Crash course on open educational resources

3.747 Aufrufe

Veröffentlicht am

A crash course on open educational resources which covers the 4 'R's of Openness, access based on ALMS analysis, sustainability models and copyright. It further discusses the current state of OER in Asia. The last part provides a case study for reuse of OER in ODL courses.

Veröffentlicht in: Bildung, Technologie

Crash course on open educational resources

  1. 1. Crash Course onOpen Educational ResourcesGuest Lecture24th and 27th June 2013Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University, ThailandIshan AbeywardenaMSc, MSc (Brunel), BSc (Bangalore), MIEEE, MBCS, MIET, MTASenior Lecturer, School of Science and TechnologyWawasan Open UniversityPenang, Malaysia
  2. 2. AcknowledgementI express my gratitude to:– Assoc. Prof Dr. Chailerd Pichitpornchai forextending me this kind invitation;– Ms. Rattip Phukkeson and all other colleagues atSTOU for having me here.
  3. 3. Lecture Outline• Introduction to Open Educational Resources.• OER from an Asian Perspective: Reflections ofthe OER Asia Study.• A Viable Model for OER Reuse in ODL Courses:Case Study.
  4. 4. Introduction toOpen Educational Resources(OER)
  5. 5. Main ReferenceAbeywardena, I.S. (2012). A report on theRe-use and Adaptation of OpenEducational Resources (OER): AnExploration of Technologies Available.Commonwealth of Learning.Available at:
  6. 6. Talking Points• Definition of OER• Current Status• The “O” in OER• Copyright• Access• Curation• Funding and Sustainability• Impact• Future Direction
  7. 7. Definition• “web-based materials, offered freely andopenly for use and re-use inteaching, learning and research” (Joyce, 2007).• “teaching, learning and research materialsin any medium, digital or otherwise, thatreside in the public domain or have beenreleased under an open license thatpermits no-cost access, use, adaptationand redistribution by others with no orlimited restrictions”(UNESCO Paris OER Declaration, 2012)Joyce, A. (2007). OECD Study of OER: Forum Report, OECD. Retrieved December 12, 2011 from (2012, June 22). 2012 PARIS OER DECLARATION. Retrieved June 13, 2013, from
  8. 8. The “O” in OERThe four ‘R’s model:• Reuse – the most basic level of openness. People are allowedto freely use all or part of the unaltered, verbatim work.• Redistribute – people can share copies of the work withothers.• Revise – people can adapt, modify, translate, or change theform of the work.• Remix – people can take two or more existing resources andcombine them to create a new resource.Hilton, J., Wiley, D., Stein, J., & Johnson, A. (2010). The four R‘s of openness and ALMS Analysis: Frameworks for open educational resources.Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 25(1), 37-44.
  9. 9. Increasing openness of the four ‘R’s: adapted from (Hilton et al., 2010)
  10. 10. CopyrightOpen Content Licensing (OCL) schemes:• Public Domain• Creative Commons (CC)• GNU Free Documentation Licensing• Other regional or institutional licenses– BC Commons (discontinued)
  11. 11. CC Ported vs. Unported• Unported: abides by international copyrightlaw and is not subject to regional jurisdictions;• Ported: a version customized to suit thecopyright laws of a particular region orjurisdiction.
  12. 12. Access (ALMS)• Access to editing tools – how accessible are the softwaretools needed to reuse the resource?• Level of expertise required to revise or remix – how easyis it to revise or remix a resource without advancedtechnical skills or specialist knowhow?• Meaningfully editable – can the resource be reused orremixed with less time and effort than needed to create itfrom scratch?• Source file access – does the resource provide access toan editable source file which can be used to reuse orremix?Hilton, J., Wiley, D., Stein, J., & Johnson, A. (2010). The four R‘s of openness and ALMS Analysis: Frameworks for open educational resources. Open Learning:The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 25(1), 37-44.
  13. 13. Curation• Content repositories – hosts contentinternally within the repository (e.g.Connextions, WikiEducator).• Portal repositories – provides searchablecatalogues of content hosted in externalrepositories (e.g. OER Commons, DOER).• Content and portal repositories – hostscontent internally in addition to providingcatalogues of content hosted externally(e.g. MERLOT, JORUM)McGreal, R. (2010). Open Educational Resource Repositories: An Analysis. Proceedings: The 3rd Annual Forum on e-LearningExcellence, 1-3 February 2010, Dubai, UAE.
  14. 14. Funding and Sustainability1. Endowment Model2. Membership Model3. Donations Model4. Conversion Model5. Contributor-PayModel6. Sponsorship Model7. Institutional Model8. GovernmentalModel9. Partnerships andExchangesDownes, S. (2007). Models for Sustainable Open Educational Resources. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects , 3.
  15. 15. Impact• “just as the Linux operatingsystem and other open sourcesoftware have become apervasive computer technologyaround the world, so too mightOER materials become thebasis for training the globalmasses” (Farber, 2009).• The move towards OER cansignificantly reduce the costs oflearning (Caswell, et al., 2009).Caswell, T., Henson, S., Jenson, M., & Wiley, D. (2008). Open Educational Resources: Enabling universal education. International Review of Research inOpen and Distance Learning , 9 (1), 1-11.Farber, R. (2009). Probing OER’s huge potential. Scientific Computing , 26 (1), 29.
  16. 16. Future DirectionMassive Open Online Courses(MOOC)
  17. 17. Questions
  18. 18. OER from an Asian PerspectiveReflections of the OER Asia Study
  19. 19. Main ReferenceDhanarajan, G., & Abeywardena, I. S.(2013). Higher Education and OpenEducational Resources in Asia: AnOverview. In G. Dhanarajan & D. Porter(Eds.), Open Educational Resources: AnAsian Perspective. Commonwealth ofLearning and OER Asia (ISBN 978-1-894975-61-2), 3-18.Available at:
  20. 20. The OER Asia Survey• Aimed to identify the current state of play inthe Asian Region with respect to OER practice.• The survey mainly concentrated on, but notlimited to, the current situation in Malaysia,Vietnam, Indonesia, India, Philippines, Japan,China, Hong Kong, South Korea.• Duration: 27 months
  21. 21. Scope• Learning Content: Full courses, courseware, contentmodules, learning objects, collections and journals.• Tools: Software to support the development, use, re-useand delivery of learning content including searching andorganization of content, content and learning managementsystems, content development tools and online learningcommunities.• Implementation Resources: Intellectual property licensesto promote open publishing of materials, design principlesof best practice and localization of content.
  22. 22. Objectives1. To determine the demand for OER;2. To establish the regional capabilities to develop and/oruse OER;3. To determine, list and describe the range of OER activitiesin the region;4. To list and describe the methods adopted for the creationof OERs;5. To identify the policy, legal and technological issuesrelating to the use of OERs;6. To identify / determine requirements of quality and theirrelevance in the OER environment;7. To undertake and economic analysis of the OERdevelopment and use;
  23. 23. ResponsesIndividual(N=420)China7518%Hong Kong409%India6716%Indonesia4210%Japan123%Korea, South6415%Malaysia379%Philippines369%Vietnam358%Other*123%Institutional(N=98)China3233%Hong Kong88%India88%Indonesia88%Japan44%Korea, South33%Malaysia66%Philippines1111%Vietnam1415%Other*44%
  24. 24. Respondent ProfileInstitutionStatusParticipantTitlePublicPrivate not-for-profitPrivate for-profitTotalProf. 20 2 3 2580.00% 8.00% 12.00% 100.00%Dr. 77 15 10 10275.50% 14.70% 9.80% 100.00%Mr. 168 32 22 22275.70% 14.40% 9.90% 100.00%Ms. 47 14 10 7166.20% 19.70% 14.10% 100.00%Total 312 63 45 42074.30% 15.00% 10.70% 100.00%
  25. 25. Teaching ProfileLevels of TeachingParticipant Title Undergraduate Postgraduate High SchoolProf. 14 15 -Dr. 76 63 -Mr. 132 46 19Ms. 51 19 4Total 273 143 23
  26. 26. OER: Academic UseI have used I will use65%23%12%YesNoUnsure80%5%15%YesNoUnsure
  27. 27. OER: Attitudes Towards PublicationHave Published Will PublishYes31%No58%Unsure11%Yes60%No10%Unsure30%
  28. 28. OER: Sources
  29. 29. OER: Production82, 26%45, 14%124, 40%61, 20%We currently do not produceopen educational contentAs full courses / programmesAs parts of courses /programmesAs learning objects
  30. 30. OER: Co-operationThe true cost savings for an institution wouldbe visible only when more and more OERbased course materials are developed andshared freely amongst peer institutionsthrough a “Partnerships and Exchanges”model (Downes, 2007) reducing the need forre-development of common modules.Downes, S. (2007). Models for Sustainable Open Educational Resources. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects , 3.
  31. 31. OER: Co-operationProducing Exchanging221, 73%47, 16%13, 4%20, 7%NoYes, in the sameregion/stateYes, in other partsof the countryYes, internationally224, 74%46, 15%16, 5%17, 6%NoYes, in the sameregion/stateYes, in other partsof the countryYes, internationally
  32. 32. OER: BarriersBarrier?1 Lack of awareness Yes2 Lack of skills Yes3 Lack of time Yes4 Lack of hardware No5 Lack of software No6 Lack of access to computers No7 Lack of ability to locate specific and relevant OER for my teaching Yes8 Lack of ability to locate quality OER for my teaching Yes9 No reward system for staff members devoting time and energy Yes10 Lack of interest in pedagogical innovation among staff members Yes11 Lack of support from management level Yes
  33. 33. OER: Concerns on UseA Fear over copyright infringementBOwnership and legal barriers (other thancopyright)CAwareness of the university OER repositoryand other OER repositoriesD Skepticism over usefulnessE Lack of reward and recognitionF Lack of timeG Lack of supportH Relevancy of materials availableI School/institution policyJ Possible negative impact on reputationK Criticism from colleaguesL Lack of feedback from usersM Impact on career progressionN Criticism from students020406080100120140160180200A B C D E F G H I J K L M N
  34. 34. OER: Concerns on PublishingA Fear over copyright infringementBOwnership and legal barriers (other thancopyright)CAwareness of the university OER repositoryand other OER repositoriesD Lack of supportE Lack of timeF Relevancy of materials availableG School/institution policyH Lack of reward and recognitionI Lack of feedback from usersJ Skepticism over usefulnessK Possible negative impact on reputationL Criticism from studentsM Criticism from colleaguesN Impact on career progression020406080100120140160180A B C D E F G H I J K L M N020406080100120140160180A B C D E F G H I J K L M N
  35. 35. OER: Copyright AwarenessIndividual InstitutionalYes89%No11%Yes97%No3%
  36. 36. OER: Use of Copyright LicensesIndividual Institutional43, 73%9, 15%7, 12%NoYes, CreativeCommonsYes, other"open contentlicense"148, 61%72, 30%22, 9%NoYes, CreativeCommonsYes, other"open contentlicense"
  37. 37. OER: Key Copyright Concerns• Remixing different resources legally;• Incorporates unlicensed third party content;• Discovering materials can be legally used;• Publishing material created.
  38. 38. OER: Benefits in Teaching• Gaining access to the best possible resources• Promote scientific research and education as publicly openactivities• Bringing down costs for students• Bringing down costs for course development for institution• Outreach to disadvantaged communities• Assisting developing countries• Becoming independent of publishers (~50/50)• Creating more flexible materials• Conducting research and development• Building sustainable partnerships
  39. 39. Points for Action• Further support is needed especially at institutional level tofacilitate capacity building in the use of digital resourcesand OER;• A culture of collaboration between institutions needs to beestablished to harness the full potential of open content;• More capacity building is needed at an institutional as wellas national level to familiarise users with the benefits andlimitations of open content licensing;• Institutions need to establish set policies encouraging thewider use and re-use of open content.
  40. 40. The Research TeamOER Asia Team Member Region and AffiliationProfessor Emeritus Gajaraj Dhanarajan(Principle investigator) ( Wawasan Open University (WOU)Professor Tsuneo Yamada ( Japan: Open University of Japan (OUJ)Professor Yong Kim ( S. Korea: Korea National Open University (KNOU)Professor Li Yawan ( China: Beijing Open University (BJOU)Dr Yuen Kin Sun ( Alex Wong ( Kong China: Open University of Hong Kong(OUHK)Professor Patricia Arinto ( Philippines: University of the Philippines OpenUniversity (UPOU)Professor Daryono ( Indonesia: Universitas Terbuka Indonesia (UT)Dr Minh Do ( Vietnam: Vietnam FoundationDr Venkataraman Balaji ( India: Commonwealth of Learning (COL)Dr Bharathi Harishankar ( India: University of MadrasMr Ishan Abeywardena ( Malaysia: Wawasan Open University (WOU)
  41. 41. Let’s discuss more over tea?
  42. 42. A Viable Model for OER Reuse in ODLCase Study
  43. 43. Main ReferenceAbeywardena, I.S. (2013). Developmentof OER-Based Undergraduate TechnologyCourse Material: “TCC242/05 WebDatabase Application” Delivered UsingODL at Wawasan Open University. In G.Dhanarajan & D. Porter (Eds.), OpenEducational Resources: An AsianPerspective. Commonwealth of Learningand OER Asia (ISBN 978-1-894975-61-2),173-184.Available at:
  44. 44. Wawasan Open University (WOU)Established in 2007 for adult learnersVision: We aspire to be a vibrant learningcommunity that inspires learning, supportsinnovation and nurtures all-round personalgrowth.Mission: We commit ourselves to the expansionof opportunities in higher education and toteaching excellence aimed at increasing the levelof knowledge and scholarship among allMalaysians.IPOHPenang HQKualaLumpurJohor BharuKuchingKota Bharu
  45. 45. • Learner centered• Inquiry based• Interactive units ofwork• Customizablecontents• Collaboration• Communication• Creation• Social Media• OER & FOSS**e-LearningCourses &ResourcesVirtualClassroomand LMS** OER = Open Educational ResourcesFOSS = Free and Open Source SoftwareGlobal E-Learning Mainstream21st CenturyEducationWeb 2.0 tools foractive learning
  46. 46. Learning at WOUPhDMastersBachelorG. Diploma& G. Cert.STPMSPM &PMRPhDMastersBachelorG. Diploma& G. Cert.STPMSPM &PMRAccreditation of PriorExperiential LearningENTRY EXIT
  47. 47. ODL Course Development Team• Course Team Leader (CTL)• Course Coordinator (CC)• Course Writer(s) (CW)• Academic Member (AM)• Instructional Designer(s) (ID)• Editor• External Course Assessor (ECA)• Graphics Designer(s) (GD)• Representative from Learning and Library Services (LLS)• Representative from Information Technology Services(ITS)
  48. 48. Course Development ProcessWrap-around course: 12 months; Stand-alone course: 18 months
  49. 49. Course Development Approach• Use pre-developed proprietarycourse material from moreestablished ODL institutions suchas the Open University of HongKong (OUHK) under license:– WOU pays royalties!• Develop course material as wrap-around material to establishedtextbooks.– WOU gives away textbooks for free!
  50. 50. Need for OER1. Move away from proprietary course materialused under license;2. Abandon the model which bundled costlytextbooks with the course material;3. Develop all the course material in-house fromscratch as self-contained or “stand-alone”;4. Reduce course development times (stand-alone:18 months);5. Better utilise resources (CDT).
  51. 51. Institutional Policy on OERThe first official venture into OER wasannounced in the beginning of 2011 when theWOU Council endorsed the use of OERwherever possible in the development ofcourse material.WOU-OER Policy : Prepared by the Office of Assistant ViceChancellor (Academic Support) and approved by theSenate, Management Board and Board of Governors of WOU(August 2012)Available at:
  52. 52. Pilot ProjectTCC242/05 Web Database ApplicationA five credit hour middle level core InformationTechnology (IT) course (equivalent to a second yearcourse in a conventional University).The course deals with the development of databasedriven web applications using the PHP scriptinglanguage and MySQL databases in the Linux, Apache,PHP and MySQL environment commonly referred to asthe “LAMP” architecture.
  53. 53. Reasons Behind Course Selection1. the availability of required material as OER;2. the availability of official technical manualsreleased by and whichcan be used to cross-check the integrity ofthe OER material;3. the composition of the course whichincluded theory and practical exercises;4. the expertise available in the CDT withrespect to the subject matter.
  54. 54. Methodology1. Formation of the CDT2. Identification of the Relevant OERMaterial3. Adaptation of the OER Material4. Quality Assurance
  55. 55. Formation of the CDT• the CTL, CC, CW, AM, ID and ECA need to besubject matter experts in this particular area of IT.• the composition of the CDT needs to be perfectwith respect to the expertise as well as teamdynamics.• the team members needed to have a generalacceptance of the concept of OER and a thoroughunderstanding of how to use it within theCreative Commons license framework.
  56. 56. The TeamCDT Member Level of Competence1. CTL/CC Senior Lecturer in IT andComputer Science2. CW Senior R&D Engineer in SoftwareDevelopment3. AM Lecturer in IT and DatabaseManagement4. ECA Professor in IT5. ID Senior Instructional Designer
  57. 57. Identification of OER Materialthe CC was assigned the task ofidentifying the relevant OERmaterial for each of the topics:– a number of reputable and peer-reviewed OER repositories wereidentified and shortlisted afterdiscussion among the CDT;– each of the repositories weremanually trawled using their nativesearch mechanisms to locate therelevant OER material.Identify required materials(e.g. integration, C++ programming)Draft search queries(e.g. “undergraduate mathematics”)Locate repository(e.g. word of mouth, some linksomewhere, popular repositories)Run multiple queriesRead each resource to identifysuitability(openness, access, relevance)Identify suitable resources
  58. 58. Selected Source of OER
  59. 59. Adaptation of the OER MaterialAdaptationof OER byCWFirst draft ofunit xPedagogicalinput by IDSeconddraft of unitxQA Process
  60. 60. Quality AssuranceCC / AM•Vetting of the second draft of study unit x• Cross-checking the OER material with the official technical manuals•Amend second draft of study unit x•Produce third draftECA• Vetting of the third draft of study unit x• Produce ECA report on the suitability of unit x and amendments neededCDT•Discuss how best the comments by the ECA can be incorporated into study unit xCC•Amend third draft of study unit x•Produce fourth draft of study unit xCDT•Vetting of fourth draft of study unit x•Acceptance of the draft•Forward to Editor for production
  61. 61. Final ProductAvailable for free download at: OER content adapted from WikibookScomprised approximately 70% of thecomplete course material.The remaining 30% was developed by theCDT in-house which included theassessments, manuals, laboratory exercisesand course guide.Course has been successfully presented twicein January 2012 and January 2013 semesters.
  62. 62. Corse Development Time• Usual course development time for a “stand-alone” course is 18 months.• TCC242/05 Web Database Application wentfrom the Blueprint stage to the Approval stagein approximately 10 months.
  63. 63. Course Development CostCourse Type Completion Date DevelopmentCost (RM)1. TIC304/05 Satelliteand OpticalCommunicationstand-alone 01-January-2010 21,365.482. WUC116/05UniversityMathematics forGeneral Studiesstand-alone 01-July-2010 20,076.043. TCC240/05 Object-Oriented Analysis andDesignstand-alone 01-July-2011 16,863.354. TCC242/05 WebDatabase ApplicationOER based 01-January-2012 24,635.79
  64. 64. The Reasons Behind the High Cost• the CW’s time saved with respect to writing thecourse material was spent ensuring the integrityof the OER content;• additional content needed to be developed bythe CW to bridge the gaps in the disparate OERmaterial;• the standard WOU QA process needed to befollowed to ensure that the course material wasat an acceptable standard.
  65. 65. Cost Savings for InstitutionsThe true cost savings for an institution wouldbe visible only when more and more OERbased course materials are developed andshared freely amongst peer institutionsthrough a “Partnerships and Exchanges”model (Downes, 2007) reducing the need forre-development of common modules.Downes, S. (2007). Models for Sustainable Open Educational Resources. Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects , 3.
  66. 66. Licensing© 2011 Wawasan Open University. Except where otherwise noted, this workis licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit or send a letter to CreativeCommons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041,USA.This course material was published to support the learning of studentsregistered with Wawasan Open University. Wawasan Open University doesnot grant any degree, certification or credits based solely on yourcompletion of this course material.
  67. 67. Questions
  68. 68. About…Ishan AbeywardenaSenior Lecturer, School of Science and Technology, Wawasan Open University, Penang, Malaysia• MSc in Wireless Enterprise Business Systems, Brunel University, UK.• MSc in Engineering Management, Brunel University, UK.• BSc in Computer Science, Bangalore University, India.• PhD Candidate in Computer Science, University Malaya, Malaysia. Areas of specialisation: text mining,metadata, faceted searchProfessional Member of– Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (MIEEE)– British Computer Society (MBCS)– Institution of Engineering and Technology (MIET)– Microsoft Technology Associate (MTA)Official Profile: Profile: Profile: Blog: http://www.ishantalks.comE-mail:
  69. 69. Image Sources••••