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

2. What Studies Are About  How do faculty and students think about OCW?  How familiar are they with OCW sites?  Do they see some aspects of OCW sites as valuable?  Would faculty contribute their materials to an OCW site?  Would students contribute their time to help prepare, clear OCW materials? 2

3. The Four Surveys Danubius University of Galati, Romania Severin Bumbaru, severin.bumbaru@univ-danubius.ro Andy Pucă, andypusca@univ-danubius.ro Universidad Politecnica de Valencia, Spain Aristóteles Cañero, acanero@asic.upv.es University of Cape Town, South Africa Cheryl Hodgkinson-Williams, cheryl.hodgkinson- williams@uct.ac.zacheryl.hodgkinson- williams@uct.ac.za Glenda Cox, glenda.cox@uct.ac.zaglenda.cox@uct.ac.za University of Michigan, USA Joseph Hardin, hardin@mujoresearch.com 3

4. Studying early or non-OCW Schools  Faculty and students would only, or primarily only, be familiar with OCW sites at other schools, not their own.  This is unlike the current studies at MIT, which are able to ask faculty and students what they think about their own site, and how they use it.  And it is different from studies of OCW site users, the ‘pop-up’ surveys of active sites, like MIT and Tufts have done.  And it is different from user/learner evaluation studies such as Open U and CMU are doing. 4

5. Contribution Studies  Let’s call these kinds of studies “Contribution” studies, vs User or Evaluation studies.  There will be overlap in these types, especially Contribution and User studies, as the OCW sites develop at the local school  Key research questions are: “Who would contribute to the local OCW site?” and “Why would they contribute?”  These studies are meant to help understand the faculty whose contributions are the foundation of an OCW effort.  And, ultimately, to use that understanding to build a “culture of contribution” among those instructors 5

6. Routes to Institutional OCW There are great institutional and individual benefits to a comprehensive OCW effort, however:  Relatively few institutions around the world have a comprehensive OCW effort  Funding to jump-start projects has largely dried up  Understanding the foundations and distribution of support for OCW locally has become important  Building a case internally has become necessary  Faculty willingness to contribute to OCW is a key part of this case  Hence the value of local surveys 6

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. 7

8. Familiarity with OCW – Teaching Staff 8

9. Familiarity with OCW - Students 9

10. 2010 2008 2009 2007 10

11. GSI Tenure- track Clinical Lecturer Familiarity 11

12. Instructor Potential Use 12

13. Student Potential Use 13

14. Would Encourage Others to Publish OCW – Teaching Staff 14

15. Faculty and Students Like the Idea of OCW  Even though familiarity with OCW is low in most cases, teaching staff and students are receptive to the idea of using and encouraging others to use, and, as we shall now see, publish, OCW materials 15

16. Intention to Contribute/Publish – Teaching Staff 16

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

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

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

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

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

22. Familiarity/Contribute  Statistically significant, increasingly positive correlation between familiarity and intention to contribute for Tenure-track, Clinical, Lecturer faculty (older instructors)  Controlling for age/time as instructor  This is probably good. Could be higher, but the more older faculty know about OCW, the more likely they are to contribute.  And young instructors like the idea when presented with it regardless of familiarity  No statistically significant correlation with intention to contribute among GSI (younger) 22

23. Widening Investigations of Open Activities  Open content, OCW, is only one type of OER, or open practice undertaken by faculty  Open access publishing, open textbook creation, open data archiving, open book and monograph publication open learning object creation, are all examples of other open activities of faculty  What do we know about how faculty think about these types of open activities, and what do we know about the relations among them? 23

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. 24

25. 2010 OA Questions Please rate your agreement with the statements below:  I am familiar with OA publishing.  I place pre-print versions of my journal articles on personal or institutional open sites.  I place copies of my published, peer reviewed articles on personal or institutional open sites after publication in a journal.  I think that OA publishing is becoming more important for the generation and dissemination of knowledge in general.  OA journals are important in my field.  I use OA journals in my research.  I plan on publishing in an OA journal in the future. 25

26. 26

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. 27

28. Request for Participation Join the effort to research open scholarship activities by surveying your instructors and students 8 schools in Europe, USA and Africa have now administered the survey to their institutions (that I know about) More are in various stages of planning and implementation University of Queensland, Australia, is collaborating on development of larger “Open Scholarship Activities” version of survey – OCW, OA, open textbooks, open data, copyright... Schools have shared questions under development Universities that have already given the survey are planning follow-ups, so longitudinal data can be developed Developing protocols to make the data open are difficult, since this is human subject data, but efforts are underway Contact me at hardin@mujoresearch.org 28

29. Expanding OCW Data Base  Questions from UM OCW study available at https://ctools.umich.edu/access/content/public/surveys/portal.html https://ctools.umich.edu/access/content/public/surveys/portal.html  You can use these questions and administer a study on your own campus - as Sakai institutions, such as UPV, have done, whether or not you use Sakai: http://confluence.sakaiproject.org/display/UDAT/2010+MISI http://confluence.sakaiproject.org/display/UDAT/2010+MISI  I can help with your local survey and/or set up a survey you can have your subjects link/click to  As in MISI studies, it is important to cover human subject review issues, and lay the groundwork to share data under CC0 license  I’ll be setting up a site with results and data from as many institutions as I can, and with results from related surveys, such as use surveys; contribute yours 29

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

31. Survey and Analysis Service for Institutional OCW/OA/OER – Another Model LibQUAL+® is a suite of services that libraries use to solicit, track, understand, and act upon users' opinions of service quality. These services are offered to the library community by the Association of Research Libraries (ARL). The program's centerpiece is a rigorously tested Web-based survey bundled with training that helps libraries assess and improve library services, change organizational culture, and market the library. http://www.libqual.or g Since 2000, more than 1,000 libraries have participated in LibQUAL+® domestically and internationally, with participating institutions in Africa, Australia, Asia, and Europe. 31

32. Quick Recap  Familiarity is modest at some schools, higher at others…  There is a considerable base of support among teaching staff at all schools for OCW contribution  Students at all schools express willingness to help with OCW; so student support for production is there if it can be channeled  Faculty vary in Willingness to Use, Encourage Others to Use OCW materials  Different elements of teaching faculty support differently  There is a generational element to it, though that is certainly not all of the picture; contribution falls off with time teaching (age), and while familiarity is lower among younger teachers at UM, willingness to contribute higher  OA support is different, though related, and relations are discipline-specific  You can contribute to the research – please do 32

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.zacheryl.hodgkinson- williams@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 33

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.http://www- personal.umich.edu/~hardin/Talks/OCWC2010Hanoihttp://hdl.handle.net/10609/5261Assessing the Future Landscape of Scholarly Communication: An Exploration of Faculty Values and Needs in Seven Disciplines http://cshe.berkeley.edu/research/scholarlycommunication/https://ctools.umich.edu/access/content/public/surveys/a2_08/a208.html 34