The paper presents the result of a multilingual empirical survey on the ‘micro level factors’ of using, creating sharing and reusing open educational resources. It starts from the assumption that current models of OER integration are often lacking factors to support the creation of a sustainable open educational practice culture in organizations. This results into a low absorption capacity: Even if OER then are available and accessible in an organization, they are often not used. Micro level factors for integration of OER into teaching and learning on basis of the results of an empirical survey are presented and interpreted. They are used to enhance the OER logic model(s) into an “enhanced OER logic model” which, in addition to create equalized access, is capable of creating a culture of open educational practices, as well.

1. IF WE OPEN IT – WILL THEY COME? TOWARDS A NEW OER LOGIC
MODEL
Ulf-Daniel Ehlers, University Duisburg-Essen, Universitaetsstr. 9, 45141 Essen, Germany
[http://www.ude.de]
Abstract
The paper presents the result of a multilingual empirical survey on the ‘micro level factors’
of using, creating sharing and reusing open educational resources. It starts from the
assumption that current models of OER integration are often lacking factors to support the
creation of a sustainable open educational practice culture in organizations. This results into
a low absorption capacity: Even if OER then are available and accessible in an
organization, they are often not used. Micro level factors for integration of OER into
teaching and learning on basis of the results of an empirical survey are presented and
interpreted. They are used to enhance the OER logic model(s) into an “enhanced OER logic
model” which, in addition to create equalized access, is capable of creating a culture of
open educational practices, as well.
1.
Introduction
In 2012 it will be 10 years since the UNESCO has coined the term “open educational
resources” (OER)(UNESCO 2002). A few years down the line the concept had become
popular. The OECD suggested with their report in 2007 that the concept of “Giving away
knowledge for free” had made a considerable carrier and outlined areas in which further
work would be necessary to boost openness for educational resources, amongst them
predominantly emphasizing to improve access to OER on a global scale (OECD 2007). The
public debate on OER became more and more aligned with the UNESCO decade program
“Education for All” which strives for universal access to primary education by 2015. It
aims at building equal access for everyone to education. In the same year of the OECD
report, Atkins et al. (2007) made a global analysis of OER initiatives for the Hewlett
Foundation and developed the “OER Logic Model”. It suggests that equal access to (open)
educational resources can only be developed if certain factors were met. In their model they
stated as the ultimate goal of OER activities to build more and better access but also
included emphasis on aspects beyond access, stresses the need to further develop OER
1

2. usage aspects and also mentions reduction of barriers. The model is an important step in the
history of understanding the impact and perception of OER because it stresses for the first
time in OER research the importance of addressing OER micro level factors like OER
usage, whereas before initiatives and programmes had largely focused on macro level
factors, as for example infrastructure and access.
In an analysis of publicly funded and Foundation funded OER initiatives worldwide,
Stacey (2010) shows that focus of current well known OER initiatives is on creation and
publication of OERs. Use and reuse are still somewhat underrepresented; strategic aspects
like business models, incentive strategies for creation use and reuse are not broadly touched
upon (Stacey 2010). Stacey’s paper marks an additional step in research literature claiming
the importance of additional efforts complementing infrastructural and access-related
initiatives. If OER are to gain relevance in mainstream higher education (HE) more efforts
to understand motivations, incentives, and creating an open culture in educational
organisations is seen as important (ibid). Today it can be summarized that although OER
are high on the agenda of social and inclusion policies and supported by many stakeholders
of the educational sphere, their use in HE has not yet reached the critical threshold. In this
research paper we suggest that this has to do with too little consideration of how to
understand, introduce, foster and support OER on the micro level of organisations, whereas
‘micro level’ is defined as the practice level of creating, sharing or using OER, or short:
open educational practice (OEP). OEP constitute the range of practices around the creation,
use and management of open educational resources with the intent to improve quality and
to innovate education (Ehlers 2011).
In chapter two we are outlining the research design. We are describing the macro and
micro level model for OER implementation in organisations and explain the importance of
balancing both factors with each other. In addition we describe the data gathering
methodology, target group and field phase of the multilingual online survey.
In chapter three we are analyzing and presenting the result of the empirical research. We
will first give an overview of the extent of usage of OER according to the respondent’s
answers, and will then step-by-step describe the empirical evidence of each micro level
factor for OER implementation. In a concluding chapter we will present the idea of ‘OEP
absorption capacity’ of institutions which is better when micro level factors are taken into
consideration.
2.
Macro
Level
and
Micro
Level
of
Open
Educational
Practices
Our point of departure is the assumption that the use of OER can generate innovative
practices – Open Educational Practices (OEP). We are focussing our attention of the field
2

3. of HE and AE and present research on the micro level conditions, or practice level, where
OER are integrated into educational organisations. Current models, like the OER logic
model (Atkins et al. 2007) or the OER framework (Stacey 2010), are addressing
predominantly macro level factors, like infrastructure, public funding policies, technologies
and access issues. The OER logic model, for instance, is focussing on a number of factors
designed to achieve equalized access to OERs within the given context. It consists of
a) Fund and support high quality open content
b) Removing barriers (on a macro level this can relate to e.g. infrastructure and access)
c) Understand and stimulate use (e.g. through policies)
d) Equalize access
Although factor c) “understanding and stimulate use” is touching the micro, i.e. the practice
level, the model stays vague as to what exactly would stimulate use of OER. The
explanation “(c) Create networks of builders and users to share and collaborate; (d) support
R&D analyses of ways to increase effectiveness and make evaluation stronger” (Atkins et
al.) hints at operations on a macro level in organizations or on national level. While the
ultimate goal of the model is improved access to OER it is not sufficiently elaborating
factors for supporting OEP.
Figure
1:
The
OER
Logic
Model
(Atkins
et
al.
2007)
Another OER framework designed by Paul Stacey (2010) on basis of a global analysis of
OER initiatives outlines further elements, and takes into account policy, legal and business/
funding issues (figure 2). However, most of these elements are as well directed to the
macro level structure of providing conditions for creating, access and sharing of OER, and
3

4. are less elaborated in the field of stimulating the development of open educational
practices.
Figure 2: OER Framework (Stacey 2010)
We therefore suggest to extent the described models with components on the micro level.
These address primarily the motivational framework, suggesting incentives, addressing
attitudes and removing everyday practice barriers. The micro level model for OEP contains
the impacting surrounding and influencing factors for the creation, use, sharing and reuse of
OER for individuals, organisations and policy makers, and is capable of suggesting ways
how to support the establishment of OEP.1 In order to achieve an environment in which
OEP can develop there is a need to understand the micro/ practice level of OER integration.
It is our assumption that, if understanding this micro level better, we could derive success
factors for supporting OEP in education.
An initial model of such factors has been elaborated in a desk research and case study
analysis phase. The micro level factors have then been operationalized into research
questions and questionnaire items and presented to the participants of the online survey in
order for them to determine the relevance from their point of view. The research question
thus is: What happens on the micro level of OEP in which OER are actually used,
produced, and shared in order to improve quality of education. As suggested above, the
micro level of OER is thus the practices level where educators, learners, educational
professionals and also organisational leaders in educational institutions are actually using
1
As
defined
in
chpt.
1:
OEP
constitute
the
range
of
practices
around
the
creation,
use
and
management
of
open
educational
resources
with
the
intent
to
improve
quality
and
innovate
education.
4

5. OER, producing it, sharing it, reusing and assembling it, improving it and assessing it. In
line with OECD (2007), Atkins (2007) and recently Stacey (2010) we argue that the
introduction of OER into educational process through macro level initiatives needs to be
complemented by efforts on the micro level in institutions. Whereas there is currently only
little attention given to this issue, the need for understanding the influencing factors for
success of OER initiative on such a micro level is evident, also in the cited research.
Nevertheless, no considerable approach has been presented so far. We conclude that an
imbalance of efforts on macro and micro level leads to an inability of an organization to
absorb the innovation potential of OER. While macro level efforts enable organisations to
gain or improve access, micro level achievements support the creation of an open culture
for learners, educational professionals and managers. Micro level readiness would thus
raise an organisation’s OER absorption capability which helps OER to become relevant to
teaching and learning.
The multilingual, research study presented in this paper (Ehlers et al. 2011) is addressing
this issue specifically. It is operationalizing this issue by asking participants from different
stakeholder groups in higher education and adult education about their views on micro level
factors. The results allow us to elaborate a differentiated picture of the micro level impact
factors of OER in educational organisations (figure 3).
Figure 3: Micro level factors for Open Educational Practices
Our aim is to present an extension to the existing (above described) models and frameworks
which would enable these to be more balanced between macro level factors (building
access, policies and funding streams) and the micro level factors (building a culture of open
educational practices within an organisations).
5

6. The research study was initiated in 2010 by the Open Educational Quality Initiative
(OPAL, www.oer-quality.org) which is partly supported by funding from the European
Commission. An initial model was derived from literature and case studies. Two groups of
micro level factors were selected as important to establish open educational practices in
organisations (figure 3):
a) Creating enabling contexts:
a. Infrastructures for creation and use of OER: In this category we are looking
at software, tools, and networks within an organization to share knowledge,
resources and experiences. Apart from creating and usage of OER these
tools are important to enable the creation of a sharing culture.
b. Cultures of Innovation: In this category we are exploring if OER demands
for a cultures of innovation.
c. Institutional Policies: Rules and regulations to support integration of OER
within organizations.
b) Perceptions, Attitudes and Barriers
a. Fostering Perception of Usefulness: There is a need to address stakeholders
motivation through raising perception of usefulness of OER.
b. Reduce perceived barriers: An extensive catalogue of barriers has been
derived from existing literature and exploratory case analysis.
c. Support positive Attitudes towards OER: Positive attitudes are an important
factor for the success of OER initatives.
3
Research
Design
The research survey is intended to carry out a quantitative study on the use of Open
Educational Resources (OER) and Open Educational Practices (OEP) in Higher Education
and Adult Learning Institutions. The activity was carried out as an online survey available
in four languages (EN, ES, FR and PT) covering more than 8 EU countries. It elicits
quantitative information from four educational stakeholder groups:
• Educational
Policy
Makers
• Managers/Administrators
(also
institutional
policy
makers)
• Educational
Professionals
• Learners
The survey targets adult education institutions as well as higher education institutions.
Although the survey has been open and answered by the international community of OER
actors, the main respondents came from the following countries: Germany, UK, Portugal,
6

7. Finland, Spain, France, The Netherlands, Ireland. Furthermore respondents came from the
EU countries at large and others regions, as well.
The field phase of the survey has been from mid-July 2010, when the first invitations
were sent out, to 30 September 2010. In total 470 respondents were taken into account in
the data analysis. The Respondents had the choice of completing the survey in one of four
language versions. Their choice favoured English (61.5% of all respondents), followed by
Portuguese (24.7%), French (8.3%) and Spanish (5.5%). 78.7% of the respondents stated
the country where they work or study was a member of the European Union, while 21.3%
are from outside the EU. As to the gender of the respondents, there is a balance, both when
considering all respondents and when analysing their distribution by sector (48,3% female,
51,7% male). A clear majority of respondents belong to the educational professional role
(68%), followed by the institutional policy maker/manager role (19%), the learner role
(9%) and, last, the educational policy role (4%). Higher education respondents account for
over 75% of the sample while adult learning provided the remaining of those surveyed.
36.4% of respondents replied that they are having OER initiatives or materials at their
institution, and 30.4% negatively.
4.
Results
of
the
data
analysis
In the participants’ responses it becomes apparent that OER have become a reality in many
educational organisations and processes. A specific section of the survey was devoted to
this issue (“Your experiences with the use of open educational resources”) to ascertain to
what extent and in what form are OER being used. In chapter 4.1 we will present the extent
of respondents’ usage and experience with OER. In chapter 4.2 we will analyse the macro
level factors of OER usage in detail.
4.1
Extent
of
OER
usage
and
experiences
with
OER
Until now OER have been in development and use, often pioneering, since 2002. Roger’s
technology adoption lifecycle would suggest that OER have come through the innovation
phase, are striving for adoption, and aspire to cross into early majority (Rogers, 1983).
More than three quarters (77%) of all respondents are often or sometimes using OER.2 In
the adult education sector the percentage is a bit higher than in higher education. Mostly,
OER are used by educational professionals, followed by learners, institutional policy
makers. Policy makers on national or European level reported least usage of OER.
2
Q2.1
Open
educational
resources
are
resources
which
are
freely
available
and
can
be
used,
shared
or
adapted.
Please
tell
us
if
you
have
ever
used
or
produced/provided
such
materials
for
teaching
or
learning.
1.
Using
existing
OER
for
teaching/training/learning,
2.
Creating
OER
myself
and
publishing
them,
3.
Adapting
existing
OER
to
fit
my
needs
for
teaching/
training/learning,
7

8. Considerably less respondents, 57,5% of all, are also reporting experiences with the
creation of OER.3 The distribution is varying only little between higher education and adult
education, with slightly less OER creation in adult education field. More than two thirds of
the respondent (67,2%) claim to adapt OER to make them fit for their own purposes, in
higher education slightly more than in adult education. We can conclude, that overall, OER
are beginning to shape the reality in higher education and adult education, whereas most
respondents claim occasional (sometimes) usage, creation or adaption of OER.4 Overall the
numbers reveal a European environment in which educational institutions – and within
them foremost the educational professionals – have started to absorb OER as an educational
means into the reality of higher and adult education.
When asking educational professionals which kind of OER they are using5 we can see
that complete courses (12,1%) are the least used OER, whereas it is more popular to use
just those parts of courses/ programs which fit into the educational activity (29,9%) and
most teachers or trainers are using ‘other openly available educational bricks’, like
websites, documents, videos and build them into their course (53,3%). The purpose OER
are used for, finally, reveals a clear picture. Almost half of those respondents using OER
use it for providing students or learners in some form with self-study materials or additional
materials for learning, as figure 4 reveals (self-study, provide e-learning materials to
learners, substitute teaching in class).6
3
For
all
stated
percentages
N
is
varying
between
450
and
480
participants.
4
However,
it
has
to
be
noted
that
the
sample
of
the
survey
is
subject
to
self-­‐selection
processes
and
not
representative.
5
Q2.2
How
would
you
describe
the
kind
of
OER
that
you
use
for
teaching/
learning?
Complete
courses/programmes,
Parts
of
courses/programmes,
Other
materials
for
learning
(e.g.,
individual
websites,
documents,
videos,
etc.),
Other.
Please
specify.
6
Educational
professionals:
Q2.3
For
what
purpose
do
you
use
OER?
(You
may
choose
all
the
options
that
fit
your
personal
case)
I
am
using
OER:
1.
To
prepare
for
my
teaching/training
or
get
new
ideas
and
inspiration,
2.
To
teach
in
the
classroom,
3.
To
give
to
learners
as
self-­‐study
materials,
4.
To
substitute
my
teaching/training
in
the
classroom,
5.
To
offer
online
and/or
distance
education/training,
6.
To
provide
e-­‐
learning
materials
to
learners,
7.
To
compare
them
with
my
own
teaching/training
materials
in
order
to
assess
the
quality
of
my
materials,
8.
Other,
9.
I
am
not
using
OER.
8

9.
To compare them
w ith my ow n I am not
teaching/training Other. Please using OER
materials in order specify .; 9; 1.1% 1% To prepare for my
to assess the teaching/training
quality of my or get new ideas
materials.; 95; and inspiration.;
11.3% 170; 20.3%
To prov ide e-
learning materials
To teach in the
to learners.; 153;
class-room
18.3%
15%
To offer online
and/or distance To giv e to
education/training. learners as self-
To substitute my study materials.;
; 74; 8.8%
teaching/training 174; 20.8%
in the classroom.;
28; 3.3%
Figure
4
–
Purpose
of
OER
usage
(N=470)
4.2
Exploring
the
OER
Micro
Level
The micro level is defined as the level of practice with creating, developing and using OER.
It is our assumption that these factors are determining the use, reuse and sharing of OER
and is the decisive success factor for developing an open culture of educational practices
within educational organisations. Whereas research has largely concentrated to analyse the
macro level factors of OER usage so far, we believe that for the development of open
educational practices within organisations the micro level factors are playing an important
role. As micro level factors we are analysing a) enabling contexts for the use of OER and b)
perceptions and attitudes of stakeholders (figure 3).
4.2.1
Enabling
Contexts
for
Open
Educational
Practices
The first set of enabling factors which was surveyed is called ‘enabling contexts’ and is
relating to factors which constitute the context of open practices. These are a) the existence
of cultures of innovation in institutions, b) institutional policies and c) infrastructures for
creation and use of OER.
9

10. A. Cultures of Innovation
Evidence of the existence of cultures of innovation is of particular interest to the research
study, in that OER and OEP are closely associated with pursuing new forms of facilitating
learning for individuals and customising learning resources to the particular needs of the
individual learner. In this regard, a number of questions from the survey enable us to elicit
information that sheds light on this important attribute. The respondents were overall
stating that in their view, the use of OER in teaching and learning changes the educational
scenario. This issue was reported in various ways (figure 5).
Figure
5:
Innovation
Cultures
for
OER
Overall the factors addressed in the survey can be summarized in four quadrants (figure 5):
a) Drivers for an OER innovation cultures, b) OER Innovation in institutions, c) Existence
of innovation barriers of the organisation and d) Innovation barriers from the learners’
perspective. The four quadrants are listing only those items from the survey which turned
up with high values of confirmation in the respondents’ answers.
• Q I: Within the first quadrant we included items which all suggest that OER is a driver
for innovation in institutions. Those items are scoring with more than two thirds of all
respondents stating that they strongly agree or agree to the statements. These
10

11. judgements were both true for adult education as well as for higher education. They all
suggest that the usage of OER is not just a process of ‘using just another digital
material’ but that with the usage of OER certain innovation potentials are triggered,
such as pedagogical changes, increased autonomy and participation of the learners,
changing teachers’ role and a potentially improved quality.
• Q II: The second quadrant lists those items which are addressing factors for innovation
on an institutional level and which were specifically mentioned by institutional policy
makers and educational professionals. Again more than two thirds of all respondents
were in average stating that they strongly agree or agree to the statements (items)
represented in the quadrant. The respondents clearly agreed that OER evokes
innovation processes on an institutional level, is challenging for institutions existing
educational practices and changes pedagogical environments.
• Q III: The third quadrant comprises barriers for the introduction of OER perceived by
educational professionals and managers of educational institutions. They are outlining
aspects which address the question why OER can fail to take effect in organisations. In
average more than half of the respondents were agreeing that these were important
barriers for failure of OER in organisations.
• Q IV: The fourth quadrant lists innovation barriers from the learner’s perspective, two
items which specifically were addressed to learners and reveal that the introduction of
OER demands for productive environments in which they are encouraged to create and
share their self-produced learning materials, share it with others, and change the
learning environment to adapt it to open educational resources.
B. Institutional Policies for Supporting Open Educational Practices
Institutional policies for OER are viewed as very important by educational policy makers.
But how does the reality look in organisations? Respondents were queried on the existence
of a number of supporting institutional policy factors in their educational institutions: 7
1. An explicit institutional policy or OER: Individual efforts to implement OERs in
institutions (27,4%) are prevailing by far. Inexistence of any explicit institutional policy
ranges at 22,7%. Policy support through the whole organisation received only 12.7%.
The clear picture that emerges here is that organisation-wide explicit policies in support
of the use of OER are the least prevalent.
7
Q4.3.
In
your
higher
education
institution,
how
would
you
rate
the
following
factors
in
support
of
the
use
of
OER?
(Question
for
Institutional
policy
makers/managers,
educational
professionals)
N
ranges
between
450
and
480
11

12. 2. An OER partnership with other organisations: Respondents report, that only little
institution wide, strategic efforts are made so far to develop partnerships in order to
work on innovation fields such as OEP.
3. Specific quality assurance processes for OER: For higher education and adult learning,
there is a prevalent notion that there are no specific quality assurance processes in place
for OER. Again, on individual level, indications exist that efforts are undertaken to
quality assure OER with specific approaches but this does not register on an entire
organisational level yet.
4. Specific pedagogical scenarios and models for OEP: About one third (33,3%) of
individuals make efforts to develop pedagogical scenarios specific to OERs. Again, we
note that organisation-wide implementation gathers the least opinions overall, at 6.8%.
5. Specific skill support at institutional level is needed to stimulate the adoption of OER:
The combination of positive responses from the institutional policy makers/managers to
this sub-question reaches 73.6% overall, with a similar pattern in each sector.
While institutional policy makers and educational professionals respond that in their view
OER stimulates institutional innovations (with the highest values in adult learning, at
71.2%), the respondents also state that there are insufficient reward system for educational
professionals (61.7%), insufficient support from the management level (61,7%) and a lack
of policies at institutional level to support the creation or use of OER (63.4%). It becomes
obvious that OER are often still quite far from impacting on the educational institutions as a
whole. The perception by respondents that using OER can lead to institutional innovations
does not seem to translate, to the same extent, into the existence of organisation-wide
implementations, which points to the need for considerable efforts to be made in this
regard.
C. Supporting OER Adoption on the Micro Level
Infrastructures are an enabling factor for the creation and use of OER, as well as for the
implementation of OEP. Respondents were queried on a series of potential barriers to the
use of OER, three of which are directly connected to the availability of infrastructures:8
1. Lack of Internet connectivity: 42.5% of all respondents feel this barrier is very
unimportant or unimportant while 30.6% rate it as very important or important.
2. Lack of software to adapt the resources to the user’s purposes: Overall, the majority
of respondents considers this barrier very important or important, but the adult
8
All
educational
roles:
Please
evaluate
the
relevance
of
the
following
barriers
to
the
use
of
OER
from
your
personal
experience:
Lack
of
Internet
connectivity,
Lack
of
software
to
adapt
the
resources
to
the
user’s
purposes,
Lack
of
access
to
computers.
12

13. learning respondents more so than their counterparts. It indicates that actions are
needed to make available appropriate software, in particular when considering the
repurposing of existing OER to better suit the users’ educational needs.
3. Lack of access to computers: Almost half of all respondents (45.5%) felt this was
very unimportant or unimportant, with only 28% considering it to be important or
very important.
Overall we can conclude that technological infrastructures are an important enabling factor
for implementing OEP on a micro level towards creating OEP but can be understood as a
hygienic factor. This means that in the eyes of the respondents, it constitutes a necessity but
do not automatically lead to implementation of an open culture in educational institutions
favouring OEP and the greater use of OER.
4.2.2
Perceptions,
Attitudes
and
Barriers
towards
OER
The following section presents the research regarding a) perceptions towards OEP, b)
attitudes and c) barriers. These attributes are representations of respondents regarding OER.
A. Perceptions Towards OEP
Three aspects were addressed: Did the participants believe that OEP within organisations
were mature? Did they feel that OER were useful? And were they content with the quality
of OER?
1. Perceived maturity:9 Overall more than half of the respondents (50.9%) consider that
open practices in education are currently undeveloped in educational institutions, and
only a small minority is satisfied with the state of development of OEP (3.1%). Both
sectors – higher education and adult education follow this trend closely.
9
Q4.1.
What
is
your
view
on
open
educational
practices
in
higher
education
institutions/adult
learning
organisations
today?
Do
you
think
that…
they
are
sufficiently
developed?,
they
are
moderately
developed?,
they
are
underdeveloped?,
they
are
not
developed
at
all?
13

14. No reply ; 87;
...they are not
20.4%
dev eloped at
...they are all; 36; 8.5%
sufficiently
dev eloped;
13; 3.1%
...they are ...they are
moderately underdev el-
dev eloped; oped; 217;
73; 17.1% 50.9%
Figure
6:
State
of
open
practices
in
educaion
/
training
institutions
The unequivocal nature of the opinions expressed seems to confirm that for
respondents the use of OER does not equal the prevalence of open educational
practices in institutions; this suggests the need for further efforts to be made within
educational institutions in promoting OEP and adopting a supporting internal
framework and appropriate measures to favour both the emergence, the sustainability
and the recognition of OEP.
2. Perceived Usefulness of OER:10 Respondents show agreement with the statement
that OER raises the efficiency because materials can be re-used.
3. Perceived Quality of OER:11 Based on respondents’ experiences, the majority (68.9%
overall) agrees that the quality of OER can be a problem; from the adult learning
sector even 78%. This very clear opinion points to the need for actions to promote the
quality of OER, which should lead to a boost in usage and support also OEP.
B. Barriers to use OER
Previously carried out desk research and case study analysis resulted into a set of 19
barriers to the development of OEP. A list of these barriers was presented to all
respondents.12 The answers were grouped through development of an index and then
10
Q3.3
Please
tell
us
what
in
your
experience
is
the
value
of
OER
for
education/training
(formal,
non
formal,
informal),
by
rating
the
following
statement:
OER
raise
efficiency
because
materials
can
be
re-­‐used.
11
Educational
policy
makers;
institutional
policy
makers
/managers;
learners:
Q3.3
Please
tell
us
what
in
your
experience
is
the
value
of
OER
for
education/training
(formal,
non
formal,
informal),
by
rating
the
following
statement:
The
quality
of
OER
can
be
a
problem.
12
All
respondents:
Please
evaluate
the
relevance
of
the
following
barriers
to
the
use
of
OER
from
your
personal
experience:
1.
Not
invented
here
syndrome:
no
trust
in
others’
resources.
2.
Lack
of
time
to
find
14

15. categorized into 3 groups whereas group 1 represents the barriers which are perceived as
the most relevant and group 3 is representing the barriers which are perceived as having
lowest relevance.
Table
1:
Barriers
to
the
development
of
OEP
Barrier to the Development of OEP
Group 1: Barriers with highest relevance
1. Insufficient reward system for educational professionals devoting time and energy to OER 6,0
development.
2. Lack of policies at institutional level to support the creation or use of OER. 5,8
3. Insufficient support from the management level of higher education institutions. 5,7
4. Lack of policies at national/regional level to support the creation or use of OER. 5,7
5. Lack of interest in pedagogical innovation among educational professionals. 5,6
6. Educational professionals lack the time to create or use OER. 5,6
Group 2: Barriers with medium relevance
7. Lack of interest in creating or using OER. 5,5
8. Educational professionals lack the skills to create or use OER. 5,5
9. Lack of time to find suitable materials. 5,4
10. OER are not embedded into the learning scenarios. 5,2
11. Lack of OER that are culturally relevant to the user. 5,1
12. Lack of OER in the user’s native language. 5,1
Group 3: Barriers with lowest relevance
13. Lack of quality of the OER. 5,0
14. Not invented here syndrome: no trust in others’ resources. 4,8
15. Lack of software to adapt the resources to the user’s purposes. 4,8
16. Learners lack the skills to create or use OER. 4,8
17. Learners lack the time to create or use OER. 4,8
18. Lack of Internet connectivity. 4,2
19. Lack of access to computers. 4,1
suitable
materials.
3.
Lack
of
Internet
connectivity.
4.
Lack
of
software
to
adapt
the
resources
to
the
user’s
purposes.
5.
Lack
of
access
to
computers.
6.
Lack
of
quality
of
the
OER.
7.
Lack
of
OER
that
are
culturally
relevant
to
the
user.
8.
Lack
of
OER
in
the
user’s
native
language.
9.
OER
are
not
embedded
into
the
learning
scenarios.
10.
Insufficient
reward
system
for
educational
professionals
devoting
time
and
energy
to
OER
development.
11.
Lack
of
interest
in
pedagogical
innovation
among
educational
professionals.
12.
Insufficient
support
from
the
management
level
of
higher
education
institutions.
13.
Lack
of
policies
at
national/regional
level
to
support
the
creation
or
use
of
OER.
14.
Lack
of
policies
at
institutional
level
to
support
the
creation
or
use
of
OER.
15.
Lack
of
interest
in
creating
or
using
OER.
6.
Educational
professionals
lack
the
skills
to
create
or
use
OER.
17.
Learners
lack
the
skills
to
create
or
use
OER.
18.
Educational
professionals
lack
the
time
to
create
or
use
OER.
19.
Learners
lack
the
time
to
create
or
use
OER.
15

16. In addition an exploratory principal components analysis (PCA) enabled the identification
of five relevant dimensions in representation of those barriers (see table 1) with which
individuals are faced when they want to use OER (see table 2). The PCA is designed to
analyse which underlying dimensions (principal components) are influencing the answers
of the respondents. The following table shows the result of this analysis and respectively
identified dimensions, which we sought to name according to the content of their main
indicators:
1. Lack of institutional support
2. Lack of technological tools
3. Lack of skills and time of users
4. Lack of quality or fitness of OER
5. Personal issues (lack of trust and time)
Table
2:
Matrix
of
principal
components
Components
1 2 3 4 5
Insufficient support from the .814 .089 .028 ,065 .062
management level of higher education
institutions/adult learning organisations.
Lack of policies at institutional level to .795 .102 .035 .210 -.057
support the creation or use of OER
Lack of policies at national/regional .729 .060 .159 .205 -.085
level to support the creation or use of
OER
Lack of interest in pedagogical .681 .123 .093 .082 .063
innovation among educational
professionals
Lack of interest in the creation or use of .666 .246 .115 -.066 .071
OER.
Insufficient reward system for .522 -.064 .157 .307 .133
educational professionals devoting time
and energy to OER development
Lack of access to computers .140 .894 .052 .127 -.050
Lack of Internet connectivity .141 .874 .092 .123 -.084
Lack of software to adapt the resources .173 .726 .116 .101 .227
to the user’s purposes
Lack of quality of the OER -.021 .428 .179 . .361
Learners lack the time to create or use .074 .098 .812 .21. .060
OER.
Educational professionals lack the time -060 -.132 .721 .139 .266
to create or use OER.
16

17. Learners lack the skills to create or use .150 .237 .716 .166 -.102
OER.
Educational professionals lack the skills .382 -276 .579 -.035 -.033
to create or use OER.
Lack of OER that are culturally relevant .129 -198 .264 .759 .124
to the user
Lack of OER in the user’s native .207 .199 .163 .704 -.161
language
OER are not embedded into the learning .372 -.006 .022 .533 .255
scenarios
Not invented here syndrome: no trust in .090 -.078 -.129 .090 .750
others resources.
Lack of time to find suitable materials .000 -.017 .304 .001 .627
N=302
Total of Variance Explained: 61.572%
KMO Test: 0.810 | Bartlett's Test of Sphericity: Approx. Chi-Square: 2236.333 (171), p<0.001
Rotated Component Matrix
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis, listwise.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations.
3. Attitudes to Usage of OER
The attitudes of respondents vis-a-vis the use of OER were addressed in two questions of
the survey. The first one (Q3.2) inquired about the experiences of respondents in using
OER and was aimed at educational professionals.13 Overall the attitudes towards OER are
positive with a stable group of about one fourth to one third of the respondents displaying
critical or sceptical attitudes towards OER usage.
1. About half (48,4%) of the respondents feel relieved that they can use OER and do not
have to create their own materials. voted stated they Attitudes of educational
professionals towards creating their own materials.
2. Only about one third (35,4%) of the respondents feels uneasy because of quality
concerns with OER.
13
Educational
professionals:
Q3.2
How
do
you
feel
about
using
OER
in
your
educational
practice?
1.
I
am
relieved,
because
I
do
not
need
to
create
my
own
materials.
2.
I
am
uneasy,
because
I
do
not
know
how
to
assess
the
quality
of
the
OER.
3.
I
feel
uncomfortable,
because
as
an
educational
professional,
I
feel
that
I
am
obliged
to
create
the
learning
materials.
4.
I
feel
uncertain,
because
I
do
not
know
what
learners
might
think
of
me,
if
I
use
another
person’s
educational
resources
instead
of
creating
my
own.
5.
I
feel
challenged,
because
it
is
not
so
easy
to
understand
how
exactly
they
fit
into
my
course
programmes.
6.
I
feel
uneasy
about
openly
sharing
the
learning
resources
that
took
me
a
lot
of
time
and
effort
to
produce.
7.
I
have
no
interest
in
using
OER.
17

18. 3. Only one third (36,9%) feels uncomfortable because they feel that they have to provide
their own materials as educational professionals.
4. A little more than every forth professional (27,8%) is feeling uneasy with using OER
because they feel that learners’ might expect them to bring their own resource.
5. Deciding the most appropriate way to fit OER into one’s course programmes is felt as a
challenge by almost half of all educational professionals (47.2%). In adult learning, as
much as 54.3% replies were in agreement and strong agreement.
6. Investing time and effort in creating learning resources that others may use openly is an
attitude denied by 58.3% of all respondents.
7. The overwhelming majority states to be interested in OER (96,9%).
Educational professionals and organisational leaders were also asked about their confidence
in the value proposition of OER – did they feel that OER bring value to their context?14
Only about one third (35,2%) of the respondents state they feel that OER lack relevance
because they do not fit into fixed curricula. Half (50,6%) of the participants do not accept
OER because they consider OER as not being their own achievement.
5.
Conclusion:
Emerging
Model
of
Open
Educational
Practices
For the first time, the survey elaborates the importance of efforts on the micro level for
integrating OER into educational organisations in order to create a culture of OEP. Micro
level factors are elaborated in depth and participants views and ratings, and a pattern of
factors emerges which can be viewed as a complement to current OER frameworks or
models which are often more targeted to the description of macro level factors. We
therefore suggest adapting the OER logic model to a new, enhanced version in which the
described micro level factors are added. In figure 7 we are presenting a new enhanced
version of the OEP logic model where the micro level factors, aiming to stimulate an open
educational culture are forming an extension to the original factor “understand and
stimulate use”. Both categories “create enabling contexts” and creating favourable
conditions for “perceptions, attitudes, and barriers” and of importance to raise an
organization's OEP absorption capacity. Without a culture of OEP, any given infrastructure,
or content modules will not find sustainable introduction into teaching and learning
processes.
14
Next
two
answers
are
given
to
this
question:
Educational
policy
makers,
institutional
policy
makers/managers;
learners:
Q3.3
Please
tell
us
what
in
your
experience
is
the
value
of
OER
for
education/training
(formal,
non
formal,
informal),
by
rating
the
following
statements:
3.
OER
are
not
so
relevant
for
me,
because
educational
institutions
usually
have
fixed
curricula
in
which
OER
often
do
not
fit.
4.
Using
OER
often
is
not
accepted,
because
they
are
considered
as
not
being
one’s
own
achievement.
18

19. Figure
7:
the
enhanced
OER
Logic
model
6.
References
1. Atkins, Daniel E., Brown, John S., and Hammond, Allen L. (2007), A Review of the
Open Educational Resources (OER) Movement: Achievements, Challenges, and New
Opportunities. http://www.oerderves.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/a-review-of-the-
open-educational-resources-oer-movement_final.pdf, Abruf am 2009-12-18.
2. Ehlers et al. (2011): Beyond OER: Shifting Focus from Resources to Practices. Lisbon,
Essen
3. Ehlers (2011): From Open educational resources to open educational practices. E-
Learning Papers. Vol 17, Nr. 1. ISSN 1887-1542
4. OECD (2007): Giving Knowledge Away for free. Paris
5. Stacey, P. (2010): Foundation Funded OER vs. Tax Payer Funded OER - A Tale of
Two Mandates. In Open ED 2010 Proceedings. Barcelona: UOC, OU, BYU. [Accessed:
dd/mm/yy].< http://hdl.handle.net/10609/5241>]
6. UNESCO (2002),‘Forum on the Impact of Open Courseware for Higher Education in
Developing Countries’ in 2002, report available online at
19

20. http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-
URL_ID=5303&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html,
last
accessed
21/04/10.
20