You are on page 1of 34

Project Report: a model of Open Education

Practices for the Graduate Certificate in Tertiary


Learning and Teaching at Otago Polytechnic.

















Bronwyn Hegarty, Sarah Stewart, Heather Day and Veronique Olin
Educational Development Centre, Otago Polytechnic.
2012
i

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 2
2. Milestones for the project .................................................................................................. 2
2.1. Milestone One - Explore other OER models. ................................................................. 3
2.2 Milestone Two - Research evaluation of three-tiered funding OER model. ................... 3
2.3 Milestone Three - Develop criteria for GCTLT OER model. ......................................... 4
2.4 Milestone Four - Review GCTLT courses to assess alignment with OER philosophies
and practices........................................................................................................................... 4
2.5 Milestone Five - Re-design and development of GCTLT using the preferred OER
model...................................................................................................................................... 5
2.6 Milestone Six - Evaluation of design and development processes. ................................. 6
2.7 Milestone Seven- Prepare for pilot of courses using OER funding model. ..................... 6
3. Summary of the milestones .................................................................................................... 6
3.1 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 6
4. Criteria contributing to a model of OER and OEP ................................................................ 7
4.1. Logistics .......................................................................................................................... 7
4.2. Economic viability .......................................................................................................... 8
4.3 Sustainability.................................................................................................................... 8
4.4 Learning experience ....................................................................................................... 10
4.5 Other factors to consider for models of OER and OEP ................................................. 10
4.6 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 11
5. Literature Review ................................................................................................................. 12
5.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 14
5.2. What is OER? ............................................................................................................... 14
5.2.1 Growth of OER ....................................................................................................... 15
5.2.3. Enablers and barriers .............................................................................................. 15
ii

5.2.4 Why we should share educational resources .......................................................... 16
5.2.5 Moving to open education practices ....................................................................... 17
5.2.6 The emergence of the Massive Online Open Course (MOOC) .............................. 18
5.2.6.2 MOOCs and sustainability ................................................................................... 20
5.3. Sustainability of open education practices .................................................................... 21
5.3.1 Formal and informal enrolments ............................................................................. 22
5.4. Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 23
5.4.1 Possible research questions ..................................................................................... 24
Author contact details ...................................................................................................... 25
5.5. References ..................................................................................................................... 26
5.6. Appendix One ............................................................................................................... 28
5.7 Appendix Two ............................................................................................................... 31


1

Executive Summary
A review of open education resource (OER) models and practices for the Graduate Certificate
in Tertiary Learning and Teaching (GCTLT) was carried out as part of a capex-funded
project in 2011. A literature review of existing OER models and open education practices
(OEP) was prepared. Also, compulsory courses in the GCTLT were reviewed. Criteria for a
GCTLT OER model were developed. The criteria are described under four headings in
Section 4 of the report.
1. Logistics factors associated with the organisation and delivery of open education;
2. Economic viability aspects contributing to the cost-effectiveness of open education;
3. Sustainability effective methods for reducing financial and labour costs; and
4. Learning experience issues impacting on an optimal learner experience.
Since research in the field is still in its infancy, any models of OER and OEP need to be
flexible to accommodate the rapid changes occurring in education. The recommendations
made in this report are intentionally broad to enable a dynamic response to the future
direction of education.
2

1. Introduction
In 2011, capex funding was available for a project to explore open education resources
(OER) and open education practices (OEP) for Otago Polytechnic. The intention was to re-
develop the Graduate Certificate in Tertiary Learning and Teaching (GCTLT) offered by the
Educational Development Centre (EDC) using an open access model. This required the
following:
1. An exploration of other OER models to ascertain the most cost-effective and
sustainable way to offer the GCTLT as an OER programme both locally, nationally
and internationally this was to include a research evaluation of Facilitating Online;
2. A review of current GCTLT courses to assess alignment with OER philosophies and
practices;
3. Re-design and development of GCTLT in line with the preferred OER model - four
compulsory courses were selected for the initial development and piloting.
4. Design was to include flexibility of engagement in a three-tiered funding model;
i. Open access to all learning materials for no fee.
ii. Access to course facilitation for a limited fee for service.
iii. Assessment and accreditation for a full fee.
5. Dynamic evaluation processes to ensure a robust model needs analysis, review and
formative evaluation of the re-design, development, and effectiveness research
evaluation of the pilot.
This report describes the progress made on each of the project milestones, and
recommendations for completing the project are listed in the summary section.
2. Milestones for the project
Information about how each of the milestones was progressed and whether it was completed
is outlined in this section.
3

2.1. Milestone One Explore other OER models.
A project plan and budget was drawn up, and the project commenced with milestone one
involving an investigation of other OER models in use in higher education in Australasia,
UK, USA and an exploration of the literature. This resulted in the compilation of a literature
review (Appendix One). This led to a discussion about OER models with the GCTLT team at
EDC who met to select features appropriate for the GCTLT programme. Therefore, milestone
one was completed.
2.2 Milestone Two Research evaluation of threetiered funding OER
model.
For milestone two, a three-tiered funding OER model was to be trialled with Facilitating
Online, and a research proposal and ethics application to investigate factors associated with
retention and completion in Facilitating Online in two phases was to be carried out. In phase
one, previous students were to be surveyed and in phase two, a sample of 2011 students was
to be contacted. This did not eventuate since the course did not go ahead in 2011.
Planning for an international cohort for the course Facilitating Online was commenced and
led to some initial guidelines being developed (see Appendix Two). Several enquiries were
fielded by the facilitator, Sarah Stewart. Three participants from Auckland (New Zealand),
Cambridge (New Zealand) and the UK studied the course in the first semester using the
second funding option - Access to course facilitation for a limited fee for service. As
facilitated students they were charged a fee ($180) and received learning support from the
facilitator. One student completed the course and received a Certificate of Participation.
Unfortunately, interest in Facilitating Online was lower in 2011 than in previous years, and
the course did not go ahead formally after two enrolled students withdrew. Even so, an aspect
of the three-tiered funding model and the process for facilitation of informal participants was
trialled. No feedback was obtained from the informal students.
Other courses in GCTLT, apart from Flexible Learning, had not previously had any interest
from international participants. Flexible Learning had already been offered in Semester one
and it was not considered appropriate to offer it in semester two again instead of the
4

Facilitating Online course. This prevented the research component of milestone two being
completed. Hence, milestone two was partially completed.
2.3 Milestone Three Develop criteria for GCTLT OER model.
This milestone was modified so that the criteria for use in the GCTLT OER model were
based on the literature review only, and not on the information from phase one of the research
evaluation. However, this milestone was progressed in conjunction with milestone four.
Milestone three was partially completed once milestone four was actioned.
2.4 Milestone Four Review GCTLT courses to assess alignment with
OER philosophies and practices.
For milestone four, the GCTLT team met to review the compulsory courses in the
programme (Learning-Centred Learning, Flexible Learning, Constructing Courses for
Enhancing Learning, and Assessing and Evaluating for Learning) to discuss the OER features
they liked about each of the courses, and also areas for improvement and change. This
information was intended to prepare the foundations for re-design and re-development of the
four courses as a model of OER and OEP, that is, milestone five.
Outcomes of the review for milestone four include the following:
1. All courses need to have a presence on WikiEducator;
Rationale: enables open access to content and activities.
2. Use a simple template. The simplicity of the template used on WikiEducator by
Heather Day for Learner-Centred Learning and Assessing and Evaluating for
Learning is preferred. For example, the navigation template is organised with a
limited number of options. Most of the material sits within Course Modules.
Welcome | Getting Started | Course Modules | Assessments | Resources | Glossary
See: http://wikieducator.org/Learner_Centred_Learning and
http://wikieducator.org/Assessing_and_Evaluating_for_Learning
5

Rationale: easy to navigate and provides a cleaner look and feel.
3. Organise the course materials and activities for a self-paced learning option.
Rationale: enables open access to the course content for formal and informal
learners. This is regarded as the first level in a three-tiered funding model.
Milestone four led to the development of a draft OER model (milestone three). The draft
OER model discussed by the team included the following aspects:
1. Use the WikiEducator platform for each course;
2. Design materials and activities for self-paced learning on WikiEducator;
3. Offer the three-tier funding model to participants.
Actions for re-design of the four compulsory courses in GCTLT include:
1. Develop a presence on WikiEducator for Constructing Courses for Enhancing Learning
using the preferred template.
Rationale: this was the only course without a presence on WikiEducator.
2. Re-arrange Flexible Learning using the preferred template.
Rationale: enables a consistent design for the online materials.
Milestone four was completed.
2.5 Milestone Five Redesign and development of GCTLT using the
preferred OER model.
This milestone involves the re-design and re-development of four compulsory courses in
GCTLT. This milestone is in progress in 2012.
6

2.6 Milestone Six Evaluation of design and development processes.
This milestone involves a formative evaluation of the re-design and development process for
the compulsory courses and needs to be completed alongside milestone five in 2012. A plan
is yet to be developed.
2.7 Milestone Seven Prepare for pilot of courses using OER funding
model.
For milestone seven, preparations need to be carried out for a pilot of courses using the OER
funding model developed by EDC for the Graduate Certificate in Tertiary Learning and
Teaching. This was originally expected to include the findings and recommendations of
phase two of the research evaluation to be discussed and applied to the OER model for
GCTLT courses. Since the research evaluation did not go ahead, these milestone objectives
could not be actioned. Also, the final part of milestone seven could not be actioned for 2012
since it required the preparation of a proposal and plan for research evaluation of GCTLT
courses if they were piloted in 2012. The courses are still under re-development, but this may
be possible for semester two in 2012, or at the beginning of 2013.
3. Summary of the milestones
A beginning draft OER/OEP model has been developed for the Graduate Certificate in
Tertiary Learning and Teaching. This is based on a literature review of open education
resources and practices, and a review of four existing compulsory GCTLT courses.
Milestones one and four were completed resulting in a completed literature review and some
beginning criteria for an OER model for GCTLT. Also, milestones two and three were
partially completed for the project with a three-tiered funding model for OER being trialled
and a review of the compulsory GCTLT courses completed with the teaching team. However,
milestone five involving the re-design and development of GCTLT courses is still in progress
in 2012. Milestone six and seven are not yet completed.
3.1 Recommendations
Revisit milestone six to develop a plan for carrying out a formative evaluation of
the re-design and development process for the GCTLT courses.
7

Discuss the final version of the OER model (milestone 3) following a critique of
the literature review (Appendix One) by the GCTLT team.
Make a decision about whether to action milestone seven plan for a research
evaluation of the new look GCTLT courses in semester two 2012 or at the
beginning of 2013.
Discussion surrounding the second recommendation has resulted in a list of several criteria
recognised by the Educational Development Centre team as contributing to a model for OER
and OEP.
4. Criteria contributing to a model of OER and OEP
A number of criteria are considered important by the EDC team if a model for open education
resources and practices is to be developed. These criteria are described under four headings:
1. Logistics factors associated with the organisation and delivery of open education;
2. Economic viability aspects contributing to the cost-effectiveness of open education;
3. Sustainability effective methods for reducing financial and labour costs; and
4. Learning experience issues impacting on an optimal learner experience.
4.1. Logistics
Content openly and freely available to teachers, students and informal learners
both nationally and internationally.
Open platforms - WikiEducator, Wikibooks, Wikipedia, Youtube, slideshare, etc.
Use of open technologies - file sharing, media sharing, social networking.
Creative Commons by attribution licensing
Supportive technology and internet infrastructure - access to a range of
technologies and tools (not blocked by institutional firewalls). This enables
teachers the freedom to be innovative in the open environment. For example,
using media sharing sites such as Youtube and Slideshare.
8

Resourcing to develop OER - time, funding, developers and designers.
Supportive environment to develop OER practices - training, staff capability,
equipment, infrastructure, time release, incentives (e.g., promotion), learning
design, software, hardware.
4.2. Economic viability
Optimally the following would be included to enhance economic viability.
Determine the income that is needed for the initiative to be viable through cost-benefit
analysis.
Market analysis of potential customers.
Cost of resource development is reduced by sharing, re-use and re-distribution.
A collaborative model is used for development and facilitation.
Transfer informal enrolments to formal enrolments or accreditation.
Tiered funding - self-paced resources (free), facilitation (charged), assessment
(charged).
Use a structure that accommodates these charging and accreditation options.
Flexibility in the funding model chosen because it needs to accommodate different
designs for learning and teaching.
Design for learning needs to relate to flexibility. For example, group and peer
activities are not designed for self-paced learning, nor are an individual, anytime
enrolment structure. Group activities rely on a cohort-based model which adheres to
specified times for enrolment.
Enhance the capability of both teachers and students so they can adjust to the rapidly
changing educational environment through a range of support measures.
4.3 Sustainability
Sustainable practices may be achieved through the following.
9

Social networking practices - forming communities of learning.
Sharing content and practices and tools - both internally and external to the
organisation.
Re-usable learning packages and resources.
Use student-generated resources where possible.
Sharing knowledge and expertise to create and support communities of practice.
Further investigation is needed for the economic viability and practicalities of the
Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) model.
Perhaps only paying participants get facilitation from lecturers in the Massive Open
Online Course (MOOC) model.
o In the MOOC model where large numbers of participants interact, self and
peer facilitation is common. Lecturer time is voluntary and it can be a
moderation nightmare for lecturers who are facilitating.
o The MOOC model is generally used with social media and education courses
and it is not clear how they would transfer to business and health etc.
disciplines. How sustainable is voluntary OER work?
Consider which of the two models of OER and OEP (put forward by Downes (2007)
are sustainable.
a. Manage OEP and maintain control over the level of quality through supporting
professional staff with the production and distribution of resources. This requires a
high degree of funding.
b. Co-production, where educators work together to produce materials and resources,
often in a voluntary capacity. This requires a lower level of funding but is likely to
result in little control over quality.
10

4.4 Learning experience
A degree of lecturer moderation and involvement is needed for participants if they are
to have a meaningful learning experience, and this includes support around digital
literacy (Mackness et al., 2010).
Guidance is needed in the use of technologies for learning and teaching using open
education practices.
Support the development of self-efficacy in using technologies, and to build skills for
self-managed learning
Provide flexible alternatives as not all participants have access to the Internet
especially rural and developing areas.
Facilitate and guide learners content knowledge, and help them match their desires
and goals for their learning and careers to what is provided in the OER course.
Investigate through credible research approaches the issues related to recruitment,
retention and success using an open approach to enrolment.
4.5 Other factors to consider for models of OER and OEP
OER is costly. For example: MIT still requires US$3,500,000 per year to provide OER
(J ohansen & Wiley, 2010) - some theorising exists about this but little practical research is
available (Stewart & Hegarty, 2011). Also, currently no published research is available about
the impact of OEP on paid enrolments, nor is evidence available to indicate the rates of
retention of success in the open education model.
A number of OER organisations have reported on the trategies they have used to enhance the
number of fee-paying students. For example, when the Open University in the UK offered
free open sample courses, 7,800 enrolments eventuated in a two year period when students
used an enrol now button to convert to full enrolment. This equated to 1,280 new paying
students each year out of a total 130,000 students. That is, a 1% increase in fee paying
students was obtained.
11

Brigham Young University (USA) (BYU) converted its distance learning courses to open
access courses using open admission and open enrolment, where students could enrol at any
time and had one year to complete. Conversion costs of $US284 per course were related to
infrastructure, license fees for copyright material, and the preparation of materials for open
access. Once the courses went open, they were visited 20,148 times which resulted in 512
paid enrolments (BYU had a total of 165,026 enrolments in 2008). OER-related enrolments
equated to 0.31% of total enrolments. J ohansen and Wiley (2010) concluded that it is possible
to create financially self-sustaining open courses. However, it is worth noting that these
courses were self-directed with no lecturer participation, and no data is available to link this
model to rates of retention and success.
4.6 Conclusions
In light of the lack of research evidence in the field of open education and the range of
criteria to be considered, a model for open education resources and practices would need to
be flexible and responsive not only to the potential target groups but also to the trends in the
educational environment, both nationally and internationally. Infrastructure including support
for teachers and students is regarded as important for successful delivery of this form of
education, and also to ensure the economic viability of the venture. Although, present models
of open education rely heavily on open self-paced resources delivered via the Internet, the
value of facilitating the learning experience with regard to retention and success for students
should not be ignored. Sustainable cost-effective options for learning need to be considered
under the auspices of three different tiers of funding which are dependent on the type of
service provided to students, for example, self-paced learning packages, facilitation or
assessment. These options for open education not only need to consider criteria for the cost of
creating and delivering open programmes but also pay due attention to the most effective way
to ensure high quality learning choices for potential students.
12



5. Literature Review
13



Open education practices for Otago Polytechnic:
questions for consideration when developing the
Graduate Certificate Tertiary Learning and
Teaching as an open access course for teachers.













Sarah Stewart, Educational Development Centre,
Otago Polytechnic, Dunedin, New Zealand.
2011

14



5.1. Introduction
Worldwide interest in the Otago Polytechnic Graduate Certificate of Tertiary Learning and
Teaching (GCTLT), and individual courses that make up the programme, has resulted in
Otago Polytechnic considering an open access approach. Consequently, questions need to be
answered about the logistics, economic viability and sustainability of this approach to
education before Otago Polytechnic launches into this endeavour. This literature review
explores the meaning and history of open educational resources (OER) and open education
practices (OEP) as well as the issues that need to be addressed when engaging with OEP.
This includes how to develop a sustainable model of learning that engages international
students in ways that are suitable and affordable for them.
5.2. What is OER?
Open Educational Resources is a term that describes educational materials and courses that
are made freely available via the Internet (Brown & Adler, 2008). The OER movement
started in 2001/02 when the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) started its
OpenCourseWare Initiative (J ohansen & Wiley, 2010). This project made materials freely
available from over 1,900 of its undergraduate and postgraduate courses. In 2002 the term
OER was coined by a forum facilitated by UNESCO and the William and Flora Hewlett
Foundation. The forum defined OER as:
technology-enabled, open provision of educational resources for consultation, use and
adaptation by a community of users for non-commercial purposes. They are typically
made freely available over the Web or the Internet. Their principal use is by teachers
and educational institutions support course development, but they can also be used
directly by students. Open Educational Resources include learning objects such as
lecture material, references and readings, simulations, experiments and
demonstrations, as well as syllabi, curricula and teachers' guides (Wiley, 2007).
At the same time, the Creative Commons copyright framework was developed by Larry
Lessig which could be applied to OER materials and incorporated the Four Freedoms;
freedom to copy, freedom to modify, freedom to redistribute and freedom to redistribute
modified copies (Foote, cited by Downes, 2007).
15



5.2.1 Growth of OER
Over the last few years there has been a proliferation of OER projects, collaborations and
programs. MIT estimated in 2005 that 2,000 open courses had been made available across 50
institutions (MIT, 2006). In 2007, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation Development
(OECD) reported over 3,000 open courses were available from over 300 universities (OECD,
2007). In 2010, the Open Course Ware Consortium (OCWC), a group of institutions around
the world, published over 8,000 courses online (J ohansen & Wiley, 2010). Projects such as
Wikieducator and Wikiversity have also contributed to the OER movement by providing
places for educators to deposit materials and facilitate educational activities. At the time of
writing this report, Wikieducator had 22, 000 accounts and 16, 858 legitimate content pages
(W. Mackintosh, personal communication, September 28, 2011). In the meantime, initiatives
have been established to support OER including the Open Educational Quality Initiative
(OPAL) (http://www.oer-quality.org) which is a partnership between a number of European
higher education institutions and organisations such as UNESCO, Open University and MIT.
OPAL provides support to institutions and individuals with the aim of improving the quality
of OER by maintaining a database of best practice, conferring awards for best practice and
contributing to the governance of OER.
5.2.3. Enablers and barriers
The drivers behind individuals and institutions to produce OER are multifaceted (OECD,
2007). Technology and Internet infrastructure have become cheaper which makes it easier to
make and distribute education resources. Fiscal constraints make the idea of sharing content
very attractive to cash-strapped educational institutions. Copyright frameworks such as
Creative Commons have overcome legal barriers of licensing (OECD, 2007).
Barriers include a lack of access to Internet, hardware and software as well as absence of
funding for developing and maintaining OER, especially in developing countries (Wiley &
Gurrell, 2009). Educators and institutions do not understand what OER is or how to go about
engaging with it. This has been due to a lack of guidelines about how to create OER; lack of
technical skills; absent quality assurance systems, and a lack of transparency around practice
(Atkins et al, 2007; De Liddo, 2010). In other words, authors of OER do not share their
thinking behind OER, what they achieve with it, how it impacts on teaching and learning and
what they learned from the experience of creating OER. So the learning behind the OER is
16



not available to others who wish to engage with OER (De Liddo, 2010). Cultural, language
and contextual differences as well as concerns about the ethical use of materials impact on
decisions to openly publish materials. Teachers are reluctant to give access to materials that
will be used by for-profit organisations and may also feel that there is no recognition, support
or reward for their work (OPAL, 2011). It is suggested that teachers find it too time-
consuming or expensive to re-use materials that are developed in a different language or for a
different context (OECD, 2007). This has been backed up by research, such as that carried
out by Duncan (2009). When he looked at the Connexions OER repository at Rice University
USA, he found that only approximately 25% of material was re-used.
5.2.4 Why we should share educational resources
A number of reasons why educators are being encouraged to engage with OER are apparent.
Siemens (2003) argues that OER allows educators to be current and flexible in their response
to student needs. OER focuses education on learning rather than fiscal outcomes; encourages
educators to collaborate and form communities of practice; is democratic because educators
and students choose materials that support their learning as opposed to publishers.
Furthermore, the reasons for OER can be directed at three levels: government, institution and
individual teachers (OECD, 2007). The rational for supporting OER at government level is
that it increases access to learning opportunities promotes life-long learning and bridges the
gap between formal and informal learning (OECD, 2007).
Institutions should support OER because:
they have a duty to the tax payer to leverage their funding;
altruistic sharing is in line with academic tradition;
the cost of resource development is reduced by sharing and re-distribution;
potential students will be attracted to an innovative institution;
new business models need to be developed to deal with increasing competition in
education;
open sharing will stimulate innovation;
doing nothing may put them at risk in todays rapidly changing environment (OECD,
2007, p. 11).
17



The motivation for individuals to support OER is that:
altruistic sharing is part of traditional education values;
they will develop a reputation for innovation;
they will increase their capability to be the first in the market;
it makes sense to have a resource openly accessible (OECD, 2007, p. 12).
5.2.5 Moving to open education practices
Over the last few years emphasis has moved from creating and publishing resources to the
educational practices that encompass OER. Educators have been urged to think about how
they can facilitate open sharing and collaborative creation which supports life-long learning
within the framework of formal education (Kesim, 2008). This sentiment is expressed in the
Cape Town Open Education Declaration (2008):
open education is not limited to just open educational resources. It also draws upon
open technologies that facilitate collaborative, flexible learning and the open sharing
of teaching practices that empower educators to benefit from the best ideas of their
colleagues. It may also grow to include new approaches to assessment, accreditation
and collaborative learning. Understanding and embracing innovations like these is
critical to the long term vision of this movement.
Open educational practices are defined by the Open Educational Quality Initiative (OPAL) as
practices which support the (re)use and production of OER through institutional policies,
promote innovative pedagogical models, and respect and empower learners as co-producers
on their lifelong learning path (OPAL, 2011). OEP addresses the whole OER governance
community: policy makers, managers/administrators of organisations, educational
professionals and learners (2011, p. 12). OPAL (2011) maintains that OEP will result in
learning resources and activities being customised to meet learners' individual needs;
improvement of education practices and standards, as well as innovation of new pedagogical
practices.
Guidelines and strategies about OEP have been developed to support educators. The Open
e-Learning Content Observatory Services (OLCOS) project which explored how OER could
make a difference to teaching and learning, has produced an open education practices
18



roadmap making a number of recommendations about OEP (Schaffert & Geser, 2008). The
suggestion is for educators to change their role from dispensers of knowledge to facilitators
of open educational practices which focus on students carrying out learning activities
designed to develop personal skills, competence and knowledge (Schaffert & Geser, 2008, p.
4). Furthermore, educators should make use of collaborative tools and services, especially
those that support the development of learning communities eg blogs , wiki, ePortfolio, RSS
as a vehicle to share their experiences and knowledge about OEP in communities of practice
(Schaffert & Geser, 2008).
The market for open education practice OEP is seen in research carried out by institutions
such as MIT. In 2006, MIT reported the greatest number of people using their open materials
were self-learners (46.5%) who accessed materials for their own interest and learning. A
smaller number were students (32%) who were formally enrolled in an education course and
using the materials to enhance the resources they already had access to, and educators (16%)
who used the materials to enhance their own teaching (MIT, 2006). Nevertheless, despite the
advances that are being made in OER and OEP by individuals, little impact is apparent at an
institutional level (OPAL, 2011). In an international survey of higher education institutions,
581 participants overwhelmingly felt far more thought needed to be put into how OEP could
be supported internally, and also that internal OEP strategies needed to be developed, and
consideration paid to sustainability (OPAL, 2011).
5.2.6 The emergence of the Massive Online Open Course (MOOC)
Since 2007, the number of online open courses has increased and a new phenomenon called
the Massive Online Open Course (MOOC) has emerged, (McAuley, Stewart, Siemens &
Cornier, 2010). These courses are facilitated by a range of experts using social media and
freely accessible tools (Mackness, Mak, & Williams, 2010). Artefacts from the courses are
published freely using Creative Commons licences. They rely heavily on collaboration and
cooperation of participants, to support each other, connect and share learning. The term
'MOOC' was coined following the 2008 Connectivism course that was facilitated by George
Siemens and Stephen Downes, in which 2200 people participated as informal students, and
24 were enrolled formally (Fini, 2009). (Note: formal students are students who have paid to
enrol into a course, complete assignments and receive accreditation. Informal students are
people who follow the course for interest, and participate without accreditation). Since then,
19



the term MOOC tends to be applied to any free, facilitated online course that is offered on the
Internet, whatever the number of participants enrolled. The similarities with these courses are
that the learners self-organise according to their particular learning needs, existing skills and
common interests (McAuley et al., 2010).
Several funding models are used for the MOOC approach and are based on whether learning
is formal or informal, and the accreditation services provided (See Appendix One for
examples of courses representing the MOOC approach). Three examples are presented.
1. No fee for informal learners the course is designed for learners who are not enrolled
in a formal course of study. No prerequisites other than access to the Internet are
required. Completion and formal accreditation is not expected. The facilitators offer
their time free of charge, and the design and facilitation of the course is not funded.
2. Fee is required if enrolled - the course is designed for formally enrolled students and
is also open and free to informal learners. The course is funded by the institution.
Informal learners may eventually enrol as formal students for a fee and receive
accreditation services if they wish.
3. No fee as externally funded - the course is free, designed for informal learners, and
does not lead to accreditation. It is funded by external sources.
5.2.6.1ParticipationandcompletioninMOOCs
On the surface there appears to be a considerable amount of interest in MOOCs. Although,
the 2008 Connectivism course attracted a significant number of participants, particularly
informal, completion rates were not high. In a survey of participants (n=80), 15 finished the
course and completed all the requirements; 11 were informal students and four were enrolled
(Fini, 2009). Participants reported that time constraints were the main barrier to completing
the course (2009). In another study of the same course, Mackness et al (2010) surveyed and
email interviewed 167 course participants. According to these participants the diversity of
communications tools and methodologies was claimed to support the autonomy of the
learner. Yet conversely this diversity was also an impediment to students' learning and course
completion. The chaos of the course and the disruptive behaviour of some participants
resulted in students connecting with just a very small group of people who shared a common
20



interest and with whom they felt safe. They did not engage with the myriad of
communication tools that were suggested by the course facilitators but rather relied on a daily
email newsletter which was a lot simpler to follow and saved them time. Mackness et al
(2010) concluded that whilst online courses, such as the 2008 Connectivism course, are
designed for minimum lecturer interaction, they do in fact require moderation and more
traditional approaches to communication so that students can easily follow what is
happening, and are not threatened by participants who deliberately cause problems. Whether
students can still meet the outcomes of a course that operates as a sophisticated online
network where students learn in an autonomous, distributed, and socially connected manner
is questioned by Mackness et al (2010). Perhaps the two concepts are too opposed to come
together for successful outcomes? Further research is required to find out if it is possible to
bring together networked learning to meet the constraints of curriculum, learning outcomes
and assessment.
5.2.6.2 MOOCs and sustainability
A further question that has yet to be fully answered is the sustainability of these courses.
MOOCs are regarded as the new pedagogical and cost effective way to approach education
because they are based on open educational practices (McAuley et al, 2010), but no-one
knows how long these courses can continue to rely on volunteer efforts. For instance,
Professor Alec Coursos facilitates a course for post-graduate students based in Canada called
Social Media and Open Education: http://eci831.ca. The course relies heavily on informal
students to interact with and mentor his formal students. This may work well in 2011, but will
it continue to be a viable model as the novelty of this approach wears off? Fini (2009) asks a
similar question about the sustainability of lecturer involvement in MOOCs. These courses
are designed to include minimal lecturer facilitation and with mentoring, support and
teaching expected to be provided by the network of participants. Nevertheless, the reality is
that a degree of lecturer moderation and involvement is needed for participants if they are to
have a meaningful learning experience, and this includes support around digital literacy
(Mackness et al., 2010). Yet how practical and sustainable is it to expect lecturers to
moderate artefacts generated by hundreds of students?
21



At the moment MOOCs are experiments that are being greeted by digital enthusiasts who
mostly work in the education field (McAuley et al., 2010). MOOCs are mostly offered by
universities in the USA and Canada and are based around topics of digital practice such as
social media, use of open content and digital story telling (Appendix One). What continues to
be unknown is how a MOOC translates into other topic areas or professions such as business
or health (Mackintosh, 2011). Also, MOOCs in their current form do not address the need of
students who are unable to access the Internet, or whose first language is not English.
Therefore, further investigation of the MOOC concept is needed to establish some parameters
for this approach to teaching and learning, and to identify the challenges for teachers who
may be faced with facilitating huge numbers of learners.
5.3. Sustainability of open education practices
One of the key questions that has yet to be answered is how educational courses can be
delivered in an open way to provide learning opportunities and resources for the wider
community in a way that meets institutions' financial obligations; somehow open courses
need to generate revenue. Clearly this is a huge concern for institutions that are looking at
OEP especially in the light of organisations such as MIT who still require US$3,500,000 per
year to provide OER (J ohansen & Wiley, 2010). At this time, there has been an amount of
theorising about this but little practical research.
Downes (2007) has posited that the way forward for OEP is for educators to work together in
partnerships and communities in one of two ways. One model he suggests is to manage OEP
and maintain control over the level of quality through supporting professional staff with the
production and distribution of resources. This approach requires a high degree of funding.
The second model is co-production, where educators work together to produce materials and
resources, often in a voluntary capacity. This model requires a lower level of funding but is
likely to result in little control over quality. Also, concerns continue to be voiced about how
sustainable this free, volunteer OEP work will be in the future. Wiley (2007) suggests there
are several ways to continue to engage volunteers including finding non-monetary incentives,
utilising students within a course, decentralising responsibilities across a range of people, and
leveraging organisational rewards for participation.
22



5.3.1 Formal and informal enrolments
One of the main issues that underpins the sustainability of OEP is how to encourage informal
students to enrol into a course, receive accreditation and pay fees. An analysis of the
financial impacts of open educational practices found that institutions cannot measure the
outcomes of OEP by enrolments alone (Blackall & Hegarty, 2011). The costs of running a
course and training staff in digital literacy were compared with the return on marketing,
advertising and the use of free open tools, and calculations showed that there was a 50%
return on OEP (Blackall & Hegarty, 2011). However, it was recognised that factoring in costs
such as student support, administration and library services was difficult because these
services were not set up to support OEP (Blackall & Hegarty (2011). A model of OEP was
proposed whereby the educator delivers the course materials for free, and the cost to the
student comes once enrolment for formal accreditation occurs. In this model, the student does
not pay for knowledge but for the expert facilitation, accreditation and the privilege of being
able to say he or she is a graduate of a certain institution; in other words the student pays for
the institution's reputation. Blackall and Hegarty (2011) concluded that to achieve profitable
OEP, institutions needed to work out processes for international student fees and options for
the recognition of prior learning, so that informal students could easily move in and out of
formal enrolment. This, they believed would increase enrolment and completion rates. There
is currently no published research that describes the impact of OEP on paid enrolments.
Conversely, J ohansen and Wiley (2010) reported that when the Open University (UK)
offered free open sample courses, 7,800 enrolments eventuated in a two year period when
students used an enrol now button to convert to full enrolment. This equated to 1,280 new
paying students each year out of a total 130,000 students. So far, no one has reported on
issues on recruitment or retention using this approach to enrolment. A further initiative is
reported by J ohansen and Wiley (2010) who analysed how much it would cost the Brigham
Young University (USA) (BYU) to convert its distance learning courses to open access
courses. Those courses were open admission and open enrolment, and students had up to one
year to complete the course and could enrol at any time. Costs to convert the courses included
infrastructure, license fees for copyright material, and labour costs involved with preparing
the course to be delivered in an open environment. J ohansen and Wiley (2010) had estimated
that it would cost $US284 per course. Once the courses went open, they were visited 20,148
23



times which resulted in 512 paid enrolments (BYU had a total of 165,026 enrolments in
2008). J ohensen and Wiley (2010) concluded that it is possible to create financially self-
sustaining open courses. However, it is worth noting that these courses were self-directed
with no lecturer participation.
Taking OEP a step further is The Open Education Resource University (OERU) which is an
initiative just forming at the time of this review. The OERU is a network and partnership of
educational institutions around the world that will provide assessment and accreditation
services for courses that are made up of OER (Taylor & Mackintosh, 2011). The economic
vision is that the financial costs of providing free access to course materials and the
accreditation services are recouped on a cost-recovery basis from students. Students will be
able to access courses in places such as Wikieducator, and then apply for accreditation from
an institution within the OERU network. This will make education more accessible to
students and increase revenue for institutions (Taylor & Mackintosh, 2011). This innovation
is in the early stages of developing so as yet there is no data is available about the efficacy or
sustainability of this model.
5.4. Conclusion
The efforts that Otago Polytechnic has made thus far in making the Graduate Certificate in
Tertiary Learning and Teaching (GCTLT) openly available conform to the ideals of OER and
open education practices. However, despite the increasing interest and development of OER
and OEP innovations, there is very little research that illustrates effective practice, or answers
questions about economic viability and sustainability. This makes it difficult to know how
best to implement open education practices at Otago Polytechnic. Yet at the same time, this is
an opportunity to carry out authoritative research and contribute significantly to the
discussion about OEP on the international stage. Several research questions have emanated
from this literature review, and will be considered as the GCTLT continues to be developed
as an open program.

24



5.4.1 Possible research questions
1. Which approach provides the most effective learning experience and attracts the
greatest number of fee-paying students? For example: a static, self-directed course
that has open-ended enrolment or a facilitated course that has a specific time frame for
enrolment and is delivered as a community experience?
2. How can an open facilitated course be designed to provide an effective learning
experience when there is no lecturer facilitation or peer interaction?
3. What ratio of informal and formal students is needed to make an open course viable at
Otago Polytechnic? (Large universities such as the Open University have been
economically successful with their OER models. How can Otago Polytechnic deliver
open courses to be viable with a smaller number of students?)
4. How can an open facilitated course be designed so it is sustainable and attracts
revenue?
5. What motivates informal students to engage with a course?
6. How can informal learners be supported to convert to formal enrolment and
accreditation? (What internal processes are required?)
7. What are the critical factors that motivate students to engage with a course for
completion and enrol for accreditation?
8. How can an open course be developed for people when English is not their first
language?
9. How can the traditional structures of an institutional course such as curriculum,
learning outcomes, assessment and enrolment be applied to networked learning and/or
lifelong learning situations, for example, an open facilitated course?
10. How sustainable is OEP based on volunteer efforts?
11. How can an open facilitated course be designed to utilise social media and meet
individual learning needs and keep learners engaged as a community/network of
learners?
25




Author contact details
Sarah Stewart, Educational Development Centre, Otago Polytechnic, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Sarah.stewart@op.ac.nz http://sarah-stewart.blogspot.com
Telephone: +64 27 7379998
26



5.5. References
Atkins, D., Seely Brown, J . & Hammond, A. (2007). A review of the open educational
resources (OER) Movement: achievements, challenges, and new opportunities.
Retrieved from www.hewlett.org/uploads/files/Hewlett_OER_report.pdf

Blackall, L., & Hegarty, B.(2011). Open education practices: a user guide for
organisations/models of open education. Retrieved from
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Open_Education_Practices:_A_User_Guide_for_Organisations
Brown, J ., & Adler, R. (2008). Minds on fire: open education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0.
Educause Review, 43, 1, 16-32.
Cape Town Open Education Declaration. (2008). Cape Town Open Education Declaration:
Unlocking the promise of open educational resources. Retrieved from
http://www.capetowndeclaration.org
DAntoni, S. (2008). Open education resources. The way forward. Retrieved from
http://openaccess.uoc.edu/webapps/o2/bitstream/10609/7163/1/Antoni_OERTheWayForward_
2008_eng.pdf
De Liddo, A. (2010). From open content to open thinking. Paper presented at the World
Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hyermedia and Telecommunications. Retrieved from
http://www.editlib.org/p/35094
Downes, S. (2007). Models for sustainable open educational resources. Interdisciplinary
Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, 3, February, 29-44.
Duncan, S. (2009). Patterns of learning object reuse in the Connexions Repository. Retrieved
from
http://www.archive.org/details/PatternsOfLearningObjectReuseInTheConnexionRepository
Fini, A. (2009). The Technological Dimension of a Massive Open Online Course: The Case of
the CCK08 Course Tools. The International Review of Research In Open And Distance
Learning, 10(5), Article 10.5.7. Retrieved from
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/643/1410
J ohansen , J ., & Wiley, D. (2010). A sustainable model for OpenCourseWare development.
Retrieved from
http://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.phpCISOROOT=/IR&CISOPTR=1021
J ohn Mak, S.F., Williams, R., & Mackness, J . (2010, May). Blogs and forums as
communication and learning tools in a MOOC. Paper presented the 7
th
International
Networked Learning Conference. Retrieved from
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/organisations/netlc/past/nlc2010/abstracts/PDFs/Mak.pdf
Kesim, M. (2008, September). Connectivist approach and restructuring of lifelong learning.
Paper presented at the EADTU Lifelong Learning in Higher Education: Networked Teaching
27



and Learning in a Knowledge Society Conference. Retrieved from
http://www.eadtu.nl/conference-2008/proceedings/OER%20-%20Mehmet%20Kesim%20-
%20Connectivist%20Approach%20and%20Restructuring%20of%20Lifelong%20Learning.pdf
Mackintosh, W. (2011). Critical reflections. Retrieved from
http://wikieducator.org/OER_university/eduMOOC_planning_group/MOOC_comparison#Crit
ical_reflections
Mackness, J ., Mak, S., & Williams, R. (2010, May). The ideals and reality of participating in a
MOOC. Paper presented the 7
th
International Networked Learning Conference. Retrieved from
http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/organisations/netlc/past/nlc2010/abstracts/PDFs/Mackness.pdf
McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G., & Cornier, D. (2010). The MOOC model for the digital
age. Retrieved from http://davecormier.com/edblog/wp-content/uploads/MOOC_Final.pdf
MIT. (2006). MITOPENCOURSEWARE. 2005 program evaluation findings report. Retrieved
from http://ocw.mit.edu/ans7870/global/05_Prog_Eval_Report_Final.pdf
OPAL. (2011). Beyond OER. Shifting focus to open educational practises. Retrieved from
http://duepublico.uni-duisburg-essen.de/servlets/DerivateServlet/Derivate-
25907/OPALReport2011-Beyond-OER.pdf
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2007). Giving knowledge for free.
Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/35/7/38654317.pdf
Siemens, G. (2003). Why we should share learning resources. Retrieved from
http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/why_we_should_share.htm
Schaffert, S., & Geser, G. (2008). Open educational resources and practices. eLearning Papers,
7, February. Retrieved from http://www.elearningeuropa.info/files/media/media14907.pdf
Taylor, J ., & Mackintosh, W. (2011). Creating an open educational resources university and
the pedagogy of discovery. Open Praxis, October, 24-29. Retrieved from
Wiley, D. (2007). On the sustainability of open educational resource initiatives in higher
education. Retrieved from http://oecd.org/edu/oer
Wiley, D., & Gurrell, S. (2009). A decade of development. Open Learning: The Journal of
Open, Distance and e-Learning, 24, 1, 11-21. Retrieved from
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02680510802627746

28



5.6. Appendix One
Examples of courses representing the MOOC approach
(http://wikieducator.org/OER_university/eduMOOC_planning_group/MOOC_comparison)
Code Date Course Institution Facilitators
For
credit
option
Estimated
No. of
Participant
s
Case study
link
eL4C
Feb
2007
Learning4Content
pilot workshop
Commonwealt
h of Learning
Mackintosh No 148 (check)
Case study
eL4C
INST 7150
Fall
2007
Introduction to
Open Education
State
Univeristy of
Utah, USA
Wiley Yes
55 (? for
credit)
Case study
INST 7150
EC&I 831
Fall
2007
Social Media and
Open Education
University of
Regina,
Canada
Yes
363 (16 for
credit)
EC&I 831

Mar
2008
Composing free
and open online
education
resources
University of
Art and Design
Helsinki
Leinonen,
Poldoja
No 35
2008 Facilitating online
Otago
Polytechnic
Blackall,
Hegarty
Yes
89 (9 for
credit)
Case Study
OPFO
CCKO8
Fall
2008
Connectivism and
Connective
Knowledge Online
Course
Extended
Education and
Learning
Technologies
Centre,
University of
Manitoba
Siemens,
Downes
Yes
+2300 (25
for credit -
capped)[1]
Moodle:
178
Case study
CCK
EC&I 831
Winter
2008
Social Media and
Open Education
University of
Regina,
Canada
Yes
? (21 for
credit)
EC&I 831
CCK09
Fall
Connectivism and
Connective
Extended
Education and
Siemens,
Yes ?
Case study
29



2009 Knowledge Online
Course
Learning
Technologies
Centre,
University of
Manitoba
Downes Moodle:
122
CCK
EC&I 831
Winter
2009
Social Media and
Open Education
University of
Regina,
Canada
Yes EC&I 831
EC&I 831
Fall
2009
Social Media and
Open Education
University of
Regina,
Canada
Yes
347 (16 for
credit)
EC&I 831
CritLit
J une
2010
Critical Literacies
National
Research
Council of
Canadas
Institute for
Information
Technology
(Learning and
Collaborative
Group)
Kop No 377
eL4C41 J ul 2010
Learning4Content
(Wikieducator
gives back).
OER
Foundation
Mackintosh
, Schlicht,
Mathur,
Sharma,
Parker,
Radney,
J ones,
Snieckus,
Stewart
No 421
Case study
eL4C
PLENK201
0
Fall
2010
Personal Learning
Environments
Networks and
Knowledge
National
Research
Council of
Canada and
TEKRI,
Athabasca
Siemens,
Downes,
Cormier
No
1610
Moodle:
206
Case study
PLENK
30



University
OCL4ED
Mar
2011
Open Content
Licensing for
Educators
OER
Foundation
Mackintosh
,
Hornibrook
No 334
Case study
OCL4ED
CCK11
Spring
2011
Connectivism and
Connective
Knowledge Online
Course
Extended
Education and
Learning
Technologies
Centre,
University of
Manitoba
Siemens,
Downes
No
Case study
CCK
LAK11
Spring
2011
Introduction to
Learning and
Knowledge
Analytics
TEKRI,
Athabasca
University
Siemens,
Dron,
Cormier,
Currie,
Elias
No LAK11
MobiMOO
C
Spring
2011
Mobile learning
Traxler, de
Waard,
Metcalf,
Black,
Sanford,
Duncan,
Winters and
Brown
No
553
(Google
group)
Case study
MobiMOOC
DS106
Summer
2011
Digital storytelling
University of
Mary
Washington
Groom Yes ?
Case study
DS106
eduMOOC
Summer
2011
Online learning
today .. and
tomorrow
University of
of Illinois
Springfield
Schroeder No +2500
Case study
EduMOOC


31



5.7 Appendix Two
Processes for enrolling International students into
Educational Development Centre online courses




The following processes will apply when enrolling International Students into EDC online courses:
Name of course: Facilitating Online
Description of course: A course within the Graduate Certificate in Tertiary Learning and Teaching
(Level 7) Programme
This course will enhance participants understanding of how to facilitate in online environments using a
range of online communication tools. Through exploring online communities, networks, and facilitation
practices participants will learn how to plan, facilitate and evaluate an online event. This is offered online
with negotiated support.
Description of requirements Outcome/date
Approval obtained for offering course to international students
Ministry of Education and/or Immigration policies checked
Fee agreed to and set with Finance
Course information available on website including up-to-date
information sheet

Course facilitator and/or EDC Administrator receives, monitors
and responds to expressions of interest

Potential participants directed to website link to appropriate
(?Short course) enrolment form which they will need to
download, complete & send to Otago Polytechnic along with
certified copy of proof of identity (this information needs to be
with enrolment form online)

Electronic application process received by International
Admissions Coordinator (Eleanor Howden)

Enrolment/application processed and invoice sent to student

> Educational DeveEducational Development Centre

You might also like