTube. YouTube has its advantages and we cannot stream video locally. So we will probably offer both local download and YouTube (Student 3).
  90. 90. What encourages student tutors to create OER?Student tutor perspective Compatibility Ease of use Digital Voluntariness identity? Trialability
  91. 91. References• Moore, G.C. & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3): 192-222.• Rogers, E.M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations (3rd edition). New York: The Free Press.
  92. 92. Authors Laura Czerniewicz Glenda Cox Cheryl Hodgkinson-Williams Michael Paskevicius Gregory Doyle OpenContent Directory: Companion site on Vula: OER UCT project blog: OpenUCT Initiative: OpeningScholarship : Follow us: Presentations: work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 South Africa License. To view a copy of this license, visit or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.