From Project to Mainstream in a constrained environment:

Towards openness at the University of Cape Town

Laura CzerniewiczGregory Doyle

Glenda CoxCheryl Hodgkinson- Williams

Cambridge 2012, 16-18 April 2012

Structure of presentation

Institutional

Academic

TechnicalStudent tutor

Laura Czerniewicz

Glenda Cox

Cheryl Hodgkinson-Williams

Gregory Doyle

Institutional

Academic

TechnicalStudent tutor

Inculcating openness at UCT:An institutional perspective

Laura CzerniewiczDirector: OpenUCT Initiative

University of Cape Townlaura.czerniewicz@uct.ac.za

Insti

tutio

nal p

ersp

ectiv

eSome premises

• OERs overlap with Open access and Elearning

• OER part of a broader open movement• Innovation usually starts with soft funding

(external & internal)• Institutional context and culture critical to how

OER and open agenda play out

Open access ElearningOER

Insti

tutio

nal p

ersp

ectiv

e

Policy definition:Tight

Policy definition:Loose

Control of implementation:

Loose

Control of implementation:

Tight

Institutional cultural types

Collegium

Enterprise Corporation

Bureaucracy

McNay, I. (1995). From collegial academy to corporate enterprise: The changing cultures of universities.

Insti

tutio

nal p

ersp

ectiv

e

Policy definition:Tight

Policy definition:Loose

Control of implementation:

Loose

Control of implementation:

Tight

Institutional cultural types

Collegium

Enterprise Corporation

Bureaucracy

Insti

tutio

nal p

ersp

ectiv

eThe collegium type

• Characterised by – loose institutional policy definition– informal networks and decision arenas– and innovation at the level of the individual or– department. (McNay 1995)

• The organisational response – ’laissez faire’, few targeted policies or processes

(Rossiter, 2007).– Core value of collegium is freedom

• Defines organizational expectations in terms of freedom from external controls (Yee-Tak 2006)

Insti

tutio

nal p

ersp

ectiv

eUniversity of Cape Town

• Oldest South African university – Top ranked African university– QS World University Rankings– The Times Higher Education World University

Rankings– Academic Ranking of World Universities

• Medium sized– +/- 25 000 students– 982 permanent academics (of 5 442 total staff)

Insti

tutio

nal p

ersp

ectiv

ePrestigious research university

• 5 Nobel Laureates• Booker Prize winner• Numerous internationally recognised research

initiatives– Africa Earth Observatory Network (AEON– The Department of Mathematics and Applied

Mathematics is an international centre for research in the fields of cosmology and topology.

– The Department of Physics is home to the UCT-CERN research centre,

– The Department of Electrical Engineering is involved in the development of technology for the Karoo Array Telescope (KAT), a precursor to the Square Kilometer Array

Insti

tutio

nal p

ersp

ectiv

eTeaching at UCT

• Residential• Face to face• Almost no distance ed• Not set up for “non-

traditional” courses

• Funding subsidy for headcount & throughput (not curriculum or content)

• Centre for Higher Educational Development active, strong academic development

2007

Open agenda at UCT: projects

2008

2010

2012

2013

2009

2011

Scholar

Scholar

Scholar

Community

Scholar

Student

2014

Opening Scholarship

Our approach to the openness agenda

in the light of UCT’s culture

Insti

tutio

nal p

ersp

ectiv

eStrategic approaches

• Individual agency/ control• Maximum flexibility • Network / community building• Enabling (not requiring)• Champions at different levels

Collegium culture:loose institutional policy definitioninformal networks and decision arenasand innovation at the level of the individual or department. (McNay 1995)

Insti

tutio

nal p

ersp

ectiv

eHistorically

• Opportunities for open agenda in the eLearning space (CHED)(rather than OA )– Contributed to change strategy

• No institutional repository

Insti

tutio

nal p

ersp

ectiv

eMultiplicity

• Multiple strategies• Many small sites of innovation and

activity, aiming for agglomeration across the institution, to achieve critical mass

• Change at all levels of the university• Develop networks and build community

Champions

• At senior level– DVC signs Cape Town Declaration (2008)– VC signs Berlin Declaration (2011)

Insti

tutio

nal p

ersp

ectiv

eChampions

• Senior & middle level• OER Health Sciences - Dean

Insti

tutio

nal p

ersp

ectiv

eChampions

• Bringing the work of “early adopters” above the radar

Insti

tutio

nal p

ersp

ectiv

eChampions & change

• In our experience of our cultural context– Senior level support symbolic– Vertical relationships do not cause change per

se, only when actual projects in place (eg HS)– Champions work best in horizontal networked

relationships, building communities of practice• New roles and reconfigurations

– The rise of the non-specialist “expert,” (or the “extended professional”)

Incentives: small grants • 9 small grants in

2011• £ 800 each• Health Science,

Engineering, Law, CHED, Science

• To create and/ or adapt OER

• From course level to smaller resources

Incentives: small grants

Insti

tutio

nal p

ersp

ectiv

eAcademic agency

• Decentralised uploading– Individual academics upload and maintain

their resources directly • Pride of authorship

– Quality assurance with the individual – Quality assurance part of broader teaching

and learning systems, not separate• Minimal moderation

– Copyright compliance

Insti

tutio

nal p

ersp

ectiv

eFlexibility

• Granularisation of resources important• Whole courses• Single resources

– Ebooks– Presentations– Podcasts– Lecture notes– Animations– Images

Insti

tutio

nal p

ersp

ectiv

eInstitutional Community

• IP Law Unit• Knowledge Co-op• Citizen Science projects in COL• Enterprise Content Management Project• Eresearch• Library• Communications Office• Faculties

Insti

tutio

nal p

ersp

ectiv

eNew IP policy

• Work enabled by new UCT IP Policy– Specifically addresses issues relating to the

creation of OER resources and the licensing processes to be followed

– Expressly states the support for publication of materials under Creative Commons licenses

How we are doing

in terms of institutional participation

Insti

tutio

nal p

ersp

ectiv

eGrowth to date

01-2010

01-2011

02-2010

02-2011

03-2010

03-2011

04-2010

05-2011

06-2010

06-2011

07-2010

07-2011

08-2010

08-2011

09-2010

09-2011

10-2010

10-2011

11-2010

12-2010

11-2011

1-2012

12-2011

2-2012

3-20120

50

100

150

200

250

Resources addedGrowth of total content

Insti

tutio

nal p

ersp

ectiv

eFaculty contributions

Faculty contributions February 2010- March 2012

24%

8%

4%

16%

34%

3%

11%

Centre for Higher Education DevelopmentCommerceEngineering and the Built EnvironmentHealth SciencesHumanitiesLawScience

Insti

tutio

nal p

ersp

ectiv

eTypes of resources

Audio28%

Downloadable Documents

39%Graph-

ics/Photos

1%

Other3%

Text/HTML Web-pages20%

Video10%

AudioDownloadable DocumentsGraphics/PhotosOtherText/HTML WebpagesVideo

Insti

tutio

nal p

ersp

ectiv

eConcluding comments

• A steady upswell rather than mainstream• Integration of resourcing requirements

into existing structures• Acceptance of non-linear organic process• Slow approach more likely to be

sustainable & effective• A research-based approach to inform

strategy

Insti

tutio

nal p

ersp

ectiv

eReferences

• Czerniewicz, L and Brown, C (2009) study of the relationship between institutional policy, organisational culture and e-learning use in four South African universities in Computers & Education 53 (2009) 121–131

• McNay, I (1995) From collegial academy to corporate enterprise: The changing cultures of universities. In T. Schuller (Ed.), The Changing University. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press

• Rossiter, D (2007) Whither e-learning? Conceptions of change and innovation in higher education. Journal of Organisational Transformation and Social Change. 4 (1), pp.93–107

• Yee-Tak , W (2006) Student Expectations in the New Millennium: An Explorative Study of Higher Education in Hong Kong, Dissertation, unpublished dissertation

Technological considerations when creating OER -

“the nuts and bolts”

Gregory DoyleFaculty of Health Sciences:

Education Development Unitgregory.doyle@uct.ac.za

Institutional

Academic

TechnicalStudent tutor

Tech

nica

l per

spec

tive

Technical issues

OER team

Institution

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mandj98/3546292216/

Tech

nica

l per

spec

tive

UCT signs Cape Town Open Education Declaration 2008

http://www.capetowndeclaration.org/

http://www.slideshare.net/ShihaamD/finding-open-stuff

Tech

nica

l per

spec

tive

The ‘ordinary’ academic

• Enabling factors

• Division of Labour: Time and effort

http://teamdoubledouble.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/drivethruneon.jpg http://www.imageenvision.com/150/37952-clip-art-graphic-of-a-pink-guy-character-pushing-an-orange-orb-by-jester-arts.jpg

http://www.omnitechsupport.com/img/technical-support.gif

Tech

nica

l per

spec

tive

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/

Tech

nica

l per

spec

tive

Raise OER awareness and

interest

Source content(volunteers)

Clear copyright (dScribe)

Package OER

Review OER (internal)

Publish OER(repository)Publicize OER

Production Process

Tech

nica

l per

spec

tive

Content creation

• Creating interactive modules – e.g., click and drag, simulations

• Lecture recording – Convert PPT to video– Automatically

• Video recording – Procedures / lectures– Converting videos – Camtasia or similar

Tech

nica

l per

spec

tive

Copyright clearance & packaging

• dScribe– Images – substitute / redraw / permission

• Packaging– Bandwidth (video, compressing,

annotating)• OER-tech mailing list

– Recommended Practices for Packaging and Distributing OER

Tech

nica

l per

spec

tive

Institutional issues

• How will resources be distributed

• What software platform to usehttp://www.marketingmo.com/common/files/distribution-channels.jpg?c34083

http://image.made-in-china.com/2f0j00FeaEfyuKANol/Stage-Platform-XF3-.jpg

Tech

nica

l per

spec

tive

How do people find UCT OER

http://www.slideshare.net/mpaskevi/365-days-of-openness

Tech

nica

l per

spec

tive

OER Support @ UCT

Tech

nica

l per

spec

tive

Conclusion

http://files.coloribus.com/files/adsarchive/part_213/2132805/file/motorcycle-courses-training-wheels-small-77878.jpg

http://scm-l3.technorati.com/10/07/19/15067/community-manager.jpg

Tech

nica

l per

spec

tive

Conclusion

http://files.coloribus.com/files/adsarchive/part_213/2132805/file/motorcycle-courses-training-wheels-small-77878.jpg

http://scm-l3.technorati.com/10/07/19/15067/community-manager.jpg

“Why would you do it, ... would a student actually be interested?” Understanding the

barriers and enablers to academic contribution to an OER directory

Glenda CoxCentre for Educational Technology

University of Cape TownGlenda.cox@uct.ac.za

Organisationalissues

Academic perspective

Technical issues

Student tutor

perspective

Acad

emic

per

spec

tive

About the research

6 interviewsScience. Engineering, Commerce and HumanitiesFrom Professors to LecturersPurposive sampling for range of faculty and rank

3 who have not contributed- to find out why notAnd 3 who have contributed, to find out why and

also why they feel their colleagues have not addedPilot study more to followTest Activity theory as a lens for understanding OER

contribution and non-contribution

Acad

emic

per

spec

tive Tools: OpenContent Directory, PDF’s, PPT< Video,

Podcasts

Object: Teaching materials for sharing

Division of Labour: Academic as teacher and as researcher, CET as facilitators (Power and status)

Community:academics, departments, the institution, OER team, students, users of Open Content

Subject: The academic

Rules: explicit and implicit norms that regulate the university (e.g. Promotion is based on research published)

Outcome: Open Education resources

The Activity system ( Engeström 1987)

Framing the interviewsTools: Are their aspects about the directory itself that prevent academics adding materials?

Object: Teaching materials for sharing

Division of Labour: Are you concerned about the time and effort it will take?

Community: Are their concerns around peers in the department not supporting OER? Are there concerns around poor quality materials?

Subject: The academic

Rules: Are concerns around the rules of promotion being based on research output and not teaching materials? Are there concerns about IP infringement or violation?

Outcome: Open Education resources

The Activity system (Interview questions)

FINDINGS

Barriers: purpose of OERsTools

Subject Object

Division of LabourCommunity

Rules

Pedagogical Concerns about the purpose and use of OER

Implicit rule:

Outcome: Open Education resources

“why would you do it;...would students actually be interested? And my materials “...may not make any sense to anybody else without lots of structure, and notes...” “Who cares?”“Not convinced it would make a big difference to someone”

Acad

emic

per

spec

tive

Barriers: concerns about qualityTools

SubjectObject

Division of LabourCommunity

Rules (implicit)Concerns about the quality of materials

“..it would take some time to get to the quality that I will be happy with to getting it online...”

Barriers: culture of sharingTools

Subject Object

Division of LabourCommunity

Rules

The influence of colleagues, no culture of sharing

“...It is not valued by my unit, so I wouldn’t worry about it”

Barriers: timeTools

Subject Object

Division of LabourCommunity

Rules

Time

Time

“there is a lot of extra work here...I do not have the time...”

Enablers: an obligation to shareTools

Subject Object

Division of LabourCommunity

Rules

Enablers

ValueOutcome: Open Education Resources

“ ... I think it's an obligation to share our knowledge with people who can’t afford these resources..." "...increase reachability of resources that were previously only available in a few places..."

Enablers: Content shareableTools

Subject Object

Division of LabourCommunity

Rules

Content shareable

Outcome: Open Education resources

“ Not all teaching materials are readily accessible in terms of structure and content...other courses we teach are not so full of such rich multimedia materials...”

Enablers: Technological abilityTools

Subject Object

Division of LabourCommunity

Rules

Outcome: Open Education Resources

Technological ability

“...I have set up a system over the years and it easy for me to record lectures and share them...it’s going to be hard to get everyone to buy into this sort of uniform model...”

Enablers: Small grantsTools

Subject Object

Division of LabourCommunity

Rules

Outcome: Open Education resources

Small grant

“...the grant bought student time to adapt the materials...”

Enablers: stage in careerTools

Subject Object

Division of LabourCommunity

Rules

Outcome: Open Education resourcesStage in

career

“...I am at the stage in my career where I am not worried about making money from text books...’...”

WHAT CAN BE DONE?In the light of these findings

Transforming academic practiceTools

Subject Object

Division of LabourCommunity

Rules

Outcome: Open Education resources

e.g. lecture recording, repository

Alt metrics, Citations and credit in University reward system

Cases of use and feedback

Part of academic practice, support and small grants

Transform the activity

Awareness of need and purpose

Acad

emic

per

spec

tive

Open Education: some questions

Is it a personal philosophy or can ‘we’ grow a culture of sharing within our institutions?

What are the enabling factors to support open practices for academics?

“It’s part of my campaign”Using Perceived Attributes as a framework to

understand postgraduate students’ adaptation of academics’ teaching materials as OER

Cheryl Hodgkinson-Williams &Michael Paskevicius

Cambridge 2012 Conference16-18 April 2012

Organisationalissues

Academic perspective

Technical issues

Student tutor

perspective

Stud

ent t

utor

per

spec

tive

Enablers and barriers to OER contribution

Organisational

Signing of CTOEDChampionsIncentives

No policyNo rewards

Technical

UCT OpenContent

directory

Limited technical expertise

Academic

Willingness

Lack of time

WHAT ENCOURAGES STUDENT TUTORS TO CREATE OER?

Stud

ent t

utor

per

spec

tive

Post-graduate students’ participation

• One way to support academics to rework existing materials is to use postgraduate students – Masters’ level – tutors, graduate assistants and interns

• Shuttleworth Foundation funding for 3 students in a department and 2 in the Centre for Educational Technology, Hewlett Foundation funding for 1 student in the Health OER project

• Process similar to that devised by the University of Michigan – DScribe process – participatory model for creating OER

Stud

ent t

utor

per

spec

tive

Research study• Little published on practice or theoretical

explanation of:– “What might encourage postgraduate students to

rework existing materials?”

• Case study research of 6 students– 3 employed by a department (interviewed)– 3 by OER projects

• 2 from the UCT OER project (interview & questionnaire)• 1 from the UCT Health OER project (interviewed)

Stud

ent t

utor

per

spec

tive

Theory• Use Moore and Benbasat’s extension of

Rogers’ Theory of Perceived Attributes to explain the adoption of the new innovation of creating OER:

Rogers (1983) Moore and Benbasat (1991)

Voluntariness

Image/Status

1. Relative Advantage Relative Advantage

2. Compatibility Compatibility

3. Ease of use Ease of use

4. Observabiity Result demonstrability

Visibility

5. Trialability Trialability

Stud

ent t

utor

per

spec

tive

Compatibility

Departmental policy of sharingDepartmental open initiativesDepartmental website with open materialsAcademics’ personal websitesAcademics’ online textbooksStudents’ community engagementStudents’ online research activitiesStudents’ engagement with social mediaStudents’ interest in the OER contentStudents’ altruistic dispositions

I like to link to university sites to help answer

other peoples’ questions. It’s part of my

campaign. (Student 2)

Stud

ent t

utor

per

spec

tive

Relative advantage

• Relative advantage (more institutional than personal)– Institutional OER directory and/or repository– Indexing system of materials– Licensing system– Funds available I think it’s good for their PR in some

ways, just to have a centralised presentation from UCT [department] to say this is what we can provide, and say to anybody this is what you can look at.

(Student 1)

Stud

ent t

utor

per

spec

tive

Ease of use

Familiarity with dScribe processAbility to find alterative imagesAbility to use a range of softwareKnowledge of Creative Commons licensing

So it takes work for the lecturers to create new content. Whereas what we did it did not require that

much work from the lecturers side (Student 3).

Stud

ent t

utor

per

spec

tive

Status

Perception that institution’s image will be enhancedPerception that department’s profile will be raisedPerception that OER development enhances their CVs

A good thing to be a part of; it looks good on your CV that always motivates people (Student 2).

Stud

ent t

utor

per

spec

tive

Voluntariness

Willing to participate without paymentDeveloping OER as part of community service

I think we could have done it without being paid. Being paid was just a nice bonus (Student 1). … As you know we were paid to do this process, and we may have done it anyway, but it was good to get paid in order to help prioritize (Student 2).

There is a specific amount of community service and volunteer that you must do. I don’t see why this can’t be on the list, this thing is so big like building a house, important … they should put that on the list (Student 4).

Stud

ent t

utor

per

spec

tive

Visibility

Presence of OER platform

For many academics, there would have been no place previously where they could share teaching resources they were really proud of. So the project provided avenues for academics to share the content they created, providing visibility for themselves and the university (Student 6).

Stud

ent t

utor

per

spec

tive

Result demonstrability

Alterative metrics for measuring use of OER

As one can … track when social media is accessed, one can develop new metrics for measuring impact and engagement with the wider community (Student 6).

Stud

ent t

utor

per

spec

tive

Trialability

Control over uploading of OER

Yea there will be a link on the [departmental] web site. So perhaps what I can do is also put the links on the OpenContent. But we are sort of in the middle of trying to decide whether to post them locally or put them on YouTube. YouTube has its advantages and we cannot stream video locally. So we will probably offer both local download and YouTube (Student 3).

Stud

ent t

utor

per

spec

tive

What encourages student tutors to create OER?

Digital identity?

Compatibility

Voluntariness

Trialability

Ease of use

References

• Moore, G.C. & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3): 192-222.

• Rogers, E.M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations (3rd edition). New York: The Free Press.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5 South Africa License. To view a copy of this license, visit

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/za/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California, 94105, USA.

AuthorsLaura Czerniewicz Laura.Czerniewicz@uct.ac.za

Glenda Cox Glenda.Cox@uct.ac.za Cheryl Hodgkinson-Williams cheryl.hodgkinson-williams@uct.ac.za

Michael Paskevicius mike.vicious@gmail.com Gregory Doyle Gregory.Doyle@uct.ac.za

OpenContent Directory: http://opencontent.uct.ac.zaCompanion site on Vula: https://vula.uct.ac.za/portal/site/openuct

OER UCT project blog: http://blogs.uct.ac.za/blog/oer-uctOpenUCT Initiative: http://openuct.uct.ac.za/

OpeningScholarship : http://openingscholarship.uct.ac.za/

Follow us: http://twitter.com/openuctPresentations: http://www.slideshare.net/laura_Cz