1. OCW Familiarity, Use and Production by Instructors and Students: Early Results from a University of Queensland Survey 1 Joseph Hardin, Director, Mujo Research Phil Long, Professor & Director, CEIT Roland Sussex, Research Fellow, CEIT Deanne Gannaway, Senior Lecturer, TEDI Gerhard Tromp, Honours Student, Psychology

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

12. The Four Surveys University of Queensland 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.za Glenda Cox, glenda.cox@uct.ac.za University of Michigan, USA Joseph Hardin, hardin@mujoresearch.com 12

13. 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. 13

14. 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 14

15. Familiarity - Instructors

16. Familiarity with OCW - Students 16

17. GSI Tenure- track Clinical Lecturer Familiarity 17

18. Instructor Potential Use 18

19. Student Potential Use 19

20. Student Uses

21. 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, as we shall now see, publishing, and encouraging others to publish, local OCW materials 21

22. Would Encourage Others to Publish OCW – Teaching Staff 22

23. Intention to Contribute/Publish – Teaching Staff 23

24. Intention to Contribute Time to Help Publish OCW - Students 24

25. UQ Teaching Academics 56% Agreed or Strongly Agreed with: I think that UQ should join other institutions of higher education in participating in Open Courseware. 14% Disagreed or Strongly Disagreed

26. UQ Administrators 73% Agreed or Strongly Agreed with: I would support the publishing of course materials and other educational materials on a UQ Open Courseware site 6% Disagreed or Strongly Disagreed

27. UQ Administrators 72% Agreed or Strongly Agreed with: I think that UQ should join other institutions of higher education in participating in Open Courseware. 7% Disagreed or Strongly Disagreed

28. Contribution 2010 GSI Tenure- track ClinicalLecturer 52% 48%42% 40% 28

29. 50% 46%48% 34% Contribution 2009 GSI Tenure- track ClinicalLecturer % = Agree + Strongly Agree 29

30. Contribution Willingness VS Time as Faculty UM 2010 survey More Willing To Publish OCW More Time as Faculty 30

31. Generational? UM-2009 Holds within categories of Tenure- track, Clinical, Lecturer 31

32. 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? 32

33. 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. 33

34. 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. 34

35. 35

36. 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. 36

37. UQ Researchers and Open Access 78% Agreed or Strongly Agreed with: I think that OA publishing is becoming more important for disseminating knowledge 5% Disagreed or Strongly Disagreed

38. UQ Researchers 57% Agreed or Strongly Agreed with: OA journals are important in my field 16% Disagreed or Strongly Disagreed 50% Agreed or Strongly Agreed with: I plan on publishing in an OA journal in the future. 15% Disagreed or Strongly Disagreed

39. U Queensland Open Access - Researchers

40. 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, but this is generally high  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 participation is considerable and growing; relations are discipline-specific 40

41. Thanks Questions and results from UM OCW study available at https://ctools.umich.edu/access/content/public/surveys/portal.html 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 41

42. 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. 42