StraightTalk – OERs Unleashed: Why Now is the Perfect Time for Universities to Mainstream OERs

Thank you Don, it’s a pleasure to be here.

Rory, your career journey has been remarkable and today your continued advocacy and example for young professionals in open education has inspired and been a catalyst for research, advocacy and collaboration across the globe.  Given we have known and worked together for many years, I wanted to publicly recognize your unique contributions today before we get started.
As part of the EDEN Council of Fellows, we explore various venues to showcase and draw upon the unique expertise and experience of our Senior Fellows and Fellows.  Today, we are delighted to have you here to share your diverse vantage points and experiences in open education, particularly the adoption and use of Open Educational Resources and where the field is headed in the future.

Don, thanks for the kind words. I am always happy to discuss OER and have controversial opinions of future directions.

Let’s get started with a question that seems relevant to the current
landscape of higher education, particularly open and distance learning across the globe.
Do you think the pandemic has created an unforeseen and unique opportunity for university reset to reposition and/or reframe OERs into their mainstream academic missions?

Yes, the pandemic, like any crisis opens up opportunities for new approaches. In the case of the pandemic, it became apparent very early that traditional institutions needed to shift quickly to online learning. The commercial content used has restrictive licensing, so that the texts and other learning materials cannot be adapted for digital use without requiring further permissions and additional costs. This has made OER very attractive, as institutions can make the transition to digital without complications and the need for special licenses. OER can be legally and technically adapted quickly for immediate use

Indeed Rory, I wonder if our window of opportunity, however, may be beginning to close. In recent days, I have seen many news reports highlighting the growing tensions amongst schools, universities, parents, students and even unions of two long years of pandemic. In some quarters we are seeing a backlash against online learning and calls for putting students back in face-to-face classrooms given we have masking and vaccination protocols in place.
Rory, are the long-term stresses of the pandemic relegating OERs to the side as educators face challenges of managing their basic roles, maintaining their mental health, aka, just dealing with life under these constraints? Have our online learning advocates and colleagues declared victory too soon that online learning is the new normal?

What I see is, not unsurprisingly, a wide range of opinions on the pivot to online learning, with many students and faculty supporting it, while others want to return to “normal”. I think that different forms of hybrid or blended learning will prevail. Online learning may not be the “new normal” but it will continue to be an important part of everyone’s educational experience. It is here to stay, after all the world economy is online, social interactions are online; so why would our schools not also be online? What I have not seen are many differing opinions on the introduction of OER, replacing commercial content, where reports on OER implementations are predominantly positive.

Like you, I see the current environment as an opportunity for leaders to
integrate OERs into university curriculum and reposition open education and online education. At the same time, leaders have to present a benefits package particularly to faculties about the value of adopting OERs and open education in general.
What do you see as the primary benefits of OER for the institution and for faculty members over the next decade?

Institutions and faculty should consider not just the tremendous cost
savings to students of pivoting to use OER, but also the added convenience of using learning content that can be adapted to serve local needs. OER provide institutions and faculty with the legal, technical and pedagogical flexibility that they need to meet their learning goals. For example, having the legal right and technical capacity (no digital locks – as is common on commercial content) allow both instructors and student to use the content in different formats on a wide range of devices. The ability of instructors to freely share OER with others, both within and external to the institution has also been identified as a significant benefit. Time saving and workload reduction for instructors who adopt full lessons and courses with minimal or no adaptation is also a major benefit.

The lack of awareness of OER remains the principal obstacle to OER adoption in institutions, but this is changing. The question of funding OER is akin to the dilemma people had when automobiles were first introduced. In order to afford your car, you had to sell the horse and cart, you couldn’t support both. The same for OER. If institutions continue to pay unjustified fees for access to commercial content, they will never be in a sustainable position. The funding that is now paid to publishers must be diverted to support OER implementations. Faculty, for the most part, have no instructional design training (except in field like Education), so they should be encouraged to make full use of well-designed OER that are currently available, rather than take time creating new content. This should leave them with more time for research, positively impacting their promotion and tenure prospects.

I like your horse and buggy analogy. So, if leaders can eliminate
unnecessary proprietary fees for content, then these funds might be reallocated on a reoccurring budgetary basis for OER development and support to university departments and their respective faculties. Brilliant observation Rory.
I’d like to shift our conversation just a little bit Rory.
Do you anticipate micro-credentials and MOOCs becoming a stronger catalyst for OER adoption, use and dissemination? Perhaps the question is do they have potential to be mutually beneficial together?

Micro-credentials are based on micro courses, which are eminently suitable for OER. Unlike commercial content, no permissions are needed to break down content into micro lessons and micro courses, so I see these two phenomena to be complementary. With more OER available, more micro-courses can be implemented – leading to micro-credentials. With micro-credentials becoming more popular the demand for OER will increase, empowering mini-MOOCs (short courses to large numbers of learners).

Yes, for example our institution (Athabasca University) is a leader in the implementation of OER. It is no coincidence that PowerEd, an AU initiative, is also leading in micro-credentials. AU can allow laddering of these micro-credentials through its Prior Learning Assessment & Recognition (PLAR) centre.

As you know Rory, universities face pressures and demands on all fronts and leaders have to make decisions about priorities, what new initiatives to fund, and yet keep the ship moving forward at the same time. Moreover, at times there are competing tensions that evolve between various stakeholders of the university. Trying to be all things to all people sometimes only leads to mediocrity in all things.
What is your elevator pitch to a university president, Rector or Vice Chancellor why he/she should integrate OERs into the mainstream of their institution? Let’s be honest, OERs are certainly not a solution to revenue enhancement, perhaps the opposite so how do we justify the time and moneys for the institution?

OER may not contribute to revenue enhancement, but the implementation of OER rather than paying for commercial textbooks can reduce costs for students, which can lead to greater student retention rates. This could be considered a form of revenue enhancement as they stay on to graduate, paying fees each semester. Students often identify the cost of textbooks as a significant deterrent to continuing with their education. In addition, there is evidence that many students do not buy the expensive commercial texts and as a result some fail the course because they don’t have full access to the information they need. Also, institutions that use OER allow students to access the course content in advance of the course, thus giving a leg-up to those students who wish to begin earlier. These advantages for students have a direct impact on student retention rates.
In addition, if OER created elsewhere are used extensively, there is little additional cost not only to students, but also to the institution. The additional costs are only incurred if these are not used and are created locally at the institution’s expense. This is to be avoided for the most part. The entire ethos of OER is sharing among institutions and educators.

No, there are already good repositories that can be easily accessed online. (for example, BCcampus., MERLOT, OpenStax, OASIS However, institutions would have to house the OER that they are using for courses.

Yes, the ethos of open education is based on sharing. The sharing of OER is the principal financial argument for adopting them. This can be conducted with or without formal partnerships. For example, eCampus Ontario and Alberta OER house their OER textbooks with Bccampus. In many cases, the sharing of OER has led to further collaborations among faculty in different institutions. One public-private partnership at Athabasca University is in Business Accounting, where an OER text has been introduced that uses a commercial online workbook along with formative tests. Another possibility would be to pay local publishers to produce the OER on the condition that the content is openly licensed.

As mentioned above the lack of awareness is the biggest barrier. Most faculty, once introduced to the concept of OER and shown examples in their field become supportive. Of course, the commercial publishers are actively promoting their own interests, often by “open washing”. They support OER as long as it supports their revenue streams. The perception that OER are unsustainable is also widespread and is often used as an excuse for not participating in OER implementations. As I mentioned before, with the automobile/horse & cart analogy, OER can be eminently sustainable if only a portion of the resources we allocate for commercial content is replaced by funding to support OER implementations.

1. Do not waste time convincing the sceptics, just move quickly with those that are interested. People are convinced by successful implementations, not by arguments.
2. Too many are obsessed with creating OER. There should be greater sharing of OER that exist. A full course can be embodied in one OER or courses can be assembled from OER that already exist are accessible and readily available.
3. Most faculty are not interested in creating courses. They are obliged to focus on research, so they would prefer OER that are full courses with tests and examples etc. Those faculty who like to create and develop courses do not need convincing, they are doing it.
4. Of course, OER are excellent for promoting open education and open educational practices, however, they can also be used by more traditional instructors. Because they are open, OER can fit into a wide variety of pedagogical approaches and need not be limited to those who are working for pedagogical change in the academy. I support changes, but faculty who don’t want to change can still successfully use OER.

Wayne Mackintosh, Director of OERu reminds us that if food could be reproduced infinitely at virtually no cost, it would be criminal not to share it with those that need it. So now that knowledge is infinitely reproducible, he asks, shouldn’t that be freely available to all? I personally don’t have a problem with commercial content that is sold at a reasonable price. However, at present this is not the case. Academic publishing is the most profitable arm of the entire publishing industry. The profits come from the high costs they charge students and institutions, which are akin to a captive audience
Open Source software is used by many institutions and should be used more by institutions and faculty. There are many good substitutes. So, I agree that there should be as much support for open source applications as for OER.

My guess that in this time frame there will be at least another unpredictable event or “black swan’ that could fundamentally change the trajectory of society and the institutions they support. OER use will continue to grow along with micro-credentials. These will disrupt many institutions, that will have to adjust. Signs of this are happening now. Also, in this time period there will be a breakthrough in Canada and other countries at the K12 school level and these will quickly catch up to the many US states that are successfully introducing OER into schools. As the elderly are living longer, OER will also become very popular with retired citizens interested in learning new skills and knowledge.

The Royal Society in the UK is the oldest scientific organization in the world. The have come out strongly in favour of open content. Likewise, the previous Pope Benedict XVI, in an encyclical, railed against the “unruly rigid assertion of the right to intellectual property” It is good to know that both Science and God are on our side!

Thanks Don, for this opportunity to speak about OER.