How are higher education institutions in Europe dealing with openness?

An analysis of practices, beliefs and strategies in five European countries

JRC - Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (on behalf of DG-EAC)

Jonatan Castaño Muñoz Yves Punie

Andreia Inamorato dos Santos (@jcastanom @yves998 @aisantos)

and ACA external team

© European CommissionReuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged

FORTHCOMING…

Reference: How are higher education institutions dealing with openness? A survey of practices, beliefs and strategies in five European countries. JRC Science for Policy Report, European Commission, to be published (January 2016).

• √ This presentation summarises the main results of the OpenSurvey study undertaken by EC JRC IPTS in collaboration with ACA.

• √ It is done on behalf of EC Directorate-General for Education and Culture (DG-EAC).

• √ It is part of the JRC IPTS OpenEdu project aiming to provide evidence and a framework for opening up practices in higher education institutions in Europe.

Disclaimer: The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use which might be made of this publication.

OPENEDU studies

Besides in-house research OPENEDU runs 5 studies: Moocknowledge: a survey on MOOC learners (ongoing)

OpenCred: desk research and case studies on recognition of non-formal learning via MOOCs (May-November 2015)

OpenSurvey: a representative survey of higher education institutions in 5 European countries to enquire about their openness strategies (ended Nov 2015)

OpenCases: case studies on openness in higher education (ended Nov 2015)

BMOpen: exploring a framework for assessing & developing business models for open education (ongoing)

Structure

a. Scope and methodsb. ICT based learningc. Open Education provisiond. Massive Open Online Courses e. Open Educational Resourcesf. Collaboration

g. Recognitionh. Open Education strategy

and organisationi. Open Science and Open

Softwarej. Final remarks

a) Scope and methods

Open education

is understood here as a mode of delivering education using

Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) which offers

alternative ways of learning and access routes to formal and non-

formal education and aims to be open to everyone.

(E.g. MOOCs, OER, badges)

√ Starting point: While there is a need of reliable Open Education data from EU HE institutions, surveys usually suffer from positive selection bias towards Open Education.

OpenSurvey however is representative of HE institutions in 5 EU countries: France, Germany, Poland, Spain and UK.

√ Aim: Overview of Open Education institutional practices, strategies, perceptions, motivations, barriers, business models and its variations by country.

√ Scope: Full range of openness (OER, MOOCs, Recognition,…).

√ Team: IPTS in collaboration with Academic Cooperation Association (ACA)

√ Total Responses (n)=178 - Data collection between February and June 2015. - Respondents profile: Open Education responsible, vice-rectors for ICT-related activities, vice-rectors for academic affairs/teaching and learning, and in cases where no other information was available rectors were directly asked for information.

√ Reduction of selection bias. Respondent characteristics adjusted to sampling frame characteristics via weights: Country, region, type of institution, and past MOOC offer (last 3 years according European MOOC Scoreboard).

√ Consequences for statistical power: Reduction of sample size after weighting. According to Kish approximation, effective net sample size (neff)=117,75 -> CI: +-9% for overall analysis

Responses rates and confidence intervals

Country

Sampling Frame Contacted Responses Response

Rate

Effective net sample size (neff)

CI neff

NN N % N %

Poland 306 191 (stratified sample) 55 28,8 50 +-13.9

France 294 196 (stratified sample) 22 11,2 19 +-22.5

Germany 361 198 (stratified sample) 25 12,6 17 +-23.8

Spain 157 157 35 22,3 27 +-18.5

UK 147 147 41 27,9 38 +-15.9

Total 1,264 889 178 20,0 117.75 +-9

Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

b) ICT based learning

Use of ICT-based learning

Materia

ls avai

lable o

nline

Blende

d lear

ning

Online d

iscussi

on an

d inte

ractiv

e tool

s

Use of

online

collab

orativ

e tool

s

Video

record

ing of

lectures

Socia

l netw

orks

Flippe

d clas

sroom

meth

odolo

gies

Online s

imula

tions

and on

line labo

ratori

es

Individ

ual co

urses

fully t

aught

online

Mobile

learni

ng

Serio

us ga

mes

Study

program

mes fully

taugh

t onlin

e

Learni

ng an

alytic

sOthe

rs0

102030405060708090

10084.4%

72.1%64.7% 61.5%

54.1% 52.5%43.4%

36.6% 34.3% 32.1% 29.2% 28.6%22.5%

3.2%

%

Number of valid responses after weighting :118 –Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Which type of learning is most effective promoting the following aspects in your institution?

Lower cost burden of the education for the students

Lower cost of the education provision for the institution

Acquisition of ICT skills

Efficient use of the lecturer’s time

Efficient use of the student’s time

Collaboration between students

Pedagogical innovation

Personalized learning

Teacher-student communication

Active learning

43.5%

37.1%

20.7%

18.3%

14.5%

10.8%

8.4%

5.5%

4.1%

3.4%

44.4%

43%

73%

64.4%

71.6%

70.8%

79.9%

72.2%

68.2%

75.4%

12%

20%

6.3%

17.3%

13.9%

18.5%

11.7%

22.3%

27.7%

21.2%

100% Online Blended 100% Face-to-faceNumber of valid responses after weighting: 118 –Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

SUMMARY FOR ICT BASED LEARNING- √ Provision of learning materials online is the most important use of ICT for HEI.

- √ Uses of ICT in HE can be divided into two groups according to degree of adoption: - The more "classical" uses of ICT (materials available online, online discussions, videorecording of lectures

and social networks) are widespread - New uses (online simulations and laboratories, mobile learning, serious games, and learning analytics) are

less adopted

- √ Blended learning (72.1%) is more widespread than the offer of fully online courses (34.3%) or online study programmes (28.6%)

• √ In line with above, blended learning is perceived by university managers as the most effective way to promote all the aspects asked in the survey (see slide 13)

• √ 100% online learning is, in the case of 6 dimensions, perceived as the least suitable form of provision. On the other hand it is perceived as useful for lowering the cost burden for students.

• √ 100% online learning is considered a better option than 100% face-to-face learning for the categories “acquisition of ICT skills”, “efficient use of lecturer’s time” and “efficient use of the students’ time”.

c) Perception of Open Education provision

Is Open Education (in any of the different forms) provided within your institution?

OVERALL France Germany Poland Spain UK0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

39.4% 41.6%

21.8%

43% 43.4%

63%

%

Number of valid responses after weighting :117 (for overall) and 144 (for country comparison) –Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Provision of Open Education at the level of faculties (or similar units)

25.1%

29.2%

34.2%

11.5%

In most faculties (more than 50%) In several faculties (between 10 and 50%)In a few faculties (less than 10%) In no faculties at all

Number of valid responses after weighting : 46 (only respondents who provide Open Education) –Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

SUMMARY FOR PERCEPTION OF OPEN EDUCATION OFFER

- √ Close to 40% of institutions state they provide open education in any form.

- √ There are significant variations per country: - UK institutions stand out with 60% of institutions stating that they offer OE- In Germany this figure is only 21.8%. Institutions in Germany are more likely to state they do not provide OE

than they do. - In Spain, France and Poland about 42-43% of institutions state to offer OE.

- √ In about one third of the institutions (34.3%) OE offer is provided by a few of the faculties, slightly fewer institutions report provision in several faculties (29.2%) or most of them (25.1%).

d) Massive Open Online Courses

Offer of MOOCs

OVERALL France Germany Poland Spain United Kingdom0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

21.8%36%

10.1% 8.4%

33.8% 35.1%

19%

26.2%

13%23.7%

14.5% 12.3%

59.2%

37.8%

76.9%67.9%

51.7% 52.6%

MOOCs offered MOOCs planned No plans or don't know

%

Number of valid responses after weighting :117 (for overall) and 144 (for country comparison) –Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Is offering MOOCs part of your institutions's official educational strategy?

57.5%

42.5%

Yes No

Number of valid responses after weighting : 25 (Only respondents who offer MOOCs) –Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Connection of MOOCs with recognition instruments and qualification frameworks

Some or all MOOCs are connected to other reference frameworks (Please specify)

Some or all MOOCs are connected to the national qualifications framework

Some or all MOOCs are connected to the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS)

No, the MOOCs are not connected to any reference framework

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

1.2%

9%

25.7%

65.3%

%Number of valid responses after weighting: 25 (only respondents who offer MOOCs) –Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

14.9%

43.6%

17.7%

23.8%Yes, it uses the same quality assurance mechanisms as for face-to-face pro-grammes

Yes, it uses different quality assurance mechanisms than those for face-to-face programmes

No

I don't know

MOOCs quality assurance mechanisms compared with those for face-to-face

Number of valid responses after weighting : 25 (only respondents who offer MOOCs) –Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

SUMMARY FOR MOOCs• √ MOOCs are on the agenda of almost half of all HE institutions (41%): 21.8% of institutions are already

offering MOOCs and 19% plans to do it in the near future, demonstrating an important growth potential.

• √ These numbers are lower compared to other EU surveys (E.g. EADTU 2014 states that 72% of institutions is offering or planning to offer a MOOC, and EUA 2013 survey situates this figure at 58%). Our survey avoided overrepresentation of OE leading institutions.

• √ By country, in France, Spain and the UK, the proportion of universities which are offering MOOCs is similar and relatively high (around 35%), compared to 10.0% and 8.4% respectively in Germany and Poland.

• √ However, both France and Poland stand out regarding the planning of future MOOCs: respectively 26.2% and 23.7% of HEIs plan to offer MOOCs in the near future

• √ When analysing the institutions which offer MOOCs (n=25), the survey shows that:• In many cases, the MOOC offer is part of the institutional educational strategies (57%).• The majority of MOOCs are not linked to recognition instruments or qualification frameworks, and when they are,

ECTS is the framework most used (25.7%). The use of EQF is lower (9%).• MOOCs usually have different quality assurance mechanisms than face-to-face courses (43,6%). Only 17.7% of

institutions do not have a quality mechanism for their MOOC offer.

e) Open Educational Resources (OER)

OER

Other d

igital

educa

tional

mate

rials (

not li

censed

OER)

OER

Other d

igital

educa

tional

mate

rials (

not li

censed

OER)

020406080

100

51.4 58.6

35.249.2

Promotion of development and use of OER and other digital materials

Promotion of usePromotion of

development and offer

%

%%

%

%

Number of valid responses after weighting : from 108 to 114 depending on the question –Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Promotion of USE and DEVELOPMENT of OER and other digital materials - per country

OVERALL France Germany Poland Spain UK0

102030405060708090

100

51.4

76.2

44.3

36.3

50.5 53.758

.6

76.3

50.9

48

57.1 69

OEROther digital educational materials (not licensed OER)

OVERALL France Germany Poland Spain UK0

102030405060708090

100

35.2 44

.6

27.7

26.9 37

.4

40.349

.2 56.2

42.6 48

.4

43.4

67

OEROther digital educational materials (not licensed OER)

Promotion of usePromotion of

development and offer% %

Number of valid responses after weighting: form 108 to 114 (for overall) and from 135 to 140 (for country comparison) depending on the question –Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Promoting OER – Planning to do so – No planning

Use Development and offer0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

51.4%35.2%

10%

11.1%

38.6%53.6%

Promotion Not ,but planned No plans or don't know

%

Number of valid responses after weighting: from 108 to 114 depending on the question -Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Use of own OER

020406080

100 86.6% 82.8%

50.7%37.1%

13.7%

%

Number of valid responses after weighting : 34 (Only respondents who promote the development and offer of OER) –Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Quality assurance mechanisms for the OER offered

10.9%

40.8%

27.1%

21.1% Yes, it uses newly developed quality assurance mechanisms specific for OER

Yes, it uses already existing quality assurance mechanisms

No

I don't know

Number of valid responses after weighting: 38 (Only respondents who promote the development and offer of OER) –Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

SUMMARY FOR OER• √ Digital materials and OER are adopted by institutions.

• 51% promote use of OER in their institution, 58% promote use of other digital materials. • Developing and offering these material is lower: 35% for OER and 49% for other digital materials.

• √ OER use is currently more widespread than MOOCs use, but the latter have more growth potential: 19% against 10% planning to use them.

• √ The proportion of French institutions promoting the use of OER is higher than in the remaining countries. In addition, in Polish institutions it is lower than in the remaining countries (Poland offer of MOOCs is also lower). No significant differences were found for the other 3 categories (Use of digital materials, development of OER and development of digital materials.

• √ When analysing the institutions which promote the development of OER (n=38), the survey shows that:

• Own OER are more often used as recommended materials (86%) than as core material. In addition, there is a tendency to use OER more in face to face courses than in online courses.

• Quality assurance (QA) approaches specific to OER are rare (just over 10% which contrast with the 43,6% for MOOCs). Standard QA methodologies seem to prevail (40%).

f) Collaboration

Collaboration of the institution in…

Design of digital learning strategies Shared online courses for students Shared teacher training0

102030405060708090

100

42.7% 42.6% 46.4%

20.1% 20.4% 20%

45.9% 47.4% 49.7%

Yes, with institutions in own country Yes, cross-border (i.e. with institutions from other countries)No

%

Number of valid responses after weighting :118 –Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Collaboration of the institution in.. (by country)

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Pola

nd

Spai

n UK

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Pola

nd

Spai

n UK

Fran

ce

Germ

any

Pola

nd

Spai

n UK

Design of digital learning strategies Shared online courses for students Shared teacher training

0102030405060708090

100

59

53.8

24.4

38.1

30.7

68.4

50.1

23.7

39.5

19.9

58.5

53.7

25.1

49.9

2223.7 26.4

7.9

18.7 22 25

.3

23.4

10.1 14

.6

30

22

13.7 21

.2

22.5

11.2

36.7

26

68.9

51.5 57

25

36.4

68.5

58.3

57.7

37.5 40.8

52.8

41.6

62.5

Yes, with institutions in own country Yes, cross-border (i.e. with institutions from other countries)No

%

Number of valid responses after weighting :146 –Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Collaboration in the development of OER

020406080

100

45.7%

21.4%

45.7%

%

Number of valid responses after weighting: 38 (Only respondents who promote the development and offer of OER) –Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Collaboration in MOOCs

MOOCs development MOOC recognition0

102030405060708090

100

55.9%

41.4%

12.6%3.9%

39.6%

56.8%

Yes, with institutions in own country Yes, cross-border (i.e. with institutions from other countries)No

%

Number of valid responses after weighting : 25 (Only respondents who promote the development and offer of OER) –Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

SUMMARY FOR COLLABORATION• √ National collaboration is higher than cross-border collaboration.

• Cross-border collaboration in the design and development of online courses and strategies, in shared online courses, or in teacher training is around 20%,

• This percentage is more than 40% in the case of collaboration with institutions in own country.

• √ In national collaboration, differences between countries are detected. • France is the country with higher level of “within country” collaboration and Poland the one with lower. • Cross-border collaboration, however, is similar in the five studied countries and no significant differences can be

observed in the data

• √ Although figures come from limited subsamples, the survey data shows how the collaboration in development of OER follows the same patterns described above. However, cross-border collaboration in MOOCs seems to be lower than in other areas (12,6% for development and only 3,9% for recognition). Collaboration on MOOCs has room for growing.

g) Recognition

Could the following cases get recognition in credit points via prior learning recognition procedures?

A MOOC certificate without any identity control

A certificate based on online proctored exam of a MOOC that does not have a specific number of credit points allocated to it in the course description

A certificate based on an on-site exam of a MOOC that does not have a specific number of credits allocated to it in the course description

Prior knowledge achieved via independent self-study

A certificate achieved via studying with OER

A certificate based on online proctored exam of a MOOC that has a specific number of credit points allocated to it in the course description

A certificate based on an on-site exam of a MOOC that has a specific number of credits allocated to it in the course description

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

3.1

7.3

10.1

16.0

17.3

17.9

29.9

67.9

55.6

57.1

50.0

50.1

43.8

42.1

28.9

37.1

32.8

33.9

32.6

38.2

28.0

Yes, it could be recognised in credit points No, it could not be recognised in credit points I don’t know

%

Number of valid responses after weighting: from 109 to 113 depending on the question –Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Could the following cases get recognition in credit points via prior learning recognition procedures? (by country)

Fran

ceGe

rman

yPo

land

Spai

n UKFr

ance

Germ

any

Pola

ndSp

ain UK

Fran

ceGe

rman

yPo

land

Spai

n UKFr

ance

Germ

any

Pola

ndSp

ain UK

Fran

ceGe

rman

yPo

land

Spai

n UKFr

ance

Germ

any

Pola

ndSp

ain UK

Fran

ceGe

rman

yPo

land

Spai

n UK

A certificate based on an on-site exam of a MOOC that has a specific number

of credits allocated to it in the course

description

A certificate based on an on-site exam

of a MOOC that does not have a

specific number of credits allocated to it in the course de-

scription

A certificate based on online proctored exam of a MOOC that has a specific number of credit

points allocated to it in the course de-

scription

A certificate based on online proctored exam of a MOOC

that does not have a specific number of credit points al-located to it in the course description

A MOOC certificate without any iden-

tity control

A certificate achieved via study-

ing with OER

Prior knowledge achieved via in-dependent self-

study

0

20

40

60

80

100

17.4

49.9

28.1

19.5 29

.2

18.7

3.7 13

5 7.5 10

.5

33.6

16

10.6 21

.5

8.7

3.9 12

.4

1.4 7.

5

7.7

0 1.9 5.

9

1.1

15

33

7

13

20.4 30

.7

4.3 12

.5

5.9

32.9

60.6

28.8 37

.4 43.9

41.8

62.3

56.9

47

59.9

58.1

56.8

37.5

34.8

49.5

38.7

63.2

54.6

42.6

65.7

51.7

74.5 80

.6

46.3

67.1 75

.6

54.3

46.5

44.3 54

.1

52.5

37.4

61.3

41.4

64.5

41.3

Yes, it could be recognised in credit points No, it could not be recognised in credit points

%

Number of valid responses after weighting: from 137 to 141 depending on the question –Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

SUMMARY FOR RECOGNITION

• √ Few institutions have recognition mechanism for MOOCs, whether certificates are based on an on-site or online exam, even when they have a specific number of credits allocated (29,9% for on-site exam and 17.9% for online proctored exam). This similarly applies to studying with OER or independent studies (17,3% and 16% respectively). Even fewer recognise a certificate without an identity control.

• √ Although there are variations by country, only two of them are significant. • In the UK prior knowledge achieved via independent self-study could more likely be recognized in credit points than

in the remaining countries, whereas in Spain this situation would be less likely than in the remaining countries. • In Poland the proportion of institutions who referred to this type of MOOC could not be recognised in credit points was

lower than in the remaining countries (but due to a higher proportion of I don't know).

• √ Formal recognition of Open Education is mentioned as the second most important barrier for engagement on OE (See slide 49)

h) Open Education strategy and organisation

Importance of elements in university's overall strategy

“Provide educational opportunities without entry requirements”

“Provide free (no tuition fees) access to education”

“Production and use of Open Educational Resources”

“To offer recognition for any kind of learning and competences”

“To support the collaboration with other Higher Education Institutions”

Provide time and place flexibility to learners (when and where they learn)”

“Promote innovative pedagogies through the use of ICT”

“To support the collaboration between your institution and society at large”

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

11.4

19.4

14.5

22.8

35.8

40.1

37.2

39.7

39.3

38.9

48.2

55.7

53.6

47.4

52.4

52.4

25.7

15.7

16.6

12.5

7.4

8.5

7.0

5.9

23.0

20.4

19.4

8.6

3.3

3.5

3.4

2.0

0.6

5.6

1.3

0.4

0.5

0.0

0.0

Very important Rather important/Important Partly importnant/Partly unimportantUnimportant/rather unimportant Very unimportant

%

Number of valid responses after weighting: from 110 to 113 depending on the question–Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Importance of elements in university's overall strategy (by country)

1234567 6.

1

4.64

4.31 5.

04 5.98

5.65

5.38 5.

81

5.93

4.45 4.

89

4.48 5.

75

5.52 6.

1

5.85

5.84

4.96 5.34

5.2 5.

94

5.64 6.

28

6.22

5.57

4.55

4.6 5.

05 6

5.18 6.

31

6.41

6.24

3.85

3.41 4.

29

6.57

5.06 5.3 6.

33

France Germany Poland Spain UK

Very unimportant

Mea

n va

lues

Very important

Number of valid responses after weighting: from 139 to 142 depending on the question –Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Unbundling the tasks of HE institution by 2020

Guidance provider for non-enrolled learners

Assessment and certification body, validating competences acquired anywhere

Digital content provider

Assessment and certification body, validating competences acquired in the university

Provider of guidance (tutor) for enrolled learners

Research centre, producing new knowledge

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

13.6

9.2

19.5

32.8

30.8

39.8

40.7

51.0

47.9

43.5

52.3

45.7

24.5

23.7

14.8

15.1

11.3

7.9

19.8

15.6

17.0

8.4

5.6

5.9

1.4

0.6

0.9

0.2

0.0

0.6

Very important Rather important / Important Partly important/ Partly UnimportantUnimportant/Rather unimportant Very unimportant

%

Number of valid responses after weighting: from 111 to 116 depending on the question –Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Policy or mission statements in Open Education

OVERALL France Germany Poland Spain UK0

102030405060708090

100

32.2%

60.1%

21.2%28% 26.4%

18.9%

65.3%

39.9%

78.8%

64.1% 68.4%

81.1%

2.5% 0% 0%7.9% 5.2%

0%

Yes, policy or mission statement in support of Open EducationNo, no policy or mission statement is available on Open EducationYes, policy or mission statement expressing reservations concerning Open Education

%

Number of valid responses after weighting: 113 (for overall) and 141 (for country comparison) –Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Importance of factors for engaging in Open Education

Reduce the costs of the educational provision for the institution

Increase enrolment in formal education

Enhance the quality of the educational offer

Reach more learners

Enhance the image and visibility of the institution

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

13.2

28.7

35.0

34.9

48.3

43.1

55.5

49.9

62.2

48.4

16.2

10.7

7.2

0.9

3.4

21.2

4.5

7.9

2.1

6.3

0.5

Very important Rather important/Important Partly importnant/Partly unimportantUnimportant/rather unimportant Very unimportant

%

Number of valid responses after weighting : 43 (Only respondents who provide Open Education)–Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Has the engagement in Open Education produced so far financial benefits for your institution?

23%

77%

Yes No

- Reach more students is the most common mentioned benefit for institutions.

- Others: marketing, small income directly generated by OE (external fund, freemium..), more quality and retention.

Source: OpenSurvey open question

Number of valid responses after weighting : 43 (Only respondents who provide Open Education)–Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Importance of barriers for Open Education

Open Education is not in line with our pedagogical approach

There is a risk that Open Education affects negatively the quality of our institution’s educational provision

We do not see financial benefit for our institution to so it

Open Education requires more financial resources than anticipated

Lecturers are used to traditional pedagogies that don’t include Open Education

Formal recognition of Open Education is still an unresolved issue at the institutional level

Open Education requires teacher training before becoming effective

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

7.7

7.1

8.1

16.9

18.9

22.8

39.1

21.4

22.3

47.7

59

58

55.1

53.3

14.6

27.5

20.5

17.6

13.2

17.1

4.7

48.1

32.3

19.3

6.2

9.2

3.8

2.8

8.2

10.8

4.4

0.2

0.6

1.3

0.2

Strongly agree Rather agree/Agree Partly agree/Partly disagreeDisagree/rather disagree Strongly disagree

%

Number of valid responses after weighting : From 108 to 115 depending on the question - Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Importance of barriers for Open Education (by country)

01234567

5.41

3.61

5.515.94.57

5.664.79

2.97

4.985.33.65

5.685.553.93

6.095.77

2.84

5.21

OVERALL France Germany Poland Spain UK

Mea

n va

lues

Very unimportant

Very important

Number of valid responses after weighting : From 138 to 142 depending on the question - Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Support for the involvement of lecturers in Open Education

Evaluation mechanisms for career development of lecturers take into account their engagement in Open Education

Allowing the lecturers to reserve specific working hours for the development of Open Education

Publicity of the best practices in Open Education

Investment of money in Open Education kick-starting initiatives

Training opportunities in Open Education

Inclusion of digital skills of the students as part of the curricula in the introductory phase of the study programme

General awareness-raising

Support by specialist staff when planning and designing the courses and resources (e.g. ICT experts, learning technologists)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

14.5

26.9

34.3

42.7

52.1

54.9

64.9

83.7

29.4

16.4

40.6

22.2

33.1

22.4

24.6

11.2

56.1

56.7

25.2

35.1

14.8

22.7

10.5

5.1

Yes No, but we are planning No

%

Number of valid responses after weighting : 40 (Only respondents who provide Open Education) - Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Hierarchical level approval needed for lecturer (or lecturers from same unit) engagement in Open Education

020406080

10065% 59.9% 50.3%

16.1%2.8%

51.7% 49.2% 44.9%23.3%

4%

In order to offer a MOOC In order to produce OER

%

Number of valid responses after weighting: 118- Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

SUMMARY FOR OPEN EDUCATION STRATEGY AND ORGANISATION (I)

• √ Although with country variations (See slide 44 for details), all proposed elements of the university strategy which are related to Open Education are perceived as important for the overall institutional strategy.

• √ However, the elements with the lowest means are those related to the democratisation of education (to “provide educational opportunities without entry requirements” (4.55) and the intention to “provide free (no tuition fees) access to education (4.66) ). Also, to provide services to students from outside the universities is perceived as a less important role for their institution by 2020.

• √ Institutions offering OER give more importance to institutional strategies related to offering free access to education, but this social aim is not so prominent in the case of institutions offering MOOCs.

• √ 32,3% of all institutions report to have a policy or mission statement in support of Open Education. By country, institutions in France outstand with a percentage of 60%, showing a more formal approach to OE.

SUMMARY FOR OPEN EDUCATION STRATEGY AND ORGANISATION (II)• √ The main challenges for engaging with OE are are teachers untrained in the use of Open Education

(mean=6.08 out of 7 ) and the difficulties with the formal recognition of Open Education (mean= 5.51).

• √ Respondents reported as the lowest risks: pedagogical issues (“Open Education is not in line with our pedagogical approach” – mean=3.61) and that the use of Open Education resulting in a lowering of the quality of educational provision (mean=3.75). Financial challenges are ranked in a middle position.

• √ By country, in France, the fact that lecturers are used to traditional pedagogies that don't include Open Education is more important than in other countries. In UK and Germany the possibility that Open Education is not in the line with the pedagogical approach is not seen as a big problem when compared with the remaining countries. Finally, in Spain, recognition is considered a higher barrier compared to the other countries.

• √ Pedagogical issues matter. Institutions who provide MOOCs agree to a lesser extent with the notion than OE can affect negatively the quality of the institution's educational provision.

• √ In the majority of cases, permission is necessary form hierarchy to develop a MOOC or OER. Only in about 16% of cases can staff offer a MOOC without anyone’s consent. No need for permission is slightly more common in case of the production or offer of OER (23.3%).

SUMMARY FOR OPEN EDUCATION STRATEGY AND ORGANISATION (III)

• √  Regarding the reasons to engage in Open Education (n=43), institutions declare that “enhance the image and the visibility of the institution“ is the highest (at 6.29), followed by “reach more learners” (at 6.10). The answer “reduce the cost of the educational provision for the institution” has the lowest mean, at 4.56.

• √ 23% of institutions which declare to be engaged on Open Education (n=43) report financial benefits from it. Further analysis show that they mainly refer to reaching more students and to a lesser extent to marketing, direct income or quality and retention issues.

• √ The survey explored the willingness of institutions to support their lecturers in Open Education in a number of ways.

• Support by specialist staff to design courses and resources reached the highest agreement level (94.9%), followed by general awareness raising (89.5%) and the provision of training opportunities in Open Education (85.2%).

• Relatively low agreement rates were reached for job-description related incentives, taking engagement in Open Education into consideration in staff evaluation and for career development (43.9%) and allow lecturers to reserve specific working hours for the development of Open Education (43.3%).

i) Open Science and Open Software

Does your institution support any of the following topics related to Open Science?

020406080

100

66.7%54% 51.3% 49.9% 48.7% 46.7% 38.6% 35.1% 31.3%

%

Number of valid responses: from 94 to 102 depending on the question–Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

What type of incentive mechanisms, if any, are used in your institution to promote Open Science?

020406080

100

50.1% 47.4%31.6%

3.2%

%

Number of valid responses: from 77 to 78 depending on the question (Only respondents who support any of the Open Science topics)- Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Does your institution use Free and Open Source Software (FOSS)?

4.1%

46.6%

22.5%

8.9%

17.8%

Yes, extensively across the institution: the university rarely pays proprietary softwareYes, we use it across the institution but mixed with proprietary softwareYes, but only in some facultiesNo, but we are planning to do soNo, the university almost always uses proprietary software

Number of valid responses: 112 -Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

SUMMARY FOR OPEN SCIENCE AND OPEN SOFTWARE

• √ Open Science is on the agenda of about half of all institutions. By topic, the highest percentage value is observed for the support of shared research infrastructures with other universities (66.7%), followed by open data in research (54.0%) and publication in open access routes (51.3%).

• Institutions are less supportive of open peer reviewing (31.3%), the use of alternative funding mechanisms such as crowdfunding (35.1%) and the use of alternative metrics (38.6%), but overally, these still concern about 1/3 of all institutions.

• √ The more common incentive for Open Science activities among the universities engaged (n=78) is to regard it as part of existing job descriptions (50.1%), followed with economic support. Again, like in the case of Open Education, mechanisms related to career development and promotion are less adopted by institutions (31.6%).

• √ Almost half of all respondents state that their university uses FOSS in a mix with proprietary software (46.6%). 17.8% declare to use only proprietary software and only 4.1% declare to use only FOSS.

j) Final remarks

Providing learning materials online is most important use of ICT for HEI.

Blended learning (72.1%) more widespread than fully online courses (34.3%) or online study programmes (28.6%).

Close to 40% of HEI state they provide open education in any form (UK 1st).

Less than half of HEI collaborate with others (mainly within country). Main challenges for OE: lack of teacher experience and difficulties

with the formal recognition of Open Education. Main enablers for OE: “enhance the image and the visibility of the

institution“, “reach more learners” <-> “Reducing the cost of the educational provision for the institution” has the lowest mean (4.56).

23% of HEI engaged in OE report financial benefits from it. => OE dimensions interconnected and part of broader trend towards openness.

Summary OpenSurvey

MOOCs are on agenda of almost half of all HEI (41%): 22% already offering MOOCs and 19% planning in the near future (= growth potential).

By country: France, Spain and the UK are relatively high (around 35%) compared to 10% and 8% respectively in Germany and Poland.

France & Poland stand out on plans for future MOOCs: resp. 26% and 24%.

For those offering MOOCs (n=25): part of the institutional educational strategies (57%) & majority of MOOCs are not linked to recognition instruments or qualification frameworks.

Almost half (44%) have different quality assurance mechanisms for MOOC's (18% have none).

OER use is currently more widespread than MOOCs, but MOOCs have more growth potential: 19% against 10% for OER is planning to offer them.

MOOCs & OER

Thank you for your attention!

Jonatan Castaño, Yves Punie, Andreia Inamorato:

jonatan.castano-munoz@ec.europa.euyves.punie@ec.europa.eu

andreia-inamorato-dos.santos@ec.europa.eu