Katsusuke Shigeta (Hokkaido University) Hiroyuki SAKAI (Kyoto University) Yasuhiko TSUJI (Open University Japan) Rieko INABA (Tsuda College) Naoshi HIRAOKA (Kumamoto University)

1. An analysis of the awareness,
offering, and adoption of OER and
MOOCs in Japan
Katsusuke Shigeta (Hokkaido University)
Hiroyuki SAKAI (Kyoto University)
Yasuhiko TSUJI (Open University Japan)
Rieko INABA (Tsuda College)
Naoshi HIRAOKA (Kumamoto University)

2. Overview
• The purpose of this research is to grasp the current status
in Japan of
– the awareness of OER and MOOCs
– the purposes for offering and adopting OER and MOOCs
• Detailed survey for administrators in every universities and
colleges in Japan
• Compared survey results between 2013 and 2015
– This survey and research are conducted by researchers in AXIES
(an regional organization to promote ICT education in Japan)

3. Background (1)
Spreading recognition and usage about OER in the globe (UNESCO
2012)
• OER activity is conducted through initiatives by
institutions and engaged individuals across the regions
including Africa, Asia and Pacific and Europe
• OER activity in tertiary institution (22.4%) is relatively
higher compared to primary, secondary institutions
• About half of respondents reported that OER strategy
and policy exists
• Learning materials were publicly funded, although this
was less so in Europe and North America

4. Background (2)
Development and utilization of OER and MOOCs
• One-third of the faculty aware of OER, desired to take
advantage of it, and recognized it as substantially the
same in quality as traditional educational resources (Allen
& Seaman, 2014)
• There were more than 4500 MOOCs available in the
world as of the beginning of 2016(Online Course Report, 2016)
• 81 of the top 100 universities ranked in Times Higher
Education in 2015 offered MOOCs (Open Education Laboratory,
2015)

5. Background (3)
Development and utilization of OER in the US
• OER and MOOCs have been recognized as effective
tools and offered as online courses by major
universities
• A study revealed that approximately half the
institutions of higher education were involved in OER
activities (Allen & Seaman, 2014)
• The most significant barrier to wider adoption of OER
remains faculty perception of the time and effort
required to find and evaluate (Allen & Seaman, 2014)

6. Background (4)
Development and utilization of OER in Canada (Jhangiani et al., 2016)
• Two-thirds of the organizations believe that students can
learn without spending money by using OER
– Research-intensive schools did not feel barriers to OER and used
them compared to other types of institutions
– Two-thirds of the institutions did not recognize a policy on the
use and encouragement of OER, especially for education-
intensive schools and colleges
• The main reasons for using OER are preparation for
classes, ideas and inspiration, complementing existing
classes regardless of institution type
• Differences between the type of institutions

7. Background (3)
Development and utilization of OER and MOOC in Japan (AXIES 2013)
• The Ministry of Education conducted in 2013 for every
Japanese higher institutions
– The degree of recognition and assignment of future value of
OER was low
– Among institutions, relatively high in national universities and
technical colleges
– relatively low in public universities and two-year institutions
• The adoption and offering of MOOC was very low in 2013

8. Purpose of this research
Grasp the current status of Japan universities
• From 2013 surveys, at this point, the spread of OER and
MOOCs has been delayed in Japanese higher institutions
compared with other regions
• Importance to grasp the conditions of the recognition and
utilization of OER and MOOCs in Japan to find characteristics
and establish future plan suitable to the situations in this
region
• Based on these results of surveys conducted in 2013, we
conducted a continuing survey in 2015 to investigate to what
degree the situation has changed
• The purpose of this research is to reveal the current status of
awareness, offering, and adoption of OER and MOOCs in
Japan from these surveys

9. About the 2015 survey
• Conducted by AXIES (Academic eXchange for Information
Environment and Strategy) from November 2015 to February
2016
– AXIES is a regional organization to contribute to education and
academic research by promoting advancement of education and
research using information communication technology at higher
education
• Survey requests were delivered to the administrative offices
of the respective institutions of higher education by mail
• The responses were collected on the Internet form
• The object of the study was 1215 universities and colleges in
Japan (including 516 four-year institutions, 222 two-year
institutions, and 54 technical colleges)

10. Response to the survey
• The overall response rate was 65.2%
• The analysis was conducted to grasp the tendencies
• Statistically analyzed by the type of higher institutions
1. Four-year institutions classified by the source of funding
1. Public institutions supported by the national government
2. Public institutions supported by local governments
3. Private institutions
2. Two-year institutions
3. Technical colleges

11. Results
1. Awareness of OER
2. Adoption and offering of OER and MOOCs
3. Purposes for offering OER and MOOCs
4. Comparison of 2013 and 2015 surveys about the
progress of offering MOOCs

12. 1. Awareness of OER
5.6
6.8
18.6
53.7
40.1
38.6
31.5
32.4
33.1
1.9
12.6
4.8
7.4
8.1
4.8
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Tech. College（n＝54）
Two-year Institution（n＝222）
Four-year Institution（n＝516）
Very Aware Aware Somewhat Aware Not Aware Don't Know
• Positive response slightly increased from the previous survey in all institutions
• The largest percentage of the affirmative response of “not aware” was among
two-year institutions
• But this had declined in comparison with the previous survey

13. 1. Awareness of OER
• By the source of funding, the percentages of affirmative
responses to “well aware” and “aware” were
– 68.1% for public institutions supported by the national
government
– 51.8% for public institutions supported by local government
– 56% for private institutions
• All responses exceeded 50 percent
– Improved 5-10% from the previous survey

14. 2. Offering and adoption of OER and MOOCs
11.1%
0.5%
2.3%
1.4%
5.6%
14.8%
8.6%
13.4%
3.7%
2.3%
13.6%
0% 10% 20%
Tech. College(n=54)
Two-year Institution(n=222)
Four-year Institution(n=516)
OER Offering OER Adoption MOOCs Offering MOOCs Adoption
• Four-year institutions accounted for the highest percentage of institutions offering OER
• Technical colleges accounted for the highest percentage among institutions planning to
offer OER

15. 2. Offering and adoption of OER
• By the source of funding, institutions established by the
national government accounted for the largest
percentage offering OER (27.5%, 19 institutions)
• The rate of OER adoption was low for all organizations
– Technical colleges had the highest percentage (14.8%)
– four-year institutions (13.4%)
• By source of funding, national public universities
accounted for the highest percentage adopting OER
(24.6%)
– also accounted for the highest percentage among universities
planning to adopt OER in the future (46.4%).

16. 2. Offering and adoption of MOOC
• Four-year institutions accounted for 5.6%
• Two-year institutions accounted for 1.4%
– Very low, but increase compared with the previous survey
• Type of institutions
– Four-year institutions accounted for 20.1% (104 schools)
– Two-year institutions accounted for 10.3% (23 schools)
– Technical colleges accounted for 14.8% (eight schools)
– Large increase compared with the previous survey
• Only a single course was available at most universities
and colleges

17. Comparison of reasons for offering
16.3%
22.1%
20.2%
52.9%
48.1%
43.3%
48.1%
21.2%
49.0%
31.7%
3.8%
27.9%
34.6%
27.9%
50.0%
16.4%
27.1%
24.9%
49.2%
50.3%
44.1%
65.0%
23.2%
39.0%
23.7%
5.1%
20.3%
33.9%
20.3%
46.3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Collaboration among universities
Faculty Development
Collection of learning data for educational improvement
Social contribution as a higher education institution
Promote educational information
Wider selections of educational opportunities
Improve learning environment for students
Service for alumni
Support for lifelong learning
Support professional development
Support for job change
Recruiment of domestic graduate students
Recruiment of domestic students
Recruitment of foreign students
Recruiment for highschool stundents
OER MOOCs
*
* : p<0.05

18. Comparison the two groups about MOOCs
offering
• Follow-up surveys of 108 institutions who planned to offer
MOOCs in the previous survey to determine how their efforts
on MOOCs changed during the intervening two years
• Results
– 17.6% of the organizations actually provided MOOCs and 2.8%
advanced planning
– 19.4% same status
– 4.6% delayed and 25.9% of the organizations decided not to offer
– 29.6% unknown

19. Comparison between active group and negative
group
80.0%
46.7%
46.7%
26.7%
6.7%
46.7%
93.3%
13.3%
26.7%
73.3%
73.3%
100.0%
13.3%
20.0%
0.0%
57.7%
42.3%
50.0%
46.2%
3.8%
19.2%
38.5%
15.4%
61.5%
38.5%
42.3%
50.0%
23.1%
23.1%
19.2%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0%100.0%
Recruiment for highschool stundents
Recruitment of foreign students
Recruiment of domestic students
Recruiment of domestic graduate students
Support for job change
Support professional development
Support for lifelong learning
Service for alumni
Improve learning environment for students
Wider selections of educational opportunities
Promote educational information
Social contribution as an higher education institution
Collection of learning data for educational improvement
Faculty Development
Collaboration among universities
Active (Offer + Advanced) Negative (Delayed + Not offer)
**
*
*
*
* : p<0.05 ** : p<0.01

20. Observations
• Awareness of OER increased compared to the previous
survey
– The awareness of open education rose with the spread of the
concept of MOOCs during this period in Japan
• Offering and adoption of OER are quite low
– Japanese universities and colleges have not faced the necessity
to introduce open textbooks due to the moderate prices of
textbooks
– No governmental or foundation support for open education
activities, self-sustaining

21. Observations
• Higher percentage of technical colleges adopting OER and
MOOCs
– All technical colleges in Japan share a single common curriculum
– Standardization of the education system is considered to make it
imperative to adopt OER and MOOCs on their campuses
• Private institutions scored lower on offering and adopting OER
and MOOCs compared to public institutions
– Fiscal management of private schools is more self-sustaining than that
of public schools supported by governmental budgets
– This situation makes for a perspective on open education that is strict
and fair in evaluating its effect on investment

22. Observations
• To compare the reasons for offering OER and MOOC, some differences are
found
– Institutions find incentives to apply OER as an assortment of educational materials
available according to students’ circumstances
– MOOCs appear to accentuate lifelong learning and public relations more than OER
• Regarding the follow-up to the previous survey, the percentage of higher
education institutions that planned to offer MOOCs or were in the
advanced planning stages was only about 20%
– The year of the previous survey, 2013, was the year of a MOOC boom and indeed
was called “The Year of the MOOC,” when many universities began to consider
offering them
– Over the next two years, concerns about the practical effect of MOOCs and the
high cost of providing them were discussed in Japan, too
– This circumstances would be the reason that the number of universities offering
MOOCs has been limited

23. Observations
• The difference in the purposes of the “active group” and “negative
group”
• The “active group” aims to provide MOOCs for society as a whole,
not only for themselves
• They are oriented towards providing MOOCs for students at our
school
• The provision of MOOCs also has public relations benefits for the
university, and also makes it possible to provide university lectures
as a “showcase” outside the university, leading to social
contributions of the university and attracting more candidates
• As MOOCs are offered at a certain cost level, the emphasis of
certain agencies on publicity intensified the formation of a
consensus within the university that led to the offering of MOOCs

24. Limitations
• Among the institutions that have planned to offer MOOCs or
had them under consideration in the previous survey, the
current status of about 30% of them is unknown
– needed to investigate and grasp the situation of each institution in
more detail
• To better understand their actual usage, future studies are
required to analyze the status of the adoption of OER and
MOOCs by faculty
• To clarify the differences in the reasons for offering MOOCs
between “global MOOCs” and “regional MOOCs,” we must
distinguish these two types of MOOCs on the submission form
for respondents

25. Conclusion
• The purpose of this research to grasp the current status in
Japan of
– the awareness of OER and MOOCs
– the purposes for offering and adopting OER and MOOCs
– Compared survey results between 2013 and 2015
• Awareness of OER raised, but the offering and adoption of
OER is quite low
• Comparison the reason of the offering of OER and MOOCs,
some differences are found
• Comparison the active group and passive group of MOOCs
offering, some differences are found

26. An analysis of the awareness,
offering, and adoption of OER and
MOOCs in Japan
Katsusuke Shigeta (Hokkaido University)
Hiroyuki SAKAI (Kyoto University)
Yasuhiko TSUJI (Open University Japan)
Rieko INABA (Tsuda College)
Naoshi HIRAOKA (Kumamoto University)
Contact: Katsusuke Shigeta
shige@iic.hokudai.ac.jp