1. OpenER: A Dutch Initiative on OER Results and future Fred Mulder Robert Schuwer

2. 2 Agenda ­Characteristics ­Outcomes ­Results ­Lessons learned ­Future strategy

3. 3 Main characteristics ­OpenER is time- and place independent ­Easy accessibility (standard PC, Internet access, web browser are sufficient) ­The content is self-contained. No materials have to be bought ­Almost all learning material offered is in the Dutch language

4. 4 Intended outcomes (1) ­16 courses of 25 study hours each (= 1 EC) ­or > 16 courses (= 400 hours) ­a user-friendly on-line delivery system ­user-friendly on-line facilities for selfassessment ­substantial marketing and PR to create awareness with the Dutch population about OpenER and the OUNL

5. 5 Intended outcomes (2) ­opportunities for formal assessment and certification as a starting point for a Higher Education study ­knowledge on the effectiveness of open content delivery for stimulating participation in Higher Education

6. 6 Financials The OpenER-experiment received grants from ­The Directorate Learning and Working, established by the Dutch Ministery of Education, Culture and Science and the Ministery of Social Affairs ­The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation ­To a total of approx. €660,000.

7. 7 Measurements Main question: Did OpenER had any effect on participation in formal Higher Education?

8. 8 Measurements, sources ­Feedbackforms ­Linked to a course ­Two types: A (Short) and B (Extended) ­Two surveys ­Among registered users of the site ­Among regular OU students ­Electronic order form for regular OU courses ­Question: Was taking a free OpenER course a cause to order this course?

9. 9 Some figures ­Launch on December 5, 2006 generated a lot of publicity ­Several 100,000’s unique visitors ­12% returning ­24 courses online (4 – 45 hours / course) ­5700 users registered voluntarily ­Costs for creation €3000 - €30,000

10. 10 Examination ­Five courses offered the possibility to do a formal examination, earning a certificate. ­This service costs €50 for a user. ­85 learners applied for a formal examination. ­32 actually took the test, 29 of them passed

11. 11 Examination (2) ­Reasons for the low number of applicants ­Courses were offered free, without any guidance, support or intervention ­Reported by users: ­Certificate not important for me ­I am retired ­The course I studied did not have this possibility ­Employer did not find that important

12. 12 Proof of the pudding ­Question on electronic order form for regular OUNL courses: Was taking a free OpenER course a cause to order this course? ­During period of 13/2/2008 to 30/6/2008: 9,3% of about 1600 buyers answered yes. ­Deze sheet integreren met resultaten surveys en zo

13. 13 Results of surveys and feedbackforms ­Registered users: ­5769 sent ­980 returned (17%); 327 < HE education ­Among OU students ­8223 sent ­1073 returned (13%); 359 < HE education ­Feedback forms ­Type A: 1839 ­Type B: 429; 143 < HE education ­Web statistics

14. 14 Results (1) Age distribution

15. 15 Results (2) Visit length

16. 16 Influence on study plans Did OpenER had any influence on your study plans? OURegistered users

17. 17 Subscription for formal education Yes at the OUNL Yes at another university Yes at a polytechnic Yes at a commercial institute No Not answered

18. 18 Reasons for not starting ­Financially (‘training is expensive’) ­Time (‘study takes too much time with my fulltime job’) ­Type of knowledge (‘other interests, more on skills than cognitive’) ­No goal (‘I consider this supplementary’) ­Age (‘No ambitions anymore. I am 79 years old.’)

19. 19 Some other results ­From feedback forms ­93% reported the courses to be satisfactory ­Does offering these free courses affect your study plans? ­Yes, I know I want to start some form of higher education: 49% ­Yes, I know I will NOT start some form of higher education: 3%

20. 20 Lessons learned (1) ­For some users another language than the Dutch language is a barrier. ­Courses of 4 hours were considered too short to get a good idea of what it means to study a subject on this level of education. ­For courses that were fully webbased and did not offer the possibility to print out the course text, users asked for a printed version. ­Errors in the courses were reported by the learners. ­Read aloud versions were hardly used. Main cause reported was the automatic generation of a read aloud version of a webpage (using Readspeaker) with errors in pronunciation.

21. 21 Lessons learned (2) ­Change of attitude to open courses within OUNL ­Objectives for publishing open courses for faculties ­The courses should give a good picture of the main subject areas in our faculty. ­The courses should show how entertaining learning can be ­The courses should also be attractive for our own students.

22. 22 Lessons learned (3) ­Rely on quality awareness of authors ­Authors are already used to making self study material ­Support of top management is crucial ­Producing open courses should be a regular task at faculties ­Higher delivery reliability ­Not dependant on few enthusiastic people

23. 23 Future strategy (1) ­Continuation with modest extension ­Additional perspective: OER is basis for development of National LLL Network Open Polytechnics (blended learning) ­Extra: Spinoza series: Hall-of-Fame of Dutch scientists (Spinoza Prize Winners) (launched 19 November) ­Taskforce OER OUNL

24. 24 Future strategy (2) ­Debate on free schoolbooks in secondary education to be converted in OER. ­OUNL as advocate and expert in OER ­Focus on reuse/rework/remix ­New market: secondary schools

25. 25 Main question remaining ­Sustainability: business model for offering free courses ­Can it ever be without grants? ­Someone has to pay for it (the tax payer?)