Composed by Fred Mulder (TF Chair) June 4, 2007 Interim Report ICDE Task Force on OER

Mandate OER Task Force  to develop a report on Open Educational Resources,  aiming to contributing to the global movement of OER,  adding specific ‘ICDE’ flavour and value  by adopting the self-and-distance-learning perspective rather than the current mainstream content-in-classroom perspective

Members OER Task Force  Fred Mulder (Chair), OUNL (also chair of EADTU OER TF)  Nick Allen, University of Maryland University College  Susan D'Antoni, IIEP / UNESCO  Stuart Hamilton, Open Universities Australia  Helmut Hoyer, FernUni in Hagen / Acting ICDE President  Sally Johnstone, Winona State University  Fredric M. Litto, President of ABED, Brazil  Bernard Loing, ICDE Permanent Delegate to UNESCO  Frits Pannekoek, Athabasca University  Paulina Pannen, SEAMEO SEAMOLEC, Indonesia  Barney Pityana, University of South Africa  Reidar Roll, Secretary General ICDE  Tarek Shawki, Section IS and ICT in Education / UNESCO  Atwi Suparman, Universitas Terbuka, Indonesia  David Vincent, The Open University

Activities OER Task Force  Inquiry among the ICDE membership (preparatory activity)  Kick-off meeting at UNESCO’s Headquarters in Paris (Nov 12-13, 2006)  Reviewing by TF members of the OECD OER Report in its final draft version  Wrap-up meeting directly after the SCOP Meeting

OER Inquiry ICDE members (1)  Response: 17%  68% definitely acquainted with the movement,  60% involved in OER project (or planning to …)  92% interested in participating in ICDE activities

OER Inquiry ICDE members (2) Opportunities  Easy access to quality content, reaching a wider audience  Cost effectiveness in developing learning materials and support  Greater volume of learning resources available to all  Quality learning materials can be improved  Greater variety of learning resources will create more flexible learning opportunities  Sharing of available resources, more chance on partnerships

OER Inquiry ICDE members (3) Threats  Copyright, IPR issues  Quality: OER without appropriate review can lead to low quality materials  Cultural domination / Globalization  Lack of a viable new business model  Well-known “brand” institutions may attract even more students  “Not invented here” syndrome  Lack of initiative: less incentive to produce knowledge (research, innovation)  Content is not the same as learning materials

Kick-off meeting TF in Paris (1) Summary conclusions (1)  We should not address all kinds of general OER issues (that is being done by many others already), but rather concentrate on the self-study and learner-centred approach in OER materials, in other words the ICDE flavour in OER  We can lend from a variety of rich sources: UNESCO, Hewlett Foundation, OECD, Open Courseware Consortium, EADTU, …  There is a need for a fundamental reflection of the OER definition within the context of the open and flexible learning model as applied - although in some variety - throughout the ICDE membership  An extremely important issue is the business model, as is the cultural, linguistic, political and economic diversity

Kick-off meeting TF in Paris (2) Summary conclusions (2)  We underline the primary question: “How can OER contribute to respond to the ‘Education for all’ UNESCO policy, capacity building, widening participation and access?” (emphasizing the developing countries context)  And the secondary question: “What role can be attributed to OER in developing or strengthening a knowledge-based society?” (emphasizing the developed countries context).

Review OECD OER Report (1) OECD OER Report shows excellence:  It is a very relevant and readable report  It has the characteristics of an overviewing report  But it is also giving direction on how to tackle some of the major OER issues in an appropriate pragmatic way Review input has come from the TF members: Susan D’Antoni Stuart Hamilton Helmut Hoyer Sally Johnstone Frits Pannekoek Paulina Pannen Tian Belawati (on behalf of Atwi Suparman).

Review OECD OER Report (2) (B) LifeLong Learning is mentioned in chapter 1 and is being referred to in the recommendations in the final chapter, but elsewhere does not receive much attention. The natural bridging between informal, non-formal and formal learning by OER and the paramount opportunities this offers to widening and increasing participation in HE, however, make OER probably a most powerful instrument in the area of LifeLong Learning (LLL). Even more relevant, it seems, than in the regular educational university environment where young students take their initial university degree directly after secondary school.

Review OECD OER Report (3) (C) Public funding is being referred to in chapter 1, as in the final chapter. Thinking of knowledge as a public good, indeed giving it for free, and the supposed responsibility of governments for access, quality and efficiency of HE (and education in general), would justify a ‘good’ debate on the funding role of governments. Probably funding schemes require some amendments in order to be able to accommodate for the notion that OER should be a public affair.

Review OECD OER Report (4) (D) In the LLL perspective the freely available content on the Internet should empower learners to really study on their own in an open and flexible learning environment, with no (avoidable) references to a teacher, a classroom or an educational institution. This does not happen by accident or through the deployment of ad hoc initiatives, but rather requires structural and explicit learner-centred content design instead of the conventional teacher-centred content approach.

Review OECD OER Report (5) (E) One might question whether for Openness the 'no cost' attribute is most fundamental, or that it actually is a complex of mechanisms that take away all kinds of traditional existing barriers: institutional registration, required diplomas / certificates, on-campus classes and face-to-face meetings, fixed schedules, rigid pacing, over- specified programmes, too big programme components, etcetera. Here actually the characteristic Openness of the Open and Distance Learning (ODL) Universities is at stake: in its broadest interpretation open as to access, places, scheduling, pacing, and combining courses, as well as open to people, methods and ideas.

Review OECD OER Report (6) (E)+ Figure 2.2 distinguishes three aspects of Openness: 1. in the social domain 2. in the technical domain 3. as a characteristic of the resource. Clearly there are good arguments to add a fourth one: 4. of the educational system. By the latter, Openness is situated in the much older movement initiated by the ODL Universities. Combining this with the three new aspects of Openness linked to OER, could make ODL Universities important players in the OER movement.

Review OECD OER Report (7) (F) The users of OER appear to come from all over the world. Many seem to be well-educated self-learners, but educators are probably also prominent users.” Although we might judge this result to be disappointing, it is not surprising since the OER materials generally are not designed for self-study and that‘s why a high level of education is required in order to be able to learn without additional guidance or support. This means that the potential of OER is heavily underexploited. The report refers to three OER initiatives from ODL Universities in Europe. More about this in the following session here at SCOP2007. These OER activities can be considered as a new generation ('second wave') in the OER development, since their learning materials are explicitly designed for self-study or - in other words - independent learning.

Review OECD OER Report (8) (M) The report fails to provide concrete sound economic models in an open access environment. In this respect it is worthwile to refer to Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams who in Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything (2007) do offer a number of insights how to make revenue by, for example, involving wider communities. HE institutions will find considerable revenues, not from their courseware, but rather from credentialing, from examination processes, and from personal support to learners.

Review OECD OER Report (9) (N) In regions and areas where ICT possibilities are scarce there is a danger that ‘the (prospective) users are left behind’. So, a prerequisite for a successful OER movement is easier and better access to ICT facilities, which implies that this should have a high priority in any OER action plan.

Review OECD OER Report (10) (P) Indeed, a major impediment to OER access is language. OER materials are being created in different languages and as yet, we do not have automated translation systems available. To lower this barrier, educators in different countries will have to get more engaged in translating and creating their own OER materials. (Q) Generally translating is not enough since the conversion of the learning materials should also include adaptation to a different social-cultural context. For this so-called ‘localization’ process automation is no option, which implies ‘hard labour’. Translation + localization is one of the assets of the European MORIL project.

Review OECD OER Report (11) (S) OER is warmly welcomed by the developing countries, because this will provide access for students and institutions to learning resources, which previously were restricted to specific institutional use only. There also exist, however, serious barriers for the use of OER in developing countries:  the low degree of access to ICT facilities and the corresponding high costs  the social and cultural context for the learners and the society in which they live, which may be very different from the environment where the materials have been developed. For institutions in developing countries this would imply the need to select, contextualize and adapt the content for their students (localization).

Review OECD OER Report (12) (V) The Quality Assurance (QA) issue is addressed in chapter 7 but its extreme importance cannot be overestimated. It is something that the ODL Universities through their strong reputations regarding high quality learning materials could contribute to easily, that is by labelling their OER materials with their brand names (as is suggested in this chapter). In Europe the EADTU has run a QA project, called E-xcellence, addressing the quality of e-learning along various aspects. The outcomes have been generally applauded, are very practical for direct operational use, and might be valuable for the QA of OER.

Further work for the Task Force We prefer the ICDE SCOP 2007 Meeting to set the agenda for the further TF work. The SCOP Meeting acting temporarily as an extension of the TF, developing feedback, critically reflecting, generating ideas, setting priorities, and giving direction to the OER future for ICDE and its membership …