1

HEA/JISC Open Educational Resources Case Study: Pedagogical development from OER practice

iTunes U and the OERu: Two Different Ways to Reach the World

Authors: Terese Bird and Gabi Witthaus

Institution: Beyond Distance Research Alliance, University of Leicester Date: 9 July 2012

2

Outline Introduction This paper looks at two mass-use open practice initiatives: iTunes U and the Open Educational Resources university (OERu), as investigated by SCORE research fellows, Terese Bird and Gabi Witthaus of the University of Leicester. The projects were called SPIDER (Sharing Practice with ITunes U Digital Educational Resources) and TOUCANS (Testing the OER university Concept and Aspirations: a National Study) respectively. At first glance, these two initiatives appear to be at opposite ends of the open-practice philosophical spectrum. iTunes U is Apple Incorporated's channel of free learning material from worldwide universities, schools, and other educational institutions, and can be rightly referred to as 'the corporate channel of free educational resources.' (Bird, 2011) The OERu, which was initiated by Otago Polytechnic (New Zealand), the University of Southern Queensland (Australia) and the University of Athabasca (Canada, with the support of UNESCO, the Commonwealth of Learning, the OER Foundation and the Hewlett Foundation (Taylor, 2011 and Athabasca University et al, 2011), may be seen as one of the most philanthropic of the open practice endeavours. Its 15 member institutions aim to offer full accreditation to students studying independently from OERs, at a greatly reduced price in comparison to mainstream fees. iTunes U is already a well established platform, whereas the OERu is still being shaped by its partner institutions, with the pilot being scheduled for September 2012. Methods used in SPIDER and TOUCANS for data gathering, analysis and evaluation SPIDER studied and described the iTunes U implementations of 4 universities: The Open University, University of Nottingham, University of Oxford, and University of Leicester (which is preparing to launch iTunes U), and investigated the use of open learning materials distributed by iTunes U. Data was gathered via interviews with selected representatives from the participating institutions, a survey which was widely distributed on the Web and via workshops and conferences, meetings with academics and senior management at the University of Leicester (the ‘home’ institution), and via Twitter, which generated additional data from iTunes U users who tweeted about their experiences. In TOUCANS, baseline data about the OERu was gathered via Web-based research and interviews with 14 representatives of the participating institutions. This data was then presented to stakeholders in the UK higher education (HE) sector via the blog and at conferences. Responses were obtained from the sector via a survey sent out to members of OER programmes in UK higher education institutions (HEIs), and interviews with 11 selected ‘thought leaders’ at different HEIs. The data was analysed by being manually organised under thematic headings by the researcher, and in the final stages, a colleague with no previous involvement in TOUCANS or the OERu was asked to act as ‘reality checker’ – reviewing the findings in relation to the raw data. Both researchers maintained blogs and presented regularly at conferences throughout the projects, and in this way elicited further discussion around the issues amongst colleagues in the open education community.

3

Key lessons were learnt in terms of mass models for OERs While participants in both the iTunes U programme and the OERu network are engaged in sharing educational content freely and openly on a mass scale, the OERu is a more demanding project on its partners, as it attempts to address the need for low-cost, mass-scale higher education assessment and accreditation. This necessarily brings with it more risks and fewer perceived advantages for participating institutions than iTunes U, which aims to enable the release of educational content for a mass audience on a multimedia platform, at no cost to users. It comes as no surprise then, that institutional participation globally in iTunes U is significantly higher than in the OERu. ITunes U is not without its own risks, however, and it requires a commitment from senior management to dedicate resources and effort to it. From SPIDER, it is evident that capacity-building, integration of IPR clearance procedures into the OER production process, considering the use of audio-only (rather than only audio-visual) materials, and not demanding perfectly-polished material are the keys to institutional success in producing OERs for mass-scale dissemination via iTunes U. Also, while the use of a commercial platform may seem counter-intuitive in the context of open education, it appears to have been also central to the success of the OER initiatives in the institutions studied, at least to some extent because of the perceived business benefits in terms of marketing the institutions and recruiting students. A related key finding from SPIDER is that the marketing department has a crucial role to play in enabling the success of the iTunes U initiative in participating institutions. From TOUCANS it was learnt that, while many stakeholders in UK HEIs are personally in favour of the aims of the OERu network, there are significant stumbling blocks for institutions, including regulatory requirements such as those from the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). The timing of the research also coincided with the introduction of the new fee structure for English students in the UK, resulting in a general air of uncertainty and concerns about institutional survival, and limited interest in engaging in philanthropic activity at the present moment. There was, however, a great deal of interest in discussing possible ways to build on previous work done in the area of open educational resources, with MOOCs (mass online open courses) and MITx-type certificates or ‘badges’ (i.e. less formal awards than those given in mainstream accreditation) being seen as an attractive way forward with potential business benefits. For the OERu, or any similar global initiative aimed at increasing access to accredited learning opportunities and wanting to recruit partner institutions in the UK, it is important to ensure that the risks do not outweigh the perceived benefits of participation. A more detailed discussion of the findings from both projects is given in the case study descriptions that follow.

4

Case Study: investigation of iTunes U (the SPIDER project) Data gathering 1. Representatives from each of the three universities where iTunes U has already been launched, especially those who had worked on implementation of iTunes U, were interviewed and the interviews recorded. Similar and dissimilar approaches toward use of iTunes U and the different reasons to use it were drawn out. 2. An open survey was created on Survey Monkey and advertised via the project website and social media, to try and ascertain whether people know about iTunes U, whether they use it, and if so, how they use it. The results were divisible by their country and level of currently enrolled education if any. 3. Meetings with University of Leicester policy makers regarding iTunes U. 4. Meetings with about 40-50 University of Leicester academics to discuss the value of sharing out some materials freely and with open copyright. 5. To assess impact of iTunes U materials and ascertain their use, relevant tweets from Twitter were identified, archived and later analysed to discover languages used and how iTunes U materials were used and regarded. 6. A project blog was kept to record developments and findings and to discuss with members of the public via comments. 7. A Scoop.it topic was established – iTunes U as a Channel of Open Educational Resources - in order to help the author keep up-to-date with developments related to iTunes U, as it is a fast-changing platform. 8. This project was presented at many conferences during and after the project duration, allowing for discussion with many other academics and practitioners where ideas were shaped, disagreements aired, and practice shared. Methods of analysis and evaluation 1. Meetings with iTunes U practitioners, academics and policy makers kept the author informed of emergent themes such as the issues surrounding the costs of implementing iTunes U, the motivations for joining in or not joining in, and the objections of sceptics. 2. The online survey yielded quantitative data about iTunes and iTunes U use by country of origin and year of study. The archive of tweets yielded further quantitative data about what languages were used to discuss iTunes U, how material was being used, and opinions about iTunes U. Simple percentages were used to analyse the data. 3. The blog and conference presentations enabled ongoing peer review of the findings.

5

Findings about iTunes U 1. iTunes U is successful in making open learning resources available to many people, as evidenced by the download numbers in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Download numbers by university, as of late October 2011

2. iTunes U is successful in reaching people in a wide range of countries. Figure 2 shows downloads by country for the Open University's iTunes U site.

6

Figure 2. The Open University - iTunes U downloads by country as of 2 Jan 2012 (Note there is a typographical error in this figure which states 2 Jan 2011, but it is in fact 2 Jan 2012)

Figure 3. Tweets by category - how iTunes U material is used and attitudes of users to the material; 5-10 March 2011

3. iTunes U appears to be successful in providing enjoyable learning materials for the vast majority of those who download from it. Most use is for personal study, with a fairly even split between those seeking any material that is interesting, and those seeking material for a specific purpose. There is some evidence of reuse in teaching, using the material ‘as is’. Figure 3 shows a breakdown of the characteristics of comments made on Twitter about iTunes U. Findings about the implementation of iTunes U at three UK HEIs The case studies of iTunes U implementation at the Open University, the University of Nottingham and the University of Oxford show that each of the three universities launched iTunes U in ways which reflected their particular academic emphases, technological 'habits', and organisational philosophies. Handling copyright and intellectual property rights were tackled and procedures streamlined in each case. The researcher was able to discuss iTunes U implementation with other universities and colleges in addition to these, and a picture was built of institutions

7

solving iTunes U in ways individual to them; there was no single right way to launch or implement an iTunes U site or make use of iTunes U materials in current learning. The case studies showed that capacity-building within institutions is key to successful implementation of iTunes U, and that building the copyright-clearance process into the OER production process was an essential element for each of the institutions in the study. The role of the marketing department was also shown to be important in providing the impetus for iTunes implementation, underlining the fact that iTunes U is seen to offer business benefits to institutions. (More detail on these findings can be found in the section ‘Learning from the SPIDER project.) SPIDER outputs and outcomes 1. In addition to the full project report, case studies were produced of iTunes U implementation at the three partner universities, which have been posted on the SCORE website and the SPIDER website (http://www.le.ac.uk/spider). Findings were also disseminated at various conferences throughout the project, such as the HEA Conference in Manchester (July 2012), the JISC RSC Midlands efair in Nottingham (June 2012), OER11 and OER12, ALT-C, and many others, thereby aiding other institutions interested in exploring iTunes U in their decision-making and processes. Participant evaluations of these conference presentations have been 'positive to very positive.' This satisfies an intended outcome of the project, which was to share best practice and to help inform other institutions interested in using and launching iTunes U. 2. A result of the iTunes U discussions with policy makers and academics within the University of Leicester was excitement from the academics but some hesitance from management. Marketing expressed the view that the institution should not 'focus on the channel rather than the materials being distributed by the channel' and suggested that iTunes U was 'limiting'. Marketing further questioned whether OER previously released at Leicester by the OTTER project (www.le.ac.uk/oer) were of high enough quality to serve marketing purposes. It was finally decided that using a combination of YouTube, the university website, and iTunes U would address the 'limiting' question, and a new policy for ensuring quality in widely shared OER was agreed and is being implemented. As of June 2012, a beta version of a new University of Leicester website sharing out multimedia open learning materials, and rejoicing in the name Leicester Downloads, was launched at http://downloads.le.ac.uk. The Leicester iTunes U site is likely to be launched within 2012. A further outcome of this study within the University of Leicester is that more OER have been created. A new Vimeo channel was launched to accommodate videos too long for YouTube, and OER creation by and for various departments has been stepped up. Many of these newly created materials are being added to the Leicester Downloads website. The effectiveness and usefulness of these materials will be measured by observation of Google Analytics and by a satisfaction survey embedded in the Leicester Downloads site. 3. Studying iTunes U brought understanding of its trends within Apple's framework, and this has allowed some innovative teaching developments at the University of Leicester. With the announcement of the iTunes U app in early 2012, Apple shows itself to be embarking on a new direction with iTunes U. In addition to the audio and video podcasts which have always made up iTunes U content, new methods of 'building courses' have emerged. The purpose of the 'courses'

8

seems to be encouraging the use of the iPad as the main device from which to consume material, especially ebooks. Ebooks can be read on a variety of devices, but the iPad is attempting to corner the market on ebooks with integrated audio and video. Through the new iTunes U app and related software, Apple is encouraging instructors to create their own multimedia-rich ebooks in the iPad-only ibook format, and to distribute them via iTunes U. Understanding this has helped to inform the launch of two new distance masters programmes, one in the Department of Criminology and one in the School of Education. For each of these, iPads are being shipped to distance students often in other countries, along with instructions to load learning materials from a combination of the Apple Store, Amazon, and the university VLE. In future, a University of Leicester site on iTunes U should streamline this process considerably. Successful deployment of these creative learning methods using iTunes U in these courses will satisfy an intended project outcome that the University of Leicester and its students would directly benefit through launch and creative use of iTunes U. Learning from the SPIDER project Capacity building is needed for mass production of OERs. Each of the three universities tackled issues of mass-producing learning materials to go onto iTunes U in different ways. Nottingham uses ECHO 360, a system which can automatically make audio-visual recordings of lectures and post them to a server. Material is approved for release and copyright issues are settled centrally for the most part. The Open University takes a 'BBC-production' approach to its iTunes U videos, offering workshops to help academics present their work in a way that is effective onscreen with high-quality media production values, and focusing on topics aimed at attracting the attention of Apple so that it might feature OU collections in its advertising. Oxford chose a system of recording lectures audio-only, using portable digital recorders and assistants on bicycles bringing kit to lectures, to show the lecturer how to record, and then collect later, collecting also the copyright consent form signed by the lecturer and head of department. Oxford captures lectures that are taking place anyway, rather than creating special events, and conductions workshops explaining the benefits of licensing one's lecture recording as Creative Commons, as well as workshops assisting staff to release learning material through iTunes U. Oxford's comparatively low-tech and 'capacity-building' approach struck a chord with Leicester, where departments are relatively devolved, as in Oxford. Addressing copyright and IPR issues at the same time as doing the recording, and tightly integrating these two procedures, appears to be good practice. Although there are some in Leicester who tend toward the 'BBC-quality' philosophy, i.e. the idea that OER material cannot be released to the world unless it looks very polished and professional, evidence from SPIDER shows that this is an unnecessary burden and that learners are not that picky. SPIDER also provided data from Twitter indicating learner preference for audio-only over audio-visual material. Audio-only has the advantage of being much simpler to produce and generating fewer copyright issues, and so focusing on audio-only is a good way for institutions to begin with iTunes U. Therefore the principles of capacity-building, tightly

9

integrated clearance of material, focus on audio, and not demanding perfectly-polished material are the advice SPIDER offers. The marketing department is key In discussing iTunes U within Leicester, changing committee structures made it difficult to know who to approach for discussion, and what to focus on in order to gain an audience about open materials and particular channels. Individual meetings with academics were necessary, but institutionally not much happened until Marketing were persuaded by the argument that OER is good for recruitment, and good for the university's profile. Furthermore, actual learning material makes very good marketing copy, and since it has already been produced for learning, it should cost less than material produced exclusively by Marketing. These arguments finally encouraged Marketing to endorse the creation of several 'multimedia OER' channels, including iTunes U. SPIDER advises anyone interested in developing mass models of OER to get their marketing departments on board as soon as possible. Even a superficial consideration of the current economic and political climate should be enough to highlight the practical wisdom of such advice. What could have been done differently? SPIDER focused on gathering in-depth information from three universities about their use of iTunes U, but it could have gathered additional data from others on a more superficial level. As of this writing there are over 30 UK universities and colleges with their own iTunes U sites, and others who use it even though they do not have their own sites, and approximately 1000 total universities worldwide with sites. Gathering data from these additional institutions would have compromised the depth and scope of the data gathered from the three featured institutions, however, and it is difficult to know whether gaining greater breadth would have added significant value. Suggestions for further research iTunes U is a rapidly changing environment. The following points have developed since the SPIDER project finished. Future investigators into iTunes U as a learning and open learning channel are advised to focus on: 1. ebooks, iBooks and openness - Apple gives away simple software to create very flashy ebooks in the iBook format which only play on iPads. Can these be considered to be open? Even if if an iBook has a CC license, if it can only play on device, albeit the world leader of its kind, this seems to defy the definition of open. There are ways of creating multimedia-rich epub ebooks which can be distributed over iTunes U, which should be explored and good practice shared. 2. iTunes U penetration into UK universities and schools - based on the findings of SPIDER, one reason for reluctance by colleges and universities to embrace iTunes U in learning is a traditional stance of information technology departments to 'not support anything Apple.' For example, even many of the UK universities with iTunes U sites do not allow the iTunes software to be installed or accessed on student computers, even though it is free software and works fine on Windows computers. But the growth of the Mac as an accepted platform, and especially the speed of growth of iPad and iPhone use in the UK, along with the growing expectation that learning materials

10

should be accessible by any device a student own, will push this issue to the forefront of IT and learning technologists' agendas. The growth of 'one-iPad-per-child' type programmes among UK private schools will only accelerate the speed of this issue. 3. iTunes U penetration into other countries - data from SPIDER suggests that currently, iTunes U is accessible in every country. YouTube, in comparison, is blocked in China, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and many other countries. Beyond this is the question of the accessibility to iTunes U materials in areas which have little IT infrastructure. Future work should examine whether such areas can maximise accessibility to OER and open learning in general, for example by low-cost computers with internet access and encouraging downloading of audio material onto simple, non-smart phones for later consumption. Another interesting area is the 'leap-frogging' of previously deprived areas suddenly gaining access to good mobile coverage and an influx of smartphones allowing access to a wealth of open learning material. Can iTunes U benefit people in such situations? 4. A fruitful future research exercise would be to create an online survey and invite as many iTunes U-participating universities to share facts about their use of iTunes U. Not only would this widen the view and create more tips for those considering OER and iTunes U, it would also result in more data on how OER and iTunes U material particularly are used in learning. Seeing the use and reuse of open material is key to assessing impact, and future research in this area could build on the SPIDER study in this regard. Case Study: investigation of the OERu (TOUCANS project) Data gathering The TOUCANS data gathering was carried out in three phases:

1. Interviews were held with 14 OERu network members to establish baseline data about their implementation plans for the OERu, and their views on aspects such as the business model and the benefits and challenges for their institutions. The interviews were carried out by telephone, Skype, Google Talk or on the University of Leicester’s web-conferencing platform, Adobe Connect, depending on the preferences of the interviewees and the technology available to them.

2. Interviews were conducted with eleven UK HEI thought leaders from seven institutions, to

establish their views on the OERu concept. These interviews took place face-to-face, by telephone, Skype or Adobe Connect. Interviewees were senior managers of the Open University and the Universities of Leicester, Nottingham, Salford, Edinburgh and Derby, and two programme managers from the Joint Information Support Committee (JISC), the body that has coordinated and managed the funding for much of the OER work in the UK over the past three years.

3. While the interviews were being conducted with UK HEI thought leaders, a survey was

carried out amongst UK HEIs. The survey was sent to members of OER projects in HEIs. 42 responses were received from 29 institutions. The survey instrument was created in collaboration with a researcher from the University of Southern Queensland, Dr Angela Murphy, and formed part of a broader evaluation of the OERu that she was carrying out,

11

involving a global target audience. The responses from people in UK HEIs were filtered out for the purposes of the TOUCANS project. Figure 4 shows the breakdown of survey respondents according to job role.

Fig. 4: Breakdown of TOUCANS survey respondents (N=42) according to role

Methods of analysis and evaluation At all stages in the research process, the researcher kept the open education community, and where relevant, the OERu network, informed of developments, via the TOUCANS blog, the Wikieducator site (the OERu network’s communication hub) and the OERu mailing list. The data-gathering process generated a series of interview transcripts, which were presented on the TOUCANS blog, with the permission of interviewees. Survey responses were also reproduced in the blog. The SCORE mentor for the TOUCANS project, Prof. Patrick McAndrew, was involved at key stages during the project, particularly in helping to shape the research questions and providing guidance on the research methodology and instruments. In the analysis stage, data was manually organised under thematic headings. (See the two sections on findings below.) Because the sample sizes for both the interviews and the survey were relatively small, and the data gathered was largely of a qualitative nature, a fair amount of personal interpretation was required of the researcher in order to make sense of the data. The potential for subjectivity was reduced by introducing a ‘reality checker’, a colleague at the University of Leicester, Dr Alejandro Armellini, in the final stages of the project. His role was to review the raw data and the researcher’s findings, and to note whether he felt the findings accurately reflected the content of the raw data. This work culminated in a joint presentation by Gabi Witthaus and Ale Armellini at the HEA Conference in early July 2012, in which they discussed their interpretations of the TOUCANS data.

12

Findings about the OERu concept Business model OERu network members agreed at one of their gatherings in Dunedin (Nov 2011) to aim to ensure that their OERu provision equated to less than half a percent of their total offerings, to avoid financial strain on the institutions. Students should only be charged for assessment and accreditation, and that fee should be less than 25% of the standard enrolment fee. The business models in place for the OERu provision include cross-subsidising from successful departments to the OERu courses, as well as seeking grants for OERu students to cover the institution’s costs. In cases where institutions already offer Prior Learning Accreditation and Recognition (PLAR) at a fraction of the cost of ‘normal’ enrolment, OERu courses will feed into that system, simply bringing larger numbers of PLAR applicants to the institution’s doors but not adding any further costs to the institution. Perceived benefits of joining the OERu All respondents mentioned the importance of ‘putting a toe in the water’, to try to take OERs to the next level. There was a desire to offer sustainable higher education in a way that could meet the mass demand, estimated by UNESCO to be in the region of 100 million adults. The philanthropic drive was strong, with most interviewees mentioning the commitment of their institutions to serving ‘under-served’ populations. This was backed up by a personal desire on the part of most of the individuals I spoke to, to be of service to the world. Another major benefit of participation in the initiative was seen to be the value of collaboration with other institutions globally, particularly as some of the network members are seen as world leaders in aspects such as PLAR (variously referred to as prior learning accreditation and recognition, RPL – recognition of prior learning, and APEL – accreditation of prior learning and experience) or intellectual property rights within institutions. A few of the interviewees mentioned the possible marketing advantages of the OERu, linked to having an increased Web presence and enhanced ‘social responsibility’ profile, and also the possibility of increased enrolments as a result of ‘converting’ OERu students into mainstream students in the future. At one institution in North America, a benefit of the OERu was seen to be that it would provide structured support for students already in work-based learning schemes, particularly in large corporations, where mass-scale higher education delivery is seen to be a priority for some. How the curriculum will be generated The question of how each participating institution will generate the initial two courses required to fulfil their commitment to the OERu is being tackled in different ways by different institutions. Some are using OERs that have already been created by their own course teams, while others are using OERs produced elsewhere. In at least one case, OERs produced by the non-profit Saylor Foundation have been incorporated into the planned OERu courses, creating some difficulties within that institution in relation to course validation and quality assurance procedures, but drawing attention to the important principle of reuse of existing OERs rather than reinventing wheels.

13

How assessment will be implemented OERu network members are exploring a range of options for assessment of OERu students, including:

• Challenge exams (exams given to individual students on demand); • Portfolio assessment, interviews and other activities typically used in the recognition of

prior learning; • Using the same assessment instruments and processes as those used in the mainstream

equivalents of the OERu courses (e.g. assignments and traditional exams) • At-home, monitored exams done on computer with surveillance technology in place to

manage identity-validation and invigilation. Accreditation and credit transfer plans Accreditation within the OERu network could involve complex credit transfer arrangements between multiple partners. The ultimate goal is that the learner should receive a qualification from one of the participating institutions, that is identical to the qualification mainstream students would obtain. Existing credit transfer frameworks enable some degree of credit transfer between OERu network members, and additional bilateral agreements are being set up where necessary. Mechanisms for student support in the OERu The OERu network envisages student support being offered in a wide range of ways, including the use of a body of volunteers yet to be convened called ‘Academic Volunteers International’. These volunteers are expected to provide non-subject specific support by helping learners to create learning pathways, providing digital literacy skills support, and assisting with academic skills development. In addition, some institutions are planning to establish open, learner-driven social networking platforms where learners can get support from peers, and some are even considering offering face-to-face tutorial sessions, for example in regions where there is already an established ‘night school’ system for adults. Findings about the perceptions of stakeholders in UK HEIs towards the OERu Findings fell into two broad categories of response: those indicating a positive but cautious interest in the OERu concept, and those indicating deep scepticism of the concept. For those who saw the OERu concept in a favourable light, the key perceived benefits of participation in the OERu were:

• Potential business benefits (e.g. undergraduate students studying through the OERu might return as fee-paying students for post-graduate studies; also the marketing potential of being seen to be innovative)

• Contributing towards the OERu’s philanthropic mission, particularly now that university fees are so high for local students (up to £9,000 per year for students in England as of September 2012)

• An opportunity to build on previous work done on creating OERs • Potentially adding value to existing collaboration models, e.g. Erasmus

14

• Potentially giving institutions a platform for offering short courses • The potential for massive reach and global impact, especially in the light of recent high-

profile ‘MOOCs’ (massive open online courses) run by Stanford and other North American universities that have achieved high participation rates.

The more sceptical views about the OERu concept included the following:

• The idea of collaborative provision with other institutions (for example via joint creation of OER content), which was seen to be very difficult under the current Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) regulations

• The quality of the likely student experience was questioned, particularly in relation to the lack of structured academic support. There is a strong belief in the importance of social constructivist approaches to higher education within the UK HE community, and the OERu model was seen to focus overly on content and assessment, rather than learning processes, to the anticipated detriment of the students’ learning.

• The OERu’s philanthropic mission was questioned by some respondents, who saw it as patronising (imposing Western values and knowledge structures on people in developing countries) and it was seen to be ‘helping the wrong people’ – i.e. people who already have access to the internet and have digital literacy skills, as opposed to the relatively disadvantaged audience that it is aiming at.

• The OERu was perceived as being ‘parasitic’ on mainstream higher education, in the sense that it relies on mainstream academia to generate the knowledge and infrastructure needed for its successful implementation.

• The true cost of participating in the OERu initiative was seen to be significant by some respondents. It was noted that creating and maintaining OERs is an expensive process, and the cost of managing credit transfer arrangements was also seen to be high.

• Collaboration was seen as a double-edged sword. While the benefits of collaboration were recognised, the failure of the collaborative venture, the UK eUniversity project in 2004, was mentioned by many of the research participants as a reason for caution.

• While many individual respondents seemed to be personally in favour of the OERu concept, there was a sense that a general lack of institutional strategies and policies for open educational practices would hinder any attempts at implementation in the sector.

• The altruistic elements of the OERu concept were seen to be in conflict with the current economic climate for UK HEIs, in which the new fee structure for English students, combined with general belt-tightening measures such as staff recruitment freezes, has led to concerns about institutional survival.

In the light of the TOUCANS research, it is possible to predict a few likely ways forward that the open education community in the UK will consider:

• ‘Soft-badging’ (or the MITx model) is of great interest to senior managers in the sector, and is seen as less risky than the OERu model as a way of offering recognition for learning done via OERs.

• Related to this, MOOCs are seen as having potential to reach a mass scale audience and bring prestige to participating institutions.

• Relatively low-cost, no-frills higher education options are springing up around the country, for example the new Coventry University College providing no-frills higher education

15

aimed at older students who want to study part-time, the University of Derby’s new online programme, UDOL, and the Social Science Centre in Lincoln, where academics from a range of universities offer voluntary tutorial support to students who cannot afford to enrol as fee-paying students. More such initiatives are likely to emerge, all aimed at meeting the same need identified by the OERu, but with a more local flavour.

TOUCANS outputs and outcomes One of the outputs has been a substantial amount of dissemination about both the OERu and the TOUCANS research. This has an important aspect because the OERu ‘brand’ seems not to be well known or understood within the UK. All presentation resources (slides and, in some cases, recordings) can be accessed from the TOUCANS blog (www.toucansproject.wordpress.com), and all are available as OERs. Presentations were given at the following events:

• EADTU (European Association of Distance Teaching Universities) workshop (Feb 2012 at the OU)

• Open Education Week webinars hosted by the University of Leicester (Mar 2012) • Follow the Sun online conference (Mar 2012) • Cambridge OER12 (April 2012) • HEA Conference in Manchester (July 2012) • In South Africa: Durban University of Technology (online, Nov 2011); SAIDE and Unisa

(June 2012) • ALT-C (forthcoming in Sept 2012)

A book chapter, ‘The OERu: from vision to reality’, has also been written based on the author’s presentation at Cambridge OER12, and will be published in Okada et al (2012, forthcoming). A further unexpected output is the drafting of an ‘OERu compatibility benchmarking tool’, which is still under development, in discussion with OERu network members at the time of writing. This was created in consultation with selected OERu network members, in parallel with the development of the TOUCANS survey instrument. The aim is to enable institutions that are considering joining the OERu to determine their compatibility with the concept. The instrument has taken longer to develop than anticipated due to the fact that the seven individuals from OERu institutions who provided ratings for the various factors in the benchmarking instrument gave widely varying answers, and a negotiation/ moderation process will be needed in order for the instrument to be of value to non-OERu members. This in itself could be a useful exercise for the OERu; however, it goes beyond the objectives of the TOUCANS project. Learning from the TOUCANS project General lessons learnt that can be used by others

1. Many of the objections raised to the OERu concept were, in fact, simply objections to distance education. Online education is seen as second best by many people within institutions that offer primarily face-to-face tuition, and the quality of a qualification awarded for online studies is questioned. This view was occasionally tempered by comments about the good quality of the Open University’s provision, especially when

16

discussing the importance of structured academic support for students. However, there appeared to be little appetite to venture into the territory of online learning amongst the more traditional campus-based institutions that participated in the research.

2. There is great interest amongst senior management in capitalising (both metaphorically and in the financial sense) on the gains of the OER activity that has been done in the sector to date, and a desire to interrogate a range of innovative alternatives for the way forward.

3. The fee increase for English students is a significant concern for both senior management and academics at present. The focus for now is on income retention and survival, and philanthropic projects are seen as an unnecessarily risky distraction. This is likely to change once the impact of the increase can be gauged both in terms of the enrolment numbers and any new demands made by the first fee-paying cohort of students starting in September 2012, and institutions may well be more open to considering new ideas in the medium to long term future – especially in the light of point 2.

What could have been done differently? In retrospect, the concept of the compatibility benchmarking tool could have been foregrounded in the research, and consultation with OERu leaders around this tool could have begun earlier in the project. This might have enabled a finished benchmarking instrument to be generated by the end of TOUCANS. Future research These findings represent a snapshot of opinion within the UK HEI sector in June/ July 2012. Open educational practices in this sector are taking place within a developing and constantly changing environment, and the picture could look radically different a year down the line (once the impact of the fee increase can be gauged) or at any point in time if just one prestigious institution joins the OERu network, thereby possibly causing others to rethink their stance on the subject. Anyone interested in making use of the TOUCANS research findings needs to view them in the context of ongoing developments in the field. The question, ‘Where to next’ with the open educational agenda is still unanswered. The OERu is one possible answer but there are many factors to be considered, and many other possible answers. Further research focusing on this question would be of benefit to the whole sector. Conclusions Successful mass-model OER implementation may require compromise. iTunes U itself did not begin as an OER endeavour. It began when Steve Jobs invited US HE educators to look at an iPod and think of ways it could be used in learning (Chronicle of Higher Education, 2011). iTunes U has now expanded worldwide, beyond universities, distributes well-loved content and does not need to ask for donations for its survival. Do universities launch iTunes U because they wish to educate the world? Perhaps to some extent, but their main objective is to benefit their public profile, generate registrations, and possibly to draw in customers from the free iTunes U into iTunes for paid content. Included in that may be a

17

desire to do a public service to share knowledge. Individual instructors are often very philanthropic in their decisions to share but certainly motives are mixed: to quote a Nottingham instructor who distributes all of his lectures over iTunes U and YouTube, "...when it comes to making the videos available to a wider audience, perhaps the single biggest thing is that I like explaining stuff, and it feels good to think that people around the globe may find my explanations helpful.... Mixed in with this is the fact that I am representing the University of Nottingham, and promoting both my own teaching and the University of Nottingham’s resources worldwide... ��� So you could say it is a mixture of things ranging from altruism through professional pride to vanity!" iTunes U is a channel which seems to bring prestige to one's profile and has power to attract participants to the OER cause. OER educators should not be so purist as to disregard pragmatism in OER endeavours. At the same time, universities should not succumb to the temptation to put too much marketing material onto iTunes U, which only diminishes channel value and is self-defeating. To quote Open University Vice-Chancellor Martin Bean, "It's the great learning content that brings registrations." (Bean, 2011) Evidence from the TOUCANS project also shows that business interests are at the forefront of senior managers’ minds when considering participating in philanthropic initiatives such as the OERu. There is certainly recognition that altruistic goals can be achieved through small amounts of extra effort, but in times of scarcity when institutional survival seems to be under threat, leaders will prioritise projects that are seen to offer market advantage with minimal risks attached. In the UK HE sector at the moment, the OERu is clearly not perceived in that light. Even small efforts can lead to satisfying success and opportunities for growth in OER practice. From SPIDER, it has become clear that since iTunes U is allowing schools and smaller educational bodies such as museums and subject-specific organisations to launch sites, institutions do not need an army of BBC-trained camera people to create a site of good open learning material for mass-scale reach. Some, like the Saylor Foundation, are relying on simple PDF worksheets and instructional material to offer open learning material. The key is to have a strategy of providing material with good content, whatever the format, and to continue consistently. Growth should develop from there. Evidence from TOUCANS shows that the institutions already involved in the OERu network are contributing at different levels, according to their means and resources. Some say they are reaping enormous benefits with little additional effort, because of the knowledge sharing that is taking place within the consortium. The commitment to sharing the workload amongst the partners, with each institution participating at its own level and within its own policy frameworks, is seen as key to the successful achievement of the OERu’s ambitious aim – enabling access to higher education accreditation on a mass scale. Within the UK, however, there appear to be complexities around such collaboration, related primarily to regulatory requirements of the QAA, as well as a past history of failure on a similar collaborative venture in the past. UK HEIs might well benefit from carrying out an analysis of these barriers and seeking ways to overcome them in order to be able benefit from, and contribute to, global open educational initiatives such as the OERu.

18

References Athabasca University: Technology Enhanced Knowledge Research Institute, Open Educational Resource (OER) Foundation, Otago Polytechnic, University of Southern Queensland. 2011. Open Education Resource University: Towards a logic model and plan for action. Retrieved fromhttp://wikieducator.org/images/c/c2/Report_OERU-Final-version.pdf. Bean, M. (2011) Martin Bean Presentation on Open University's iTunes U Channel. London. Bird, T. (2011). iTunes U: Corporate Channel of Free Educational Resources. Leeds, UK. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/tbirdcymru/itunes-u-corporate-channel-of-free-educational-resources Chronicle of Higher Edcation. (2011). Could Steve Jobs' Stepping Down as Apple's CEO Affect Higher Education? Wired Campus Blog. Retrieved October 28, 2011, from https://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/could-steve-jobss-stepping-down-as-apple?s-ceo-affect-higher-education/32981 Okada, A. (2012 in development) Open Educational Resources and Social Networks. Scholio Publisher Taylor, J.C. (2011). 'The OER university: From logic model to action plan'. Keynote Address. Open Planning meeting for the OER assessment and credit for students project, Otago Polytechnic, 23 February 2011, Dunedin, New Zealand.http://goo.gl/nWoDO Acknowledgements The researchers would like to thank the many people who have participated in both SPIDER and TOUCANS. In the SPIDER project:

• Melissa Highton and Peter Robinson, University of Oxford • Andy Beggan and iTunes U team, University of Nottingham • Andrew Law, Ben Hawkridge and Catherine Chambers at the Open University

In the TOUCANS project: • Prof. Patrick McAndrew – Gabi’s SCORE mentor at the Open University.

• Jonathan Darby – coordinator of the SCORE programme at the Open University.

• Dr Alejandro Armellini at the Beyond Distance Research Alliance, University of Leicester –reality checker of the findings against the raw data.

• Dr Angela Murphy (University of Southern Queensland), who co-created the survey instrument.

19

• Colleagues at the University of Leicester who trialled early versions of the survey – Prof. David Hawkridge, Dr Palitha Edirisingha, Dr Paul Rudman, Dr Ming Nie and Brenda Padilla. Also Ali Ewing from University of Northampton.

• Dr Vivien Rolfe, Fred Garnet, Prof. Andy Lane, Prof. Graham Gibbs, Terese Bird and Stephen Walker, who responded to the survey (and agreed to be attributed for their contributions).

• Wayne Mackintosh of the OER Foundation, who facilitated communication between the OERu community and the researcher.

Participants in the OERu interviews: • Prof. Terry Anderson (Professor and Canada Research Chair in Distance Education,

Athabasca University, Canada)

• Dr Elizabeth Archer (Specialist: Institutional Research at the University of South Africa)

• Kevin Bell (Innovation Team: Leader of Learning and Development, Southern New Hampshire University, USA)

• David Bull (Director: University Preparatory Programs, University of Southern Queensland, Australia)

• Irwin DeVries (Director, Instructional Design, Thompson Rivers University, Canada)

• Vasi Doncheva (Flexible Learning Manager, Northtec Polytechnic, New Zealand)

• Wayne Mackintosh (Director: International Centre for Open Education, Otago Polytechnic, New Zealand, and Founding Director of the OER Foundation)

• Prof. Rory McGreal (Associate Vice-President, Athabasca University, Canada)

• Prof. Joyce McKnight (Associate Professor, State University of New York/ Empire State College, USA. Speaking in her personal capacity as a scholar.)

• Terry Neal (Flexible Learning Manager, Open Polytechnic, New Zealand)

• Paul Stacey (Director, Curriculum Development, BC Campus, Canada)

• Herbert Thomas (Electronic Learning Media Team Leader, Canterbury University, New Zealand)

• Prof. Sandra Wills (Executive Director, Learning and Teaching, Wollongong University, Australia)

Participants in the UK HEI interviews: • University of Leicester: Christine Fyfe (PVC), Dave Hall (Registrar), Prof. Grainne Conole

(Director, BDRA)

• Open University: Andrew Law (Dir, Open Media), Jonathan Darby (Dir, HE Shared Solutions)

• University of Salford: Prof. Martin Hall (VC)

• University of Edinburgh: Prof. Jeff Haywood (CIO)

• University of Nottingham: Prof. Wyn Morgan (Dir, Teaching & Learning)

• JISC (personal capacity): Amber Thomas and David Kernohan

• University of Derby: Julie Stone (Head, University of Derby Online)

20

Institutions that participated in the survey: • Bournemouth University

• Coventry University

• De Montfort University

• Institute of Education (London Knowledge Lab)

• King’s College London

• Leeds Metropolitan University

• Loughborough University

• Middlesex University

• Newcastle University

• Open University

• Southampton Solent University

• University of Bath

• University of Cambridge

• University of Huddersfield

• University of Leeds

• University of Leicester

• University of Manchester

• University of Nottingham

• University of Oxford

• University of Southampton

• University of Surrey

• Plus eight others that requested anonymity*

* Where two or more people responded from a single institution and at least one respondent requested attribution for the institution, the institution is named in the above list.