Based on the discussion and conclusions outlined in this report, the following recommendations can be formulated:
Rationale and enabling conditions
Higher education institutions, networks and governments have a range of rationales to be involved in open education. These rationales reflect different strategic priorities. At present, there is a risk that the agenda for widening participation through OE loses momentum. Yet, this is a key objective of the OE movement. It is thus recommended that the agenda for widening participation through OE is revitalised, and established as a priority at national, regional and institutional level.
In order to scale-up the take of OE initiatives, it is recommended that sectoral organisations (e.g. associations) have a key role in the establishment of systems to enhance university leadership’s 'buy in' in OE. This is likely to require greater efforts to further integrate OE initiatives and other strategic reform processes, instead of treating them as self-contained actions, to enhance staff’s responsiveness to OE.
It is recommended that sectoral organisations and HEIs be supported –as appropriate- by national and European institutions in this endeavour. In this respect, the establishment of additional incentives for HEIs’ involvement in OE should receive consideration. This could take the form of additional funding and/ or regulation. The inclusion of OE as an indicator in university rankings would provide a strong incentive for HEIs to be involved in OE.
Teaching
Open teaching is at the core of open education initiatives in Europe. It is thus recommended that HEIs and other stakeholders design and implement more effective systems to raise staff awareness of and expertise on OE -to facilitate the development and implementation of OE initiatives- and that they provide greater incentives for staff to become involved in open teaching in terms of career progression and in workload allocations. It is also recommended that institutions better integrate training on OE initiatives with the general training they offer, so that training on pedagogical, research and operational aspects includes reference to open education whenever applicable. Open education does not always provide coherent curricula and learning pathways that enable progression. In this context, HEIs and other stakeholders should stimulate the production of coherent curricula through OE. Today, the elements of OE that aim to offer full educational experiences (such as MOOCs) tend to focus on introductory and ‘taster’ courses (to attract large numbers of learners and attract students to more specialized regular universities programmes). Greater of learning analytics can also help to improve open educational experiences.
Assessment is key to the success of open education. In this respect, it is recommended that HEIs and other stakeholders work on the design of trustworthy and cost-effective assessment procedures for OE to increase the award of academic credit to recognise the learning acquired through OE.
Research
It is recommended that HEIs and other stakeholders explore ways to design more effective systems of incentives for staff to become involved in open research. These can include the adoption of models that require that open research measures be considered in applications for (public) funding or research assessment exercises.
At the same time, it is recommended that HEIs explore ways to better support academics in the process of inclusion of research outputs in open repositories and/ or explore ways to automatize that process, to ensure that a greater volume of research is made available “open” timely.
Looking at the long-term, institutions and other stakeholders would need to place greater emphasis on the establishment of systems for the conservation of OER, as this is a relatively neglected but crucial topic, given the pace at which technologies evolve.
Operations
‘Open operations’ has generally been an undervalued aspect of openness. Institutions generally have based their approach on making information openly available to stakeholders. It is recommended that HEIs explore ways in which open implementation and co-decision may be used to contribute to the achievement of their institutional objectives and enhance the transparency, engagement and quality of their decision- making processes.
Sustainable strategies
It would be important that HEIs and other stakeholders put greater emphasis on the measurement of the inputs to OE and of its outcomes. Both aspects have implications for strategies, which in turn may affect institutional actions and commitments in the area of OE.
Currently, many HEIs have rather undefined strategies in relation to OE, and depend on external subsidies or their general budgets for OE activities, which presents risks for the further development of OE. In this context, it is recommended that HEIs and other stakeholders explore ways in which the sustainability of OE initiatives can be further enhanced. This may not only include the diversification of funding sources and pooling of resources for OE initiatives but also (at the individual academic level) the production of OER in such formats that they can be easily updated.
It is recommended that European and national institutions put systems in place to ensure the presence of less spoken languages in OE, so that OE can be accessed by individuals with competence in different languages and fewer people are excluded from the advantages of OE.
Outcomes
There is currently relatively limited information regarding the outcomes of OE in the European context, which calls for greater use of systematic evaluations in this area. In this regard, it is recommended that HEIs, governmental actors and other stakeholders also expand the ways in which success is measured in the area of OE, to include aspects beyond volume of use, and that data is systematically collected on those success measures. These may include the contribution of OE to local or national needs, HEIs’ visibility, staff career progression, learning acquired, improvements in terms of teaching and learning processes, progress in education or employability results/ labour market integration.
Finally, it is recommended that HEIs and policy-makers ensure that reliable data on the profile of the users of OE is systematically collected at the institutional and systemic level, so as to be able to better assess the contribution of OE to the widening participation agenda.
References
Armellini, A. and Nie, M. (2013) Open educational practices for curriculum enhancement, Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 28:1, 7-20,
Alraimi, K.M., Zo, H. and Ciganek, A.P. (2015) Understanding the MOOCs continuance, the role of openness and reputation. Computers and Education, 80, 28-38.
Atenas, J. and Havemann, L. (2014) Questions of quality in repositories of open educational resources: a literature review. Research in Learning Technology, 22. DOI: 10.3402/rlt.v22.20889
Baggaley, J. (2013) MOOC rampant. Distance Education, 34(3), 368-378. Barnett, R. (2013) Imagining the University. London: Routledge
BIS (UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills) (2013) The maturing of the MOOC. BIS Research Paper 130.
Bossu, C. Bull, D. and Brown, M. (2012) Opening up Down Under: the role of open educational resources in promoting social inclusion in Australia, Distance Education, 33(2), 151-164.
Burd, E.L., Smith, S.P. and Reisman, S. (2014) Exploring Business Models for MOOCs in Higher Education. Innovative Higher Education. DOI:10.1007/s10755-014-9297-0 Carson, Kanchanaraksa S, Gooding, I., Mulder, F. and Schuwer, R. (2012) Impact of OpenCourseWare publication on higher education participation and student recruitment. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(4).
Castaño-Muñoz, J. C.; Redecker, C.; Vuorikari, R. and Punie, Y. (2013) Open Education 2030: planning the future of adult learning in Europe, Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 28:3,171-186.
de Langen, F.H.T. (2014) Strategies for sustainable business models for open educational resources. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(2), 53-66.
Downes, S. (2007) "Models for Sustainable Open Educational Resources", Interdisciplinary Journal of Knowledge and Learning Objects, vol.3, 29-44.
Epelboin, Y. (2014) MOOC 2014: Should universities enter the competition? EUNIS Journal of Higher Education IT, Issue 2014(1), 1-9.
Geser, G. (2012) Open education resources and practices: OLCOS roadmap 2012. Open e-Learning Content Observatory Services.
Granow, R., Dörich, A. and Steinert, S. (2014) Strategic implementation of “professional Massive Open Online Courses” (pMOOCs) as an Innovative Format for Transparent Part-Time Studying. In S. Wrycza (Ed.), SIGSAND/PLAIS EuroSymposium 2014, pp. 12–25.
Hilton, J. III, Wiley, D., Stein, J., and Johnson, A. (2014) The four “R’s” of openness and ALMS analysis: frameworks for open educational resources. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 25(1), 37-44.
Inamorato dos Santos, A. Punie, Y. Castaño-Muñoz, J. (2016) Opening Up Education: A Support Framework for Higher Education Institutions. JRC IPTS. Luxembourg: Publications Offices of the European Union, EUR 27938
Kalman, Y.M. (2014) A race to the bottom: MOOCs and higher education business models, Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 29(1), 5- 14,
Lažetić, P., Souto-Otero, M. and Shields, R. (2015) OpenCases: A Catalogue of Mini Cases on Open Education in Europe. Inamorato dos Santos, J. Castaño Muñoz, Y. Punie (eds). Seville: Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Report EUR 27446 EN.
O'Connor, K. (2014) MOOCs, institutional policy and change dynamics in higher education. Higher Education 68, 623-635.
Rhoads, R.A., Berdan, J. and Toven-Lindsey, B. (2013) The open courseware movement in higher education: Unmasking power and raising questions about the movement’s democratic potential. Educational Theory, 63(1), 87 - 109.
Schuwer, R. and Mulder, F. (2009) OpenER, a Dutch initiative in Open Educational Resources. Open Learning, 24(1), 67-76.
Vincent-Lancrin, S. (2004) Building Futures Scenarios for Universities and Higher Education: an international approach. Policy Futures in Education, 2(2), 245-263. Yuan, L. and Powell, S. 2013. MOOCs and open education: Implications for higher
education. JISC Centre for Educational Technology and Interoperability Standards.
List of figures
Figure 1: Summary of the study methodology ... 20
Figure 2: The OERu concept ... 39
Figure 3: The OERu logic model ... 43
Figure 4: Enabling conditions for involvement in open higher education ... 101
Figure 5: Higher education institutions’ rationales for involvement in OE ... 102
Figure 6: Content-related strategies to reach large audiences in MOOCs ... 103
Figure 7: Quality assurance measures used by HEIs in open teaching ... 105
Figure 8: Open operations actions ... 106
Figure 9: Funding sources for OE initiatives ... 107
List of tables
Table 1: Key figures on participation in FUN MOOC... 36Table 2: OERu’s input evaluation survey results to question: How would you rate the value of the following “distinctively open” planning practices of the OERu? 42 Table 3: To what extent are the following barriers or obstacles restricting your organisation’s participation in the OERu? ... 47
Table 4: The impact of Delft’s ‘Solar Energy’ MOOC on Delft students’ performance . 57 Table 5: Key metrics for the UC3M MOOCs ... 64
Table 6: Number of E-Textbooks by Subject ... 75
Table 7: Number of listed courses per learning provider ... 93
Table 8: Process of existing content integration in ALISON, according to the company ..