We’re currently researching how small colleges and universities are using open education resources (OER), and would love to hear from you about any projects you’re involved in.
As part of this we’re interviewing practitioners and thought leaders, as well as surveying chief information officers (CIOs) for campuses in the NITLE Network.
Our results will appear during sessions of the NITLE Summit this April, in Arlington.
What is the current status of open education? Since data on open education is scattered across multiple locations, here I gather together statistics on topics such as attitudes toward open education, the number of open courses available, and usage of OER.
A few caveats: It’s important to note that numbers alone don’t necessarily reflect the complexity of contexts or multiple variables influencing the data, but they can provide a glimpse of open education’s growth as well the obstacles it faces. The data are current as of March 2, 2012, but figures such as the amount of open content or number of users will likely change quickly. To facilitate follow-up, I’ve either linked to the source or provided the citation.
If you can recommend other data that should be included here, please leave a comment.
Level of Interest in Open Education
- Number of chief academic officers who agree that open educational resources will have value for their institutions:
- 72.4% of the chief academic officers at for-profit universities
- 48% of those at the very largest universities
- 57 or 58% of all other CAOs
Source: Babson Survey Research Group and the College Board, Going the Distance: Online Education in the United States, 2011
- Number of institutions of higher education (global) that belong to the OpenCourseWare consortium: 205
- Number of signers of Cape Town Open Education Declaration: 2330 individuals and 243 organizations
Users and Usage of Open Educational Resources
- Usage of MIT Open Courseware:
- average of 1 million visits/ month
- 133 million visits by 95 million visitors from virtually every country
- 42% of users are students, 43% are self-learners, 9% are educators, and 6% are “other”
- 80% of visitors rate OCW’s impact as extremely positive or positive
- number of visitors at Washington State’s Open Course Library in the 11 days after its launch: 10,000 visitors
- Average number of users of Connexions, per month: over 2 million
- number of students who enrolled for Stanford’s Introduction to Artificial Intelligence MOOC: 160,000
- Percentage of Open Courseware (OCW) userswho:
- are undergoing secondary or higher education: 42%
- are self-learners: 21%
- are 29 or younger: 50%
- are 50 or older: 19%
- use OCW materials to support their own interests: 59%
- use OCW materials help understand the concepts they are studying: 46%
- use OCW to learn something for a particular project: 31%
- use OCW to supplement or create teaching materials: 23%
- use OCW to update their skills or knowledge for work: 50%
Faculty Views of OER
- Faculty awareness of and interest in OER at the University of Michigan and the University of Capetown:
- 50% of faculty at the University of Michigan have never heard of OCW, compared to 20% of faculty at University of Capetown
- 46% of faculty at University of Michigan agree or strongly agree that they would use OCW, compared to 67% at U of Capetown
- 45% of faculty at University of Michigan agree or strongly agree that they would “put up” OCW materials, compared to 51% at U of Capetown
Source: Joseph Hardin, Phil Long, Roland Sussex, Deanne Gannaway, Gerhard Tromp, “OCW Familiarity, Use and Production by Instructors and Students: Early Results from a University of Queensland Survey,” ceit.uq.edu.au/system/files/news/uqocw-oatalkoct6-2011odp.ppt Presentation also includes data from University of Queensland and Universidad Politecnica de Valencia, Spain
- 47.7% of faculty at institutions using the Sakai Course Management System have never heard of OCW, while 28.7% have heard of it but not been to an OCW site, 15.5% have looked at an OCW site, 4.2% have used OCW materials in teaching, and 3.9% have published/ helped publish OCW materials
- 91% of faculty at community colleges were interested in using OER in their classes, but only 34% were currently using them.
- Top barriers to faculty using OER, according to 2006 OECD survey with 193 respondents from 49 countries
- Lack of time: approximately 65% say “very important”
- Lack of skills: approx. 61%
- No reward system for staff members: approx 57%
- Faculty’s top goalsfor using OER in their own teaching
- Gaining access to the best possible resources: approx 88%
- Creating more flexible materials: approx. 83%
- Promote research and education as publicly open activities: approx. 78%
- Top barriers to faculty producing OER
- Lack of time: approx. 78%
- No reward system for staff members devoting time and energy: approx. 65%
- Lack of skills: approx. 62%
Student Views of OER
- Student awareness of and interest in OCW at the University of Michigan and the University of Capetown:
- 75% of students at the University of Michigan have never heard of OCW, compared to 64% at the University of Capetown
- 73% of students at U of Michigan agree or strongly agree that they would use OCW, compared to 74% at U of Capetown
- 27% of students at U of Michigan agree or strongly agree that they would help publish OCW materials, compared to 33% at U of Capetown
Source: Joseph Hardin, Phil Long, Roland Sussex, Deanne Gannaway, Gerhard Tromp, “OCW Familiarity, Use and Production by Instructors and Students: Early Results from a University of Queensland Survey,” ceit.uq.edu.au/system/files/news/uqocw-oatalkoct6-2011odp.ppt
- 74.1% of students at Sakai institutions have never heard of OCW, while 9.8% have heard of it but not been to an OCW site, 6.4% have looked at an OCW site, 9.2% have used OCW materials in their studies, and .5% have published/ helped publish OCW materials
- “In a recent survey (MIT, 2006) MIT found 35 percent of Fall 2005 entering freshmen aware of MIT OCW prior to attending MIT indicated the site was a significant or very significant influence on their choice of school. Seventy-one percent of all MIT students (undergraduate and graduate) made use of MIT OCW in their research and studies. Ninety-six percent of MIT students using the MIT OCW site reported it has had a positive or extremely positive impact on their student experience.”
Source: Caswell, Tom, Shelley Henson, Marion Jensen, and David Wiley. “Open Content and Open Educational Resources: Enabling universal education.” The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 9, no. 1 (February 26, 2008): Article 9.1.1. http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/469/1001
Availability of Open Educational Resources
- Number of open courseware courses available worldwide in January 2007: 3000, from over 300 universities
Source: OECD. Giving Knowledge for Free: The Emergence of Open Educational Resources. OECD, 2007. http://www.oecd.org/document/41/0,3746,en_2649_35845581_38659497_1_1_1_1,00.html
- Number of courses currently available through MIT Open Courseware: 2000
- Number of modules currently available through Connexions: 20,259
- Number of collections available through Connexions: 1206
- Number of courses currently available through the Open Course Catalog: 3659
- about 25% are arts or humanities courses
- Number of learning modules currently indexed in OER Commons: 20,870
Cost of Producing OER
- Cost of producing open textbooks for 42 of the State of Washington’s highest enrolled community college courses: $1.18 million
Source: Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC). “Groundbreaking State-Sponsored Program Creates Free course Materials, Will Save College Students Millions”. Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC), October 31, 2011. http://www.sbctc.edu/general/documents/OCL_Release_FINAL10312011.pdf.
Savings from Adopting OER
- Estimated annual textbook savings to students as result of Washington’s Open Course Library
- $1.26 million, if open textbooks were adopted just in the 42 courses in which faculty developed open resources
- up to $41.6 million, if open textbooks were adopted across all of Washington’s community and technical colleges
Source: Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC). “Groundbreaking State-Sponsored Program Creates Free course Materials, Will Save College Students Millions”. Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC), October 31, 2011. http://www.sbctc.edu/general/documents/OCL_Release_FINAL10312011.pdf.
- Students’ estimated savings over the 2011-2012 academic year as a result of UMass Amherst’s Open Education Initiative, which awarded 10 faculty $1000 each to use freely available digital resources: more than $72,000
It has several parts:
- A survey: we’re asking campus leaders about how their institutions are using OER, as well as for their reflections on the movement. Chief Information Officers (CIOs) from the NITLE Network are our first targets.
- Interviews: we are having conversations with people involved in interesting OER projects.
- A white paper: to be presented to the April NITLE Summit.
- Social bookmarks: we are continuing to add resources to this Diigo group.
…and ongoing conversations all over the place, from social media to email to in-person.
Defining open education is famously tricky, so we’ve adopted a broad approach. We’re looking for both producing and consuming digital resources intended for open use, along with: open source learning management systems (Moodle, Sakai, Segue); open courses (such as MOOCs); and student creation of open content.
Liberal arts colleges pride themselves on the high quality educational experiences that they offer, which typically feature small classes, rich face-to-face interaction with faculty and peers, a residential experience, civic engagement, and undergraduate research. Indeed, commentators such as Kevin Carey and Clayton Christiansen and Henry Eyring suggest that elite liberal arts colleges are not as vulnerable to the disruptions of online education as many other universities are. Some see blended and online learning as opposed to what makes liberal arts colleges unique and effective, perhaps fearing that face-to-face learning will be undermined. But blended learning–which Bryn Mawr defines loosely as courses in which students both participate in face-to-face classes and work through computer-based, interactive tutorials and quizzes that provide customized learning and instant feedback–can actually support the goals of liberal education.
Recently Bryn Mawr won a $250,000 grant from the Next Generation Learning Challenge (NGLC) to explore blended learning from a liberal arts perspective, making use of modules developed by Carnegie Mellon’s Open Learning Initiative (OLI) and other sources. As Bryn Mawr’s provost Kim Cassidy said in introducing the blended learning workshop it hosted this summer, its fundamental goal is to “improve student learning.” To find out more about Bryn Mawr’s initiative, I interviewed Jennifer Spohrer, who is the educational technologist supporting the project, attended Bryn Mawr’s December 15 webinar about the project, and watched the three videos documenting the Blended Learning workshop that Bryn Mawr hosted this summer (I’m including many paraphrases from these sources in this post). Bryn Mawr’s project is only about halfway completed, but already there are some promising results that point to the potential of well-designed, interactive, assessment-based, data-driven educational resources to improve learning.
A number of students who enter college aspiring to science, engineering, or medical careers abandon those plans, often because they lack strong pre-college preparation and thus struggle in introductory courses. As part of its efforts to address the disparities in preparation for college science and math courses, Bryn Mawr is experimenting with blended learning. In particular, Bryn Mawr is focusing on developmental and introductory courses, since students in these courses are often at different levels and need personalized tutoring and support. Essentially Bryn Mawr’s initiative aims to help students progress past gaps in their knowledge, providing targeted opportunities for them to practice and get immediate feedback on their learning. Created by teams of faculty, learning scientists, human-computer interaction specialists, and software engineers, OLI courses focus on specific, “measurable” learning objectives and provide content, interactive exercises, and intelligent tutors to help students to meet these objectives. OLI collects data on how learners perform, enabling instructors to monitor the progress of both individuals and the entire class and tailor their teaching to particular needs. Studies have demonstrated that OLI can accelerate learning (particularly in a blended environment) and increase completion of courses at a large public university. (I will provide a fuller description of OLI in my next post.) By using OLI modules and other blended learning materials, Bryn Mawr hopes to devote more class time to discussion and problem-solving and increase the number of students who complete STEM courses (and, ultimately, majors). As the project abstract states, “Targeted use of this technology will free up classroom time for more in-depth coverage of complex material and use of creative pedagogical strategies.” Bryn Mawr also seeks to share its findings with other liberal arts colleges and to foster collaborations around blended learning.
Blended Learning and Liberal Arts?
A couple of comments on a recent Chronicle of Higher Education article describing Bryn Mawr’s project reveal a fear that online learning is “antithetical” to liberal education. (Perhaps the reaction is in part due to the misleading headline: “Liberal-Arts Colleges Venture Into Unlikely Territory: Online Courses”). However, I think this fear is misplaced, since it ignores Bryn Mawr’s objectives to overcome learning gaps, overlooks the fact that the program focuses not on replacing face-to-face learning but on supplementing and enhancing it, and does not take into account the research demonstrating the effectiveness of OLI. Although blended learning may seem at odds with the face-to-face, place-based learning typically offered by liberal arts colleges, Bryn Mawr is performing important work in testing how it might work in a liberal arts context and sharing its processes and findings. As Cassidy remarked at the summer workshop, the key question is “not what does the technology drive us to do, but what does the learning drive us to do.” Bryn Mawr aims not to replace human interaction, but to “augment what we do well at liberal arts colleges.” Given the high degree of faculty autonomy, diversity of pedagogical approaches, and unique culture at liberal arts colleges, Bryn Mawr understands that there is no “one size fits all” solution. Rather, it is working with faculty to determine what approaches will be most appropriate for their classes and what harmonizes with the culture of liberal arts colleges. Where does blended learning work in a liberal arts context, and where is it inappropriate? To what extent can online learning supplement classroom learning and free up class time for more in-depth discussion and problem solving? In what ways does blended learning support liberal education’s goal to help students learn how to learn? Even if Bryn Mawr’s experience points to problems in integrating blended learning into liberal education, failures are just as important to understand as successes are.
Originally Bryn Mawr proposed to focus on four courses, but faculty interest was so high that it enlarged the program. For the fall of 2011, 11 courses (including multiple sections) in biology, chemistry, computer science, quantitative skills and economics) are participating in the program. For the spring of 2012, at least 9 courses are planned in environmental science, geology, biology and psychology. Since incorporating blended learning requires faculty to devote significant effort to re-thinking and restructuring their courses, they receive modest stipends. Each professor brings his or her own questions and approaches to the project, so it includes a diversity of courses, instructional approaches and learning resources.
Faculty are turning to blended learning to address a range of pedagogical goals, such as accommodating students’ diverse backgrounds, enabling students to practice key skills, and freeing up class time to delve into more complex issues. Although the participating courses come from a range of disciplines, many share common characteristics, including heterogeneous groups of students, large courses (although some small courses are also participating), and frequent homework assignments and quizzes. Often faculty want to avoid assigning a textbook, and they tend to teach subjects that require frequent review and repetition.
Participating courses include:
- A half-semester introductory chemistry course designed for students with weak science and math backgrounds. Students work through the OLI chemistry modules prior to coming to class, honing their understanding of key concepts. By having students use OLI to study and practice basic concepts, the instructor can devote class time to focus on problem solving instead of lecturing and target areas where students need the most help, such as developing their problem solving and math skills.
- In a biology course aimed at post-baccalaureate students, students bring a wide range of backgrounds. The instructor thus is using open educational resources to enable students to address their own weaknesses as they prepare for class.
- Likewise, students in a course on biology fundamentals come with a diversity of goals and experiences, but often lack a strong background in biology. This half-semester class is exploring biology through the lens of cystic fibrosis, investigating genetics, proteins, and ethical issues. The instructor could not find a textbook that addressed these diverse issues, so she is curating her own readings, drawing from open educational resources. In addition, she uses frequent Moodle quizzes to assess student comprehension, so she can come into class with a better sense of what students need. Students seem to like the quizzes, which help them keep up with the material and determine what they don’t yet comprehend.
- In a general chemistry class, instructors are testing OLI as an alternative to commercial software. Prior success with the interactive commercial software got the instructors interested in an open alternative, since the price for the proprietary software is increasing and students experienced log-in problems.
- In a course on computational linguistics, the professor used to spend a lot of class time reviewing homework solutions. Now he has created video tutorials in which he demonstrates the solutions. If students still have questions after going through the tutorials, he can address them in class in a more focused way, but class time is freed up for more advanced work. In addition, when the professor is away and cannot lecture, students use self-paced tutorials.
- For a quantitative (developmental math) seminar, no single open course resource was available, so the instructor used a combination of online components, including the Khan Academy, Open University, and the OLI Probability and Statistics modules.
- In geology, students often struggle with identifying mineralogical specimens. Unfortunately, there are few good hands-on materials that engage students and help them develop this knowledge. Hence a professor who is teaching an introductory course for the major is developing a series of Moodle practice quizzes that draw from a database of images of minerals, enabling students to test and reinforce their knowledge. When students give a wrong answer, the system can give specific feedback, such as information on how to distinguish two commonly confused minerals. Since many students forget what they’ve learned by the end of the semester, the quizzes make students practice and repeat the identifications. By enabling students to develop this basic knowledge at home, the professor can free up class time to explore the more compelling aspects of the field.
The Role of Open Resources
Although OLI is part of Bryn Mawr’s project, the college is asking a larger question about the role of blended learning in liberal education. In some classes, appropriate OLI resources were not available, so instructors either found other open or freely available resources, adopted commercial resources, or developed their own tutorials, primarily using Moodle. Sources for open educational content include OLI, the Open University, OER Commons, and the Concord Consortium; on Bryn Mawr’s NGLC Moodle site (you can log in as guest), Spohrer is compiling a database of open resources. These resources vary in the approach that they take. For example, whereas OLI learner data can be shared with the faculty member, Open University only makes available that data to the student.
In domains such as in chemistry, excellent commercial resources are already available, which raises the larger question of when it makes sense to go with the commercial option. Commercial content often comes with support, whereas open materials may lack a sufficient user community to keep them up-to-date and bug-free. At the same time, commercial materials can be expensive, or may only be used for part of the course. Open educational resources can be particularly useful for reviewing core concepts, since students may not have textbooks covering prerequisite material. In any case, most faculty begin by using already available content (whether open or commercial), in part because they do not necessarily have the time or technical expertise to create their own materials. But content isn’t necessarily available to support particular courses, especially interdisciplinary, thematic courses, such as the course on cystic fibrosis. Thus some faculty create their own blended learning resources. Developing blended learning materials requires a “significant up-front time investment,” so it is most efficient if course materials can be re-used. Some of these resources are so focused on the particular needs of one course that they may be difficult for other faculty to customize for their own courses.
Although results of Bryn Mawr’s program are still preliminary, they are on the whole positive. Students report appreciating being able to practice until they understand a concept or approach, which enables them to improve without risking their grades. They also like getting immediate feedback on their performance. However, students see a computer-based resource as being a “waste of time” if they need to invest too much time in figuring out the interface, have to wait for content load, or struggle to input data in an appropriate format. In particular, entering chemical symbols and mathematical formulas on a web browser has proven to be a hassle, a problem that Bryn Mawr is addressing by loading a WYSIWG equation editor into Moodle.
Likewise, instructors are on balance enthusiastic about their experiences with blended learning. On a practical level, moving to automated grading means that teachers can incorporate frequent assessments into their courses without having to spend too much time grading. Instructors most appreciate the dashboards provided by OLI and some other systems that allow them to monitor how either individual students or the entire class perform on particular projects. By examining data on student performance, instructors can tailor their lectures and assignments to meet student needs, practicing “agile teaching.” If they see that the whole class is struggling with a particular set of problems, instructors can address the issue during class; likewise, if one student doesn’t get a concept, the faculty member can invite him or her to come to office hours. Instructors say that students ask more sophisticated questions and can be more specific in pointing to where they are confused. It’s easier for students to seek help if both they and their instructors can see from their learning dashboard that they are struggling in a particular area, and the instructor can use the data to understand what is perplexing the student. Unfortunately, dashboards aren’t as robust for older OLI courses. For instructors who develop their own tutorials in Moodle, they can use Moodle Gradebook to see some data on student performance, though it is not as detailed as what OLI and some commercial systems provide. According to Spohrer, “instructors looking to adopt these resources might want to consider the level of data provided, as this is typically a feature instructors have found most valuable when using the resource in a blended class.”
For faculty, finding appropriate materials to incorporate into their classes can be challenging and time-consuming. Although some content is available through clearinghouses such as MERLOT and OER Commons, it takes substantial time to sort through the abundance of resources and find what works for a particular class, particularly if they are taking innovative, integrated approaches to teaching. Sometimes appropriate material isn’t available, sometimes it’s aimed more at high school than college students, and sometimes it is isn’t sequenced in the way that instructors have designed their courses or uses examples that aren’t consistent with their pedagogical approaches. Resources such as the online question bank provided by the Journal of Chemistry Education may be useful for instructors.
Ultimately, according to Spohrer, blended learning can support several pedagogical innovations. For example, by enabling students to watch lectures and learn content on their own time, blended learning fosters the flipped classroom, allowing class time to be used for discussion, experiments, and in-depth problem solving. OLI and other systems support formative assessment, so that students can detect gaps in their knowledge and instructors can draw on the learner data to improve how they are teaching. Likewise, blended learning materials like OLI can promote mastery, providing low-stakes testing where students can practice until they master material without fearing that they will get a bad grade for making multiple attempts.
An initial start-up investment was necessary to get Bryn Mawr’s program going.To support faculty and classes experimenting with blended learning, Bryn Mawr is pursuing several complementary approaches. It is running workshops: one was held in the summer of 2011 to prepare faculty, a December workshop allowed participants to learn from experiences in the fall and plan for the spring, and one will be held in May to share the broader findings with the liberal arts community. An instructional technologist, Spohrer, helps faculty and students use these learning approaches and technologies more effectively. She creates basic materials to help faculty think through how they are approaching blended learning, works closely with faculty to identify relevant resources, and helps them create quizzes and other interactive modules in Moodle. She also troubleshoots technical problems students and faculty are encountering, handle issues with publishers (such as making sure that all students have access to commercial resources), shares information about Bryn Mawr’s NGLC program with other institutions, and oversees assessment.
Assessing the blended learning program presents some challenges. Some of the courses are new, so it isn’t possible to compare learning outcomes in courses incorporating OLI materials with courses that did not use them. Given the many variables that influence learning, including how the faculty member uses blended learning materials, it’s difficult to isolate what factors contribute to success. There may be ethical issues with giving some students access to these learning materials and not providing them to others, given the belief that they will improve learning. Thus Bryn Mawr is evaluating what faculty and students think of the resources and how the faculty use them. Bryn Mawr would like to understand whether blended learning fosters greater retention, so that in a semester or a year it could test students both in this program and in traditional courses to determine the relative level of retention.
Partnership and Dissemination
Bryn Mawr is committed to disseminating its work and building a community to explore blended education in a liberal arts context, so it is partnering with over 30 other colleges to share its program and findings. Indeed, Cassidy believes that Bryn Mawr’s ability to attract partners was key to its success in winning the NGLC grant. Partners will be invited to the spring conference to find out about the program’s results, and faculty from partner institutions may apply for $1500 stipends to develop blended courses. Bryn Mawr is also sharing syllabi, how-tos, a database of open educational resources, and other handy tools via a Moodle site (you can log in as guest or request an account). Videos from the summer 2011 workshop and December webinar are available to all.
The Bryn Mawr project is an initial and important step toward the larger goals of understanding the significance of blended learning for liberal arts colleges and determining what educational resources are needed. So is blended education consistent with liberal education? Early indicators suggest it can be. As Spohrer says, liberal education aims to help students learn how to learn and direct their own education. OLI and other assessment-driven learning materials help students reflect on their own knowledge (metacognition), see where they have weaknesses, practice key skills, and grow in their knowledge and abilities. Likewise, these technologies can help faculty deliver the support that students need, eliminating some of the guesswork while retaining, perhaps even deepening, the human connection. Bryn Mawr is raising some of the key questions about liberal education and blended learning and through its experiments will help to illuminate answers.
Bryn Mawr’s experiences suggest several areas where collaboration makes sense:
- Perhaps liberal arts colleges could work together to find, evaluate and recommend appropriate OER and online resources, or develop resources where there are gaps. Many colleges teach similar courses, so partnering to create common resources can help to reduce duplication of effort, bring greater transparency to teaching and share innovations.
- If liberal arts colleges could collaborate to develop assessment measures and test blended learning across their campuses, the community could have more generalizable results.
It’s worth noting that a majority of the chief academic officers at all but the largest institutions see OER as having value, but what accounts for the gap between for-profits and other types of institutions? First, most for-profits already have the infrastructure and practices in place to adopt electronic course resources such as OER. As Going the Distance suggests, many for-profit colleges are heavily engaged in online learning; furthermore, they already incorporate e-textbooks in their classes. In addition, for-profits likely see adopting OER as an opportunity to reduce costs. According to the student PIRG’s 2010 report “A Cover to Cover Solution: How Open Textbooks are the Path to Textbook Affordability,” the typical student spends about $900 per year on textbooks. Not only could open textbooks reduce students’ costs by as much as 80%, but they could also pressure publishers to reduce their prices. Some for-profits, such as American Public University System (APUS), bundle textbook costs into tuition, so they have a strong interest in reducing costs. Indeed, APUS recently announced an initiative to recruit its own faculty members to produce e-textbooks, some of which will be released with open licenses.
But it’s not just the for-profits that see strategic advantages in promoting open educational resources. Community colleges, in an effort to lower costs, broaden access, and improve learning and retention, are taking a leadership role in fostering the development and use of OER. According to a 2008 survey of “1,203 faculty from 12 community college districts and 28 colleges” by the Community College Consortium for Open Educational Resources (CCCOER), 91% were interested in using OER in their classes, but only 34% were currently using them. Various efforts are underway to help community college faculty identify and use appropriate OER. Over 200 community colleges from 15 states now belong to CCCOER, which aims to help community colleges find or produce OER. (CCOER was co-founded by Dr. Judy Baker of Foothill College and two former colleagues in the Foothill-De Anza Community College District, Martha Kanter, now Undersecretary of Education, and Hal Plotkin, now Senior Policy Advisor to Kanter.) As part of the Obama administration’s strategy to broaden access to higher education, the Department of Labor launched a $2 billion program to prepare students for careers in emerging industries and stipulated that any job training resources developed would be released under Creative Commons attribution licenses. However, funding for the program may be in jeopardy. At the state level, as my colleague Bryan Alexander recently noted, the state of Washington’s community college system just released the first phase of its Open Course Library, which currently contains high quality, affordable, adaptable educational materials to support 42 courses. According to the Student Public Interest Research Groups, this project is anticipated to save students at least $1.2 million a year and could save them as much as $41 million annually, assuming every class in the system adopts the textbooks.
Likewise, some research universities see strategic advantages in pursuing open education. Perhaps most notably, in 2001 MIT decided to sharing course resources openly online through its Open CourseWare program, thus contributing to global knowledge, raising its online profile, and enhancing teaching at the university (see Unlocking the Gates). To advance its goals to be “a private university in the public service” and a “globally networked university,” NYU launched an open education pilot project in 2009. For instance, students at NYU’s global campuses could watch a lecture by an NYU faculty member before coming to class, leaving more instructional time for discussion and, in a broader sense, enabling the university “to reinvent the 19th century tutorial model–on a global scale, to boot.” NYU has established a partnership with the open University of the People to “identify” potential students who could enroll at NYU Abu Dhabi; some financial support would be available.
Indeed, “open education” seems to be gaining traction throughout higher education. The 2010 Horizon Report (disclosure: I served on the advisory board) selected open content as a practice likely to come into mainstream use within one to two years. Openness is a guiding principle of the Next Generation Learning Challenge and is regularly featured at conferences such as the Educause Learning Initiative. Even publishers and developers of course management systems seem to be jumping on the OER bandwagon. For example, Blackboard recently announced that instructors will be able to share course materials housed in its course management system through a Creative Commons Attribution license, and Pearson launched its “open” learning management system, OpenClass (although, as Audrey Watters suggests, it’s not clear how “open” such systems really are.)
So what about liberal arts colleges in the US? Although several liberal arts colleges (including Trinity, Oberlin, Bucknell, and Hope) have embraced mandates promoting open access to scholarship, I am not aware of many that have made institutional commitments to open educational resources, which focus more on teaching and learning. For example, US members of the Open Courseware Consortium include research universities (e.g. University of Michigan), community colleges (e.g. Anne Arundel Community College), and even a for-profit (Kaplan University), but I noted only one liberal arts college (Sterling College). Liberal arts colleges do not appear much in three of the major books and reports about open education, Toru Iiyoshi and M.S. Vijay Kumar’s Opening Up Education: The Collective Advancement of Education through Open Technology, Open Content, and Open Knowledge, Taylor Walsh’s Unlocking the Gates: How and Why Leading Universities are Opening Up Access to Their Courses, and Daniel Atkins, John Seely Brown and Allen L. Hammond’s A Review of the Open Educational Resources (OER) Movement: Achievement, Challenges and New Opportunities [PDF]. (If you know of liberal arts colleges that are pursuing open education, please comment on this post.)
Why hasn’t open education been more prominent among liberal arts colleges? Perhaps liberal arts colleges, particularly elite institutions, don’t feel the same pressure to bring down textbook costs that community colleges and for-profits do. (However, with rising concern about the expense of elite liberal arts colleges and the sustainability of their business models, promoting OER may be one relatively straightforward way to lower costs.) Perhaps they are not fully aware of OER, given that a third of chief academic officers responding to the Going the Distance survey said they are just “somewhat aware” of OER and 13.3% said they are not at all aware of OER. Maybe liberal arts colleges don’t have the resources to pursue open education, or they haven’t been as successful in winning funding for OER initiatives. It could be that there aren’t enough appropriate OER available to support the liberal arts curriculum. (Yale deliberately focused on the undergraduate liberal arts curriculum through its Open Yale project, but currently it offers just video, audio, and transcripts of lectures. Starting in the spring of 2012, Open Yale will release course-related textbooks for less than $20, but it does not appear that these will have open licenses). Perhaps instructors at liberal arts colleges, who typically select course reading lists, have established preferences for proprietary course materials, worry about the quality of OER, or simply don’t know about open alternatives. In contrast, many instructors at for-profits and at community college have less autonomy in choosing course texts. Perhaps most importantly, liberal arts colleges may not see strong strategic reasons to pursue open education.
But some liberal arts colleges are embracing–or at least experimenting with–open education to promote strategic goals such as improving learning, building community, and broadening access to education. I will feature several examples in my next post. Stay tuned…
OCL was launched by the Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges (SBCTC)
- Cost savings for students are clearly a major benefit. So is the strategy of intervening in the textbook ecosystem, as one observer points out.
- Cost savings can have political benefits:
“For employers, it’s about up-skilling the labor force,” said Shaunta Hyde, State Board member and director of Global Aviation Policy for Boeing Commercial Airplanes. “Open Educational Resources will help people earn industry-recognized degrees and credentials more quickly at lower cost. Evidence shows the burden of high college expenses can impact student success and degree completion. So the Open Course Library is good for business and leads to an improved employment outlook for students.”
- Support comes from several sources, including Washington state, the Gates Foundation, and SBCTC schools.
- The partnership pattern is very interesting. OCL links with Connexions, the Saylor Foundation, and the Gates. SBCTC is also a member of the OCW Consortium.
(thanks to Grace Pang)