Archive for the ‘OER’ Category

Towards Open Educational Practices

Friday, January 7th, 2011

In recent years there has been a lot of interest in the creation and use of Open Educational Resources (OER), with the underpinning principle that educational resources should be free for all. The term OER was coined in 2002 at a UNESCO-hosted forum as:

The open provision of educational resources, enabled by information and communication technologies, for consultation, use and adaptation by a community of users for non-commercial purposes. (D’Antoni, 2008, p. 7)

The rhetoric behind the notion of free educational resources and a vibrant community of sharing and scholarly practices is exciting and visionary. Despite this however, the actual impact on practice has been limited. Yes OER’s are being viewed and used by some teachers and some learners but they are not being used extensively. And evidence of actual reuse is even more scant. Such learning material is freely available and will often be based on well-tested and effective learning material. Organisations like UNESCO and the Hewlett Foundation have supported this movement and have provided considerable support both in terms of networking and funding.  There are now a plethora of OER repositories and many organisations have signed up to be part of the OpenCourseWare consortium (

The focus to date has been on the development of OER repositories. The naïve view was that if these were created and promoted that learners would use them and that teachers would repurpose them. However evaluation of the use of such repositories indicates that uptake is relatively poor (McAndrew, et al., 2009). Why is this? Well actually taken someone else’s OER, understanding it, deconstructing it and then recontexualising it is a complex cognitive process. Add to this potential technical and organisational barriers and perhaps the lack of uptake is not so surprising. In some research as part of the Olnet initiative ( we investigated why this was the case and looked in particular at how OER could be redesigned and used for collaborative learning purposes (Conole, McAndrew, & Dimitriadis, 2010; Dimitriadis, McAndrew, Conole, & Makriyannis, 2009). We found that practitioners found it difficult to understand the implicit design inherent in OER and found making choices about how to repurpose the OER for their own context was hard.

Would shifting away from a focus on the resources to the associated surrounding practices help? I.e. if we can better understand how teachers and learners are creating and using OER perhaps we can get a better idea of what the associated barriers and issues might be and hence put in place mechanisms to address these. This is at the heart of the OPAL initiative ( The overall aim of OPAL is to support Open Educational Practice. The belief is that if we can better understand the practices around the creation, use and repurposing of OER, we are likely to see better uptake and use. Further, the vision is that this will lead to improvement of the effectiveness of teaching and learning by enhancing the quantity and quality of Open Educational Resources that can be incorporated into higher education and further education provision.

To achieve this we began by gathered over 60 case studies of OER initiatives ( and from these abstracted a set of dimensions of what we are terming ‘Open Educational Practices’, which are defined as:

Open educational practices (OEP) is defined as use of OER to raise the quality of education and training and innovate educational practices on institutional, professional and individual level.

A database or repository of open educational resources is not open educational practice. The pure usage of these open educational resources in a traditional closed and top-down, instructive, exam focussed learning environment is not open educational practice. However, if OER are used to create resources which are more learner-centred than the ones existing before, if learners are involved into the creation of content which is taken seriously by the teachers/facilitators, if teachers are moving away from a content centred teaching to “human resource” based teaching, if learning processes are seen as productive processes and learning outcomes are seen as artefacts which are worth sharing and debating, improving and reusing, then OER might improve the learning process and then we talk about open educational practices.

Open Educational practices are having a “lifecycle” which is influenced by the entire open educational practice governance community:

·      Be it the national policy makers who are promoting the use of open educational resources,

·      The rector of a higher education institution who is initiating an institution wide open education initiatives in which teachers are asked to create, find, adapt and share OER in an institution wide OER repository, and in which educational strategies and models are collected and shared amongst teachers

·      The teachers who are encouraging learners to produce, share and validate content

·      The learners who are using open available content to create knowledge landscapes on study topics which better fit their needs than the available text book “one size fits all” style

Stakeholders of open educational practice are the so called open educational practice governance community. These are those actors who are involved into open educational practices from all perspectives, be it the policy making component in the field of education in which national, regional or local (communal) policies are shaped and implemented to stimulate the use of open educational practices, production and distribution of learning materials, the management or administration of educational organisations, teaching or providing learning environments, or learning in learning environments in which open educational resources are used to improve quality and access of learning.  We are focussing on higher education institutions and on educational organisations in the field of adult learning.

On refinement four OEP dimensions were identified: strategies and policies, tools and tool practices, barriers and success factors, and skills development and support. We used these as the basis to enable individuals and organisations to assess where they were in terms of level of OEP maturity (Figure 1).

Cube model

Figure 1: The OEP Cube Maturity Model

The cube model provides a system that helps in classifying the OER Practices. Innovation and quality that OPAL has set out to study resides within the blocks or between them – how the blocks relate to each other. To illustrate the use of the cube a couple of examples will be given. For example an organisation might be considered to be mature in terms of the dimension of strategy and policy if it has clear and effective strategies and policies in place about OER and this might be an example of an innovative business model for generating OER and making them widely available. Another organisation might be classed as mature in terms of tools and tool practices if there is evidence of  it having an online Web 2.0 environment to enable users to share and discuss the use of the OER. This might be considered innovative in terms of the use of Web 2.0 tools to support scholarly dialogue and good practice in terms of quality through peer reflection. We see the cube as having a number of uses: for benchmarking purposes, for guidance in terms of how to improve OEP and for reflection and comparison with others. The benefits of the use of the cube include: it enables and guides users in understanding how to think about the key issues, and it is flexible enough to cover the different stakeholders involved (including learners, teachers, managers and policy makters).

We have validated the cube through a number of workshops and expert panels. Overview feedback on its value is good. We hope to map the existing case studies to this and then encourage others to build on this over time.


Conole, G., McAndrew, P., & Dimitriadis, Y. (2010). The role of CSCL pedagogical patterns as mediating artefacts for repurposing Open Educational Resources’ in F. Pozzi and D. Persico (Eds), Techniques for Fostering Collaboration in Online Learning Communities: Theoretical and Practical.

D’Antoni, S. (2008). Open Educational Resources. The way forward. Deliberations of an international community of interest. Paris: UNESCO International Institutie of Educational Planning.

Dimitriadis, Y., McAndrew, P., Conole, G., & Makriyannis, E. (2009). New design approaches to repurposing Open Educational Resources for collaborative learning using mediating artefacts. Auckland: ASCILITE.

McAndrew, P., Santos, A., Lane, A., Godwin, S., Okada, A., Wilson, T., et al. (2009). OpenLearn Research Report 2006-2008.



A response to Stephen Downes

Wednesday, January 27th, 2010

Stephen has written some valuable comments on my ‘Defining OEP’ blog post. Couple of minor things in my defence and then some more subtaintive points to discuss! ;-)  Clearly my choice of picture to show the meeting was not a good one given Stephen’s reaction!

…but a conference session consisting of standing in a circle around flip-chart sheets would send me running and screaming into the nearest woods, never to be found again. So, please, let’s not make that an open education practice


Actually the meeting was excellent with a nice mix of different types of group work, use of flip charts, illustrative art drawings to capture key points, images on flckr etc. I found this a great mix and much better than the usual sit round in boardroom style meetings with one person dominating the meeting. Maybe we could have used more technology during the meeting but actually I think the face to face interactions were a key part of us connecting as a consortium at this point in the project.

Stephen critiques my initial starter for ten diagram which articulates the 4 different types of stakeholders involved in OER/OEP arguing that

…so, I’m not sure I like a model where ‘policy-makers’ (also called ’stakeholders’) are distinct from ‘creators’ and ‘users’ - people who create and use should make the policy, in my view.

Clearly the diagram isn’t quite right yet, my intention was never to suggest that the four roles were distinct and separate, rather that they are four aspects which have different agendas and interests. A ‘learner’ could very easily be involved in all four, but at each stage – when they are looking at creating, using, managing or ‘policy-making’ OER they will have a different focus of attention and it was this that I really wanted to bring out and explore.

Good to have some early feedback on this – I think there is a lot to trash out in terms of exactly what OEP is. I am reminded of some work I did a few years ago as part of the NSF/JISC DIalogPlus project. The aim (a naïve one now I admit) was to create a learning design guidance toolkit that would take practitioners through the process of creating learning activities. It would provide guidance and advice on pedagogical approaches, what technologies can be used when and why and a process of mapping learning outcomes, topics, activities and assessment tasks. The toolkit is still around if you want to play. Near the beginning of the work I thought ‘hang on a minute – what exactly do we mean by a learning activity anyway?’ A seemingly simple question… which turned into a mammoth amount of work and a very detailed taxonomy articulating the different components that make up a learning activity! More on the details of this are available in a chapter on the Handbook of Learning Design and Learning Objects by Lockyer et al. (Conole, G. 2008). I have a funny feeling something similar might happen with OEP – i.e. it seems obvious what it is, and easy to articulate it, but I suspect in reality the task will be much more complex.


Conole, G., 2008. Capturing practice, the role of mediating artefacts in learning design. In In L. Lockyer, S. Bennett, S. Agostinhi and B. Harper Handbook of learning designs and learning objects.  IGI Global.



Defining Open Educational Practices (OEP)

Monday, January 25th, 2010

Ulf group

Last week I attended the kick off meeting for an exciting new EU-funded project, OPAL, from the website:

The Open Educational Quality Initiative will focus on provision of innovative open educational practices and promote quality, innovation and transparency in higher and adult education. Beginning in January 2010, the two-year OPAL Initiative is a partnership between seven organizations including ICDE, UNESCO and ICDE member institution, the Open University UK, and will be coordinated by the University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany. The project is part funded by the European Commission Education and Training Lifelong Learning Programme.

As you can see the project has a strong consortium with some significant players/representatives from across the EU. It is also an important and timely project given the increasing focus and interest in Open Educational Resources (OER).

For us at the OU it builds nicely on two stands of related work – our work on OER (through the development of the OpenLearn site and more recently the Olnet initiative) and the OU Learning Design Initiative.

At the kick off meeting we trashed out the details of the vision behind the project, with its focus on enhancing quality and innovation through clearer articulation and support of Open Educational Practices (OEP). For me a key first task in the coming months is going to be to try and really unpack what we actually mean by OEP, what are its dimensions, how can we expose existing OEP and from this translate this into a set of useful guidelines to help facilitate better OEP? These are important questions that we will be addressing in work packages 3 and 4 of the project.  We will begin by undertaking a state of the art review of the field and then a more extensive quantitative survey. This will be followed by four in-depth studies exploring how recognised leading institutions in the development and use of OER have instantiated good practice in OEP. These findings will then translate into four guidelines – for learners, educational professionals, managers and policy makers.

So what do we mean by Open Educational Practices (OEP)? The detailed discussions from the kick off meeting are currently being written up and distilled but here is my started for ten to stimulate debate:

Open Educational Practices (OEP) are the set of activities and support around the creation, use and repurposing of Open Educational Resources. It also includes the contextual settings within which these practices occur. Therefore there are three importance dimensions to this:

  1. The stakeholders engaged with creating, using or supporting the use of OER. These can be further sub-divided into two types: those involved in ‘creation and use’ of OER and those involved in ‘policy and management’ aspects of OER. Creators: create the OER, and could be either ‘teachers’ or ‘learners’. Users: Use the OER, and could be either ‘teachers or ‘learners’. Managers: Provide the infrastructure to support the OER (technical and organisational) and the tools/support to create/use OER. Policy makers: embed OER into relevant policy.
  2. The range of mediating artefacts that can be used to create and support the use of OER. These include tools and resources to help guide the creation and use of OER, as well as the technologies to support the hosting and management of them.
  3. The contextual factors which impact on the creation, use or support of OER.

OEP diagram

Does this definition make sense? Can we provide a finer grained set of indicators for each of these three dimensions? What existing research and development work in this area should we be looking at to develop these concepts further?

This is going to be an exciting and challenging project, I look forward to working more with other members of the consortium on this over the next two years. A number of people will be involved from the OU – in particular researchers from the Olnet team (led by Patrick McAndrew), but also drawing on expertise from the OULDI team. Paul Mundin has taken on the role of project manager for the OU aspects of the work.