Comparing surveys of OCW Contribution at 4 schools, in North America, Europe and South Africa.

1. OCWC Conference 2011 OCW use and production by faculty and students: Review of Research at Four Institutions Joseph Hardin, hardin@mujoresearch.org, Mujo Research Cheryl Hodgkinson-Williams, cheryl.hodgkinson-williams@uct.ac.za and Glenda Cox, glenda.cox@uct.ac.za, University of Cape Town

7. Survey Samples and Response Rates The surveys reported on here vary in their sample strategies and their sample sizes, and in their response rates. In the University of Michigan survey for 2010 “all instructional faculty were invited to respond (n=7,626). There was a 13% response rate to the survey (n=1,017). A random sample of 25% of the student body, stratified by college/department, was invited to respond (n=9,095). There was a 16% response rate to the survey (n=1,415).” (Lonn & Teasley2010) For the 2010 survey all UCT staff were invited to respond (n=3170). This total includes academic and administrative staff. There was a 6% response rate to the survey (n=174). All students were invited to complete the survey (n=24 887). There was a 10% response rate to the survey (n=2474). For the Danubius survey 1953 students and 98 faculty were invited to respond. The studentresponse rate was 9,06% (177 students responded) and instructor response rate was 24,49% (24 faculty responded). The Universidad Politecnica de Valencia survey used a random sample of 30% of the instructors (n=800) who were invited to respond, and a random sample of 5% of the students (n=1,920) stratified by college who were invited as well across the set of OCW questions. They had responses from 230 instructors and 186 students; which resulted in response rates of 28.7% for instructors and 9.7% for students.

8. Familiarity with OCW – Teaching Staff

9. Familiarity with OCW - Students

10. 2010 2008 2009 2007

11. GSI Tenure- track Clinical Lecturer Familiarity

12. Instructor Potential Use

13. Student Potential Use

14. Would Encourage Others to Publish OCW – Teaching Staff

16. Intention to Contribute/Publish – Teaching Staff

17. Intention to Contribute Time to Help Publish OCW - Students

18. Contribution 2010 GSI Tenure-track Clinical Lecturer 52% 48% 42% 40%

19. 50% 46% 48% 34% Contribution 2009 GSI Tenure-track Clinical Lecturer % = Agree + Strongly Agree

20. Contribution Willingness VS Time as Faculty UM 2010 survey More Willing To Publish OCW More Time as Faculty

21. Generational? UM-2009 Holds within categories of Tenure-track, Clinical, Lecturer

24. Open Access Survey Quex Open Access (OA) publishing includes the practices of: a) publishing in journals that make their contents available on the web to anyone, without requiring readers or their institutions to subscribe to the journal; and b) the placing by authors of copies of their articles, either before or after peer review, on an open web site of their own, such as their homepage, or an open institutional web site, such as a disciplinary, departmental or library web site.

27. Open Access Perspectives Very Discipline-Specific In looking at these results we need to be cognizant of other research on OA, specifically the CSHE study (Harley, 2010) that pointed out the extreme disciplinary-specific nature of much OA activity. What the CSHE study found was that for those faculty in disciplines where OA was already regularly used, there was much higher acceptance of OA publishing. This was reflected in our results, with medical and natural sciences faculty participating in OA more than others. Combine this with the findings from Mann, 2009 that while many faculty find OA a good idea, they also look to the accepted journals in their area as most important publishing venues, whether those journals are OA or not, and we see faculty being reasonably self-interested. The results here also show a belief that OA has a rising importance among many of our respondents, and we find that there is some relationship between beliefs in the growing importance of OA and the intention to contribute OCW materials, but there is more work needed to understand relations between these beliefs and OCW.

30. MISI Surveys- One Model http://confluence.sakaiproject.org/display/UDAT/2010+MISI

33. Thanks Joseph Hardin, Mujo Research, hardin@mujoresearch.org Cheryl Hodgkinson-Williams, and Glenda Cox, University of Cape Town, cheryl.hodgkinson-williams@uct.ac.zaglenda.cox@uct.ac.za Papers on surveys conducted at: University of Michigan, USA; Universidad Politecnica Valencia, Spain; Universitatea Danubius-Galati, Romania and University Cape Town, S.A. available at: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~hardin/Talks/OCW_Surveys/ or http://tinyurl.com/25t4ajw CC-BY

34. Hardin, J (2010). OCW Creation in HE Institutions , OCWC 2010 International Conference, Hanoi. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~hardin/Talks/OCWC2010Hanoi Hardin, J. & Cañero, A. (2010) . Faculty and Student Perspectives Toward Open Courseware, and Open Access Publishing: Some Comparisons Between European and North American Populations . In OpenEd 2010 Proceedings. Barcelona: UOC, OU, BYU. http://hdl.handle.net/10609/5261 Hardin, Bumbaru and Pusca, (2010), Open CourseWare (OCW) Contributions: Recent Results from Romanian and American Teaching Staff and Student Surveys (accepted, IADIS 2010 Timisoara Conference) http://www-personal.umich.edu/~hardin/Talks/OCW_Surveys/IADIS2010-HardinOCW-finalpdf.pdf Hardin,J., Hodgkinson-Williams, C. and Cox, G. (2011) OCW use and production by faculty and students: An inter-institutional comparison; OCWC 2011 Conference paper Harley, D. et al, (2010) Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines , January 2010; Center for the Study of Higher Education, University of California, Berkeley. http://cshe.berkeley.edu/research/scholarlycommunication/ Lonn, S., Teasley, S. D., & Krumm, A. (2008). Selected results from the 2008 CTools survey: Ann Arbor campus instructors and students. https://ctools.umich.edu/access/content/public/surveys/a2_08/a208.html Mann et al, (2009) Open Access Publishing in Science: Why it is Highly Appreciated but Rarely Used; Communications of the ACM, Vol. 52, Issue 3 (March 2009), Pages 135-139.