Open Educational Resources: reviewing initiatives and issues

The aim of this special issue of Open Learning is to provide an introduction to the emerging Open Educational Resources (OER) movement. It is a young movement, with just a decade of development, but significant initiatives have been undertaken in a range of settings, issues have been identified that must be addressed, and ultimately there are implications for education systems and institutions, learners and educators.

Open Educational Resources: the term

In 2002, UNESCO convened a group of academics, primarily from developing countries, to assess a new development – the OpenCourseWare initiative of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The Forum on the Impact of Open Courseware for Higher Education Institutions in Developing Countries coined the term ‘Open Educational Resources’, which was defined as:

The open provision of educational resources, enabled by information and communication technologies, for consultation, use and adaptation by a community of users for noncommercial purposes. (UNESCO, 2002)

Participants of the meeting were enthusiastic about the potential of such resources and formally expressed ‘their wish to develop together a universal educational resource available for the whole of humanity … they hope that this open resource for the future mobilizes the whole of the worldwide community of educators’ (UNESCO, 2002).

As the OER movement has grown, other efforts have been made to define and describe the term and the concept. Definitions have moved from an initial description of the materials to include the tools needed to support OER, and eventually to a philosophy.

The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the donor that has been the primary champion in the OER movement, defines OER as:

teaching, learning and research resources that reside in the public domain or have been released under an intellectual property license that permits their free use or re‐purposing by others. Open educational resources include full courses, course materials, modules, textbooks, streaming videos, tests, software, and any other tools, materials or techniques used to support access to knowledge. (William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, 2008)

In its report Giving Knowledge for Free. The Emergence of Open Educational Resources, the OECD described OER as including ‘learning content, software tools to develop, use and distribute content, and implementation resources such as open licenses’ and used the term in the publication to refer to ‘accumulated digital assets that can be adjusted and which provide benefits without restricting the possibilities for others to enjoy them’ (OECD, 2007, p. 10). A meeting in 2007 in Cape Town resulted in the Cape Town Open Education Declaration, which situated OER in the broader context of open education:

…open education is not limited to just open educational resources. It also draws upon open technologies that facilitate collaborative, flexible learning and the open sharing of teaching practices that empower educators to benefit from the best ideas of their colleagues. It may also grow to include new approaches to assessment, accreditation and collaborative learning. (Cape Town Open Education Declaration, 2008)

Open is a concept that will resonate with the readers of this journal. Open and distance learning seek to make education more open to those who need or wish for alternative opportunities to the traditional system. The Open University UK is centred on the concept of open: the institution is ‘open to people, places, methods and ideas’ (The Open University, 2008). What is added in the definitions of OER is the concept of free. There is a common philosophy in both the OER and Free and Open Source Software movements: ‘The fundamental principle underlying both FOSS and OER is the freedom to share knowledge – whether this takes the form of making software code open for collaborative modification and improvement, or allowing unrestricted access to learning materials’ (Vukovic & Martin, in press). In this context, free is taken in the sense of ‘free speech’, rather than ‘free beer’.

Taking the perspective of the learner, one can describe the component parts of formal education as: materials such as notes, textbooks, films, and so forth + instructional support, whether face‐to‐face or at a distance + validation of the learning experience through evaluation and the awarding of a recognised credential. In this context, OER are situated in the first part of the equation since, as yet, they do not normally imply instructional support or evaluation and a credential.

From the perspective of the educator, OER are congruent with academic tradition:

This emerging open education movement combines the established tradition of sharing good ideas with fellow educators and the collaborative, interactive culture of the Internet. It is built on the belief that everyone should have the freedom to use, customize, improve and redistribute educational resources without constraint. Educators, learners and others who share this belief are gathering together as part of a worldwide effort to make education both more accessible and more effective. (Cape Town Open Education Declaration, 2008)

Beginning of a movement

Distance education has always made use of new technologies as they became available to support and improve teaching and learning at a distance, from the days of print‐based correspondence tuition to the growing use of the Internet. In the 1990s, interest in the potential of technology accelerated, not only in the distance education institutions but also on the part of the traditional university – with an increasing number of institutional initiatives that aimed to use the power of the Internet and the web to extend the reach and flexibility of the institution. In higher education, online learning and the virtual university appeared to hold great promise. Academia Europa held a meeting in 1999 on the topic ‘Virtual University? Educational Environments of the Future’:

A simple question started the organization of the meeting: what will the university be like in the next millennium? Emerging technologies are transforming our concept of time and space. The Internet is only the forerunner of what is to come. Cyberspace will eventually determine how we learn, socialize and work. In the near future, commercial educational networks will offer a wide variety of global products. Therefore, the university must rethink its organization and the adequacy of its educational methods. (van der Molen, 2001, p. vii)

With the irrational exuberance that characterised the time, there appeared to be a sense of urgency on the part of many institutions to become involved in online education. Many institutions embarked on the costly adventure of offering online learning programmes, and others emerged as new virtual universities or consortia of institutions aiming to operate in borderless cyberspace. Some succeeded, and some failed in a manner parallel to the many ventures that succumbed in the dot‐com crash. One institution took a different route – MIT. After considerable reflection, a committee convened in 1999 ‘to consider how MIT should position itself in the use of educational technology and distance education’ recommended that all course materials be given away on the web (Vest, 2006, p. 18). What resulted was the development of MIT OpenCourseWare, a web‐based publishing venture rather than a distance education programme. It would be an adventure, according to then President Charles Vest – an adventure that became the model for open sharing of educational content that was presented to the international meeting at UNESCO in 2002 when the term Open Educational Resources was adopted.

Rationale for OER and some barriers

The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation has acted as champion of OER since 2001 when it began to support MIT OpenCourseWare, arguing that:

At the heart of the movement toward Open Educational Resources is the simple and powerful idea that the world’s knowledge is a public good and that technology in general and the Worldwide Web in particular provide an extraordinary opportunity for everyone to share, use, and reuse it. (Smith & Casserly, 2006, p. 8)

The Hewlett Foundation has supported many OER initiatives worldwide, including that of UNESCO, initially with a three‐part theory of change to equalise access to knowledge (William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, 2005):

•	Sponsor high‐quality open academic content.
•	Break down barriers to open educational content.
•	Encourage people worldwide to use OER.

While the Hewlett Foundation articulated a high level rationale for OER, the OECD Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, in its scoping and mapping study of OER, identified specific advantages for various stakeholders (OECD, 2007, pp. 11–12).

Governments can serve citizens through:

•	Widening participation in higher education by expanding access to learning and reaching non‐traditional learners;
•	Promoting lifelong learning;
•	Bridging the gap between formal, informal and non‐formal learning.

Institutions may benefit in a number of ways:

•	Sharing knowledge is congruent with the academic tradition;
•	Taxpayer’s money is leveraged through the free sharing of resources;
•	The cost of content development can be reduced and quality may be improved;
•	The public image of the institution may be enhanced and new students attracted;
•	With increasing competition, institutions need to identify new cost‐recovery models.

Educators also stand to benefit:

•	Sharing is an academic value;
•	Personal gain through increased reputation;
•	Gaining publicity or reaching the market more quickly may result in an economic advantage.

These potential benefits are not without barriers. These were characterised in the study (pp. 59–60) as:

•	Technical, such as lack of broadband access;
•	Economic, such as inadequate resources to invest in the necessary software and hardware;
•	Social, such as a lack of the skills needed to use technology;
•	Policy‐oriented, such as the lack of academic recognition of the development of OER by teaching staff;
•	Legal, such as the time and expense associated with gaining permission to use third part owned copyrighted materials or its removal from material.

UNESCO believes education is key to social and economic development, and aims to support the creation of learning societies. In this context, it leads the global Education for All movement, with the goal of dramatically expanding learning opportunities for all children, youth and adults by 2015 (UNESCO, 2007). And the sharing of educational resources openly and freely can only contribute positively to this challenging objective. In addition to promoting the creation of learning societies, UNESCO is committed to supporting the development of knowledge societies.

To remain human and liveable, knowledge societies will have to be societies of shared knowledge … the potential offered by a rational and purposeful use of the new technologies offers real prospects for human and sustainable development and the building of more democratic societies. (UNESCO, 2005, p. 5)

Sharing knowledge through making educational resources openly and freely available is a powerful means to support the development of both learning societies and knowledge societies, the goal that is encompassed in the broad and generous vision of OER articulated by the Hewlett Foundation.

UNESCO action and the way forward for OER

UNESCO has taken action to inform Member States of the concept of OER, current initiatives worldwide, and related issues and concerns. Such awareness raising at the international level constitutes a fundamental support to the promotion of the OER movement. The organisation also supports actively those who wish to explore the potential of OER for local development and re‐use through the UNESCO OER Community of more than 700 members from 105 Member States, 67 of which are developing countries. The community came into being in 2005 and has been a space for international discussion and debate through regular topic‐specific interactions, with a common work space and document repository in the OER Wiki. Development of an OER Network of local or topic‐specific nodes is foreseen as a next step to promote South–South networking, and support local awareness raising and the development of material that is culturally appropriate.

In mid‐2007, the OER Community stopped to reflect upon the priorities to advance the OER movement and the stakeholders that should take action (D’Antoni, 2007). Community members were invited to review a list of 14 priorities and to select and rank order the five deemed most important. In addition, the stakeholders that should assume a leadership role were identified for each issue ranked as a priority. More than half of the community members responded, and their profile reflects almost perfectly that of the full community. They represent a range of organisations, with over half of the members coming from universities and distance learning institutions. Almost 40% hold senior positions – either as head or senior official or manager – within their institutions, while 30% are teachers or researchers. This profile means that the perspective of the educator in the institution dominated the priority setting exercise.

Five issues stand out as priorities, with a sixth that warrants attention. Awareness raising and promotion and communities and networking were identified as the main priorities to advance the movement. Capacity development, which was ranked third, is central to supporting and increasing the development and use of OER. The fourth issue, sustainability, points to the need to ensure that OER initiatives become embedded in policies, structures and programmes to extend learning opportunities and knowledge sharing. The identification of quality assurance as the fifth priority speaks to the concern that with open access to all, the traditional structures that support and protect the learner may be absent. Throughout its discussions, the community returned again and again to the sixth issue – that of copyright. Resources intended for release as OER with an open licence, such as a Creative Commons licence, must be free of copyrighted material unless appropriate clearance has been obtained.

Four lead stakeholders were identified for taking action: higher education institutions, international organisations, national governments and academics. Higher education institutions were assigned responsibility for functions that relate to their mission – research and supporting learning – but also for awareness raising and capacity development. Copyright, financing and standards, in addition to awareness raising, were identified as issues that should be addressed by international bodies. National governments should provide policy support and ensure accessibility, as well as taking up the challenges of copyright and financing of OER.

The analysis of the Community’s reflection was released in a small publication entitled Open Educational Resources: The Way Forward (D’Antoni, 2007). Community members took ownership of the output of their collective reflection, and self‐organised to translate the publication for their own communities. The Way Forward now exists in 13 languages on the OER Community Wiki, a contribution to planning for the development and use of OER worldwide – and a testimonial to the energy, enthusiasm and engagement of the OER Community itself.

Organisation of the issue

The articles in this issue have been organised to present an overview of the OER movement, and the perspective is largely that of the OER provider. Given the fact that it is a young movement, case studies seem appropriate and they constitute the majority of the articles. The cases represent a range of different types of initiatives; and the voice of the OER champions who have authored them is as audible as their passion is palpable. All movements are advanced by champions, and there are many speaking in this issue.

The issue opens with a focus on a context and a catalyst in the OER movement. The historical reflection by David Wiley and Seth Gurrell on various developments over the past decade elaborates a specific context for OER and the emerging OER movement – that of copyright law and open licences. Steve Carson’s description of the development of OER at MIT and the OpenCourseWare Consortium complements this perspective. He provides an overview of an institutional initiative that has served as a catalyst for development in many other institutions worldwide that have come together in the consortium.

Five case studies follow, representing some of the different approaches taken in different settings and constituencies. They describe specific institutional initiatives and the vision underlying them, with a hint of the vision for the future. The first two are based upon the open courseware model. Brendan Barrett and his colleagues present the experience of the United Nations University in adopting the model and outline the strategy taken. The open courseware model was also adopted by the Bloomberg School of Public Health of Johns Hopkins University to increase access to instructional materials for public health education. The sustainability of OER projects is a key concern, and Sukon Kanchanaraksa and colleagues note in this case that, although launched with external support, the project is expected to be sustainable without the need to generate revenue from the open content.

The case of the University of Western Cape written by Derek Keats is embedded in the specific culture of the university – one of freedom and social justice – and he adds the concept to the term he uses, ‘Free and Open Educational Resources’ (F/OER). He tells the story of his own personal journey as a champion of F/OER, interwoven with that of the institution. Initiated without external resources, this case presents a potential model for the engagement in the OER movement of institutions lacking external seed money.

The final two cases may be of particular interest to the readers of this journal, in that they are open universities. Distance teaching institutions invest heavily in the preparation of the high‐quality learning materials that are essential to this specific mode of teaching and learning. Therefore, it is important to hear of the experience of two such institutions in launching OER activities. The objectives and aspirations of the OER movement fit perfectly the destiny of The Open University UK, according to Brenda Gourley and Andy Lane. As in the case of the University of Western Cape, the mission of the university is to promote social justice, and OpenLearn is intended as a contribution. The start up is described, the achievements and lessons to date are shared, and, although the activity is still young, the conclusion is inspirational. The Open Universiteit Nederland set about bridging the gap between informal and formal learning with the objective of reducing barriers and increasing participation in higher education through the OpenER experiment. Robert Schuwer and Fred Mulder share the lessons learned and explore future scenarios for sustainability. It is important to note that, although the initiative is institutional, it has had an impact at the national level.

A more explicit exploration of the potential of OER at the national level comes from India. The government created its National Knowledge Commission as a high‐level advisory body to the Prime Minister, with the objective of transforming India into a knowledge society. Vijay Kumar outlines the challenges the society currently faces and the promise of OER for greatly increasing educational opportunity and excellence. A set of recommendations is put forward that may serve as points for reflection for other national initiatives. Paul West and Sir John Daniel describe the case of the Virtual University for Small States of the Commonwealth, which points to the power and efficiency of an international consortium. Conceived as a network, the Virtual University for Small States of the Commonwealth was based from the beginning on the concept of sharing materials and programmes, a concept enabled by the growing trend to develop OER. There were challenges to be faced, and one important step taken has been to facilitate comparability of qualifications and increase the credibility of e‐learning through the development of a Transnational Qualifications Framework.

The production and use of OER raises a number of issues, and the concluding article addresses a crucial concern that brings us back to the perspective of the first article – open licensing. If materials are to be openly and freely shared, they must be licensed in a manner that promotes this objective. Ahrash Bissell’s article aims to explain the logic of the open licensing that is essential to OER and to explore related considerations.

It is evident from the presented articles that we have embarked on an important journey, carried along by the need and desire to make education and knowledge more equitably available and the growing web of connectivity around the globe. That web is not yet ubiquitous, and there will certainly be many more challenges ahead. But there is a way forward for OER that will contribute to the promise of education for all.