Awareness, Attitudes and Participation with the Open Content Movement


Published on

Pecha Kucha presentation at ALT-C 2012 (Manchester).
Discusses research around awareness, attitudes and actual participation with the Open Content Movement.

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

  • Be the first to like this

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

No notes for slide
  • This research was carried out in a previous role at Edge Hill University. Given the audience at ALT-C, I am presuming you are familiar with the basic concepts of Open Education. That is, openness encompasses licensing, access, format and software.
  • Respondents were asked if they had experience of reusing materials in both their face-°©‐to-°©‐face and online teaching. In both cases, staff were asked if they sought permission, or already had 12 rights clearance for reusing materials. Staff were also asked if they would be willing to reuse d gital content In the future.
  • Respondents were asked to select one option in response to the question, ‘to what degree would you be willing to share your content?’ 100% of respondents said they would be willing to share their own content at some level, with 57% (n=34) happy to share more openly beyond the University. This can be broken down into two categories; use for any not-for-profit users (n=25, 42%) or open for anybody to reuse (n=9, 15%). Interestingly, in considering the reuse of their own materials, one free text response in this study said, “It is very difficult to stop people using our material”. Another replied, “It’s being attributed correctly that is important. I have previous experience of whole groups of people using my materials etc and taking my name off and adding theirs. Which was annoying”.
  • The questionnaire identified confusion amongst academic staff regarding ownership and the work they create. Shared ownership between the creator and the Institution was the most common response (n=25, 42%), followed by the Institution (n=17, 29%). Free text comments suggested a further lack of clarity in this area. This confusion aligns with Rolfe’s (2012) research, which suggested roughly half of respondents thought copyright resided with the University, 24% were unclear, and 16% believing it resided with the individual.
  • The data suggests that teaching staff are already reusing existing content, and willing to share content in the future, despite the lack of any formal policies to encourage this practice. This could support Hylen’s viewpoint that ‘OER is still mostly a bottom-up phenomenon, where the managerial level of the institutions are not involved and not aware of the activities going on’ (Hylén, 2006).
  • Schaffert & Geser (2008) suggest if something is to be open, it must subscribe to 4 elements: Open Licensing, Openly Access, Open Software and Open Format. This is quite a strict viewpoint, whereas Hilton et. al. (2010) suggest;"Openness is not like a light switch that is either ‘on’ or ‘off’. Rather, it is like a dimmer switch, with varying degrees of openness” (Hilton et. al, 2010)Either way, both Viv's and my own research highlights that the current informal sharing isn't really 'open' (in the strict sense of the word), or even if we consider varying degrees of openness, it demonstrates such a dim view the light switch may as well be off.So from my viewpoint, much of the sharing taking place isn’t really open at all.
  • Awareness, Attitudes and Participation with the Open Content Movement

    1. 1. Awareness, Attitudes & ParticipationToward the Open Content Movement Peter Reed: Lecturer & eLearning Coordinator, MMU ALT-C, Manchester, 2012@Reedyreedles
    2. 2. What is OER… “Digitised materials offered freely and openly … to use and re-use” (Hylén, 2006) Open Licensing | Open Access | Open Format | Open Software (Schaffert & Geser, 2008) “Openness is not like a light switch that is either „on‟ or „off‟. Rather, it is like a dimmer switch, with varying degrees of openness” (Hilton III, Wiley, Stein, & Johnson, 2010). @Reedyreedles
    3. 3. This study… @ Emailed questionnaire to 190 staff (at EHU) with teaching responsibilities 59 responses (31%) @Reedyreedles Higher than similar study = 16% (Rolfe 2011)
    4. 4. This study… 32% ‘Open Content Movement’ (20%)Creative Commons 24% Jorum 32% (20%) @Reedyreedles Higher than similar study = 16% (Rolfe 2011)
    5. 5. Experience/Attitudes to reusing… 88% Reused f2f materials (75%) Asked for clearance 86% Reused online materials 68% Asked for clearance 47.5% Willing to reuse digital content 98% 2%=n1 @Reedyreedles (x) = Rolfe Study
    6. 6. Attitudes to sharing… Willing to share content 100% 57% respondents happy to share more openly beyond the University Only 2 people applied CC @Reedyreedles 0 Uploaded to Jorum
    7. 7. Ownership of works… Percieved Ownership Individual Department Institution Joint Other 7% 17% 5% 42% 29% @Reedyreedles Confusion aligns with Rolfe study
    8. 8. Informal Sharing BY-NC-SA Flickr user The FaceyFamily @Reedyreedles
    9. 9. Is it really open? CC-BY Flickr user Tribalicious @Reedyreedles