Findings from a survey of openness in assessment and accreditation practices in post-secondary...

FINDINGS FROM A SURVEY ON OPENNESS IN ASSESSMENT AND ACCREDITATION PRACTICES IN POST-‐SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS By Angela Murphy (University of Southern Queensland) and Gabi Witthaus (University of Leicester), January 2013

1 | P a g e

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank the following organizations and individuals for their support:

• The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada provided funding for this report.

• The University of Southern Queensland’s early career research program provided funding for the ORION (Open Education Resources in Open Learning) research project.

• The Higher Education Funding Council for England funded the TOUCANS (Testing the OER University Concept and Aspirations: a National Study) research project as part of the SCORE (Support Centre for Open Resources in Education) programme.

• Prof. Patrick McAndrew at the Open University (UK) provided support and guidance for the TOUCANS research.

• Wayne Macintosh (Director, OER Foundation) gave feedback on early drafts of the survey questionnaire and helped to disseminate the survey link and information about the study to respondents.

• Several members of the Open Educational Resources university (OERu) network provided feedback on the development of the questionnaire and its analysis.

• 110 individuals kindly took the time to fill in the survey. The names of their institutions can be found in the Appendix.

Findings from a Survey on Openness in Assessment and

Accreditation Practices in Post-Secondary Institutions by Angela Murphy and Gabi Witthaus is licensed under a Creative

Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License

2 | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ 1

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... 2

List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. 4

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... 5

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 6

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 10

2. Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 12

3. Research participant profile .................................................................................................. 13

4. Research findings ................................................................................................................... 17

Accreditation activities ............................................................................................................. 17

Student support ........................................................................................................................ 21

Credit transfer .......................................................................................................................... 21

Open policies and practices ...................................................................................................... 22

5. Comparison of accreditation initiatives within five classification frameworks ..................... 27

OECD countries vs non-‐OECD countries ................................................................................... 27

Institutions with open entry policies vs traditional institutions ............................................... 29

Private vs publicly-‐financed institutions ................................................................................... 30

Institutions which use PLAR models vs those that do not ........................................................ 31

Institutions providing open-‐access learning resources vs conventional curricula ................... 33

6. Lessons learned ..................................................................................................................... 34

Institutional benefits for participation in open assessment and accreditation services .......... 34

Changes needed to institutional policies .................................................................................. 36

Perceived effectiveness of student support options for open courses .................................... 36

Recommendations for future open assessment practices ....................................................... 37

Barriers to institutional participation in open assessment and accreditation services ............ 38

3 | P a g e

Key institutional success factors for the provision of open assessment and accreditation services ..................................................................................................................................... 40

References ................................................................................................................................ 42

Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 43

4 | P a g e

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1: Region and type of organization ................................................................................. 14 Figure 3.2: Participant role within the organization ..................................................................... 15 Figure 3.3: Geographic representation of individual responses and institution classification ..... 16 Figure 4.1: Accreditation activities adopted by education Institutions ........................................ 19 Figure 4.2: Recognition of prior learning policies by region ......................................................... 19 Figure 4.3: Workplace-‐based assessment policies by region ....................................................... 20 Figure 4.4: Provision of challenge exams by region ..................................................................... 20 Figure 4.5: Participation in activities to support learners ............................................................ 21 Figure 4.6: Institutional credit transfer practices ......................................................................... 22 Figure 4.7: Knowledge and interest in open educational resources ............................................ 23 Figure 4.8: Institutional participation in the development of open educational resources ......... 24 Figure 4.9: Current and future assessment services for open courses ......................................... 25 Figure 4.10: Knowledge, interest and participation in the Open Educational Resource university concept ......................................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 5.1: Accreditation practices of OECD vs. non-‐OECD countries .......................................... 28 Figure 5.2: OER practices of institutions with open policies vs. traditional institutions .............. 30 Figure 5.3: Accreditation and student support practices of institutions with PLAR policies ........ 32 Figure 5.4: Accreditation and student support practices of institutions using OERs ................... 34 Figure 6.1: Reasons for participating in collaborative oer accreditation initiatives ..................... 35 Figure 6.2: Institutional policy change requirements to participate in OER accreditation initatives ....................................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 6.3: Perceptions of effectiveness of student support options for oer accreditation initatives ....................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 6.4: Preferred assessment practices for OER accreditation initatives ............................... 38 Figure 6.5: Factors hindering the successful implementation of OER assessment and accreditation practices ................................................................................................................. 39 Figure 6.6: Perceieved effectiveness of approaches required for successful participation in open assessment and accreditation practices ....................................................................................... 40

5 | P a g e

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Sample sizes by countries represented ....................................................................... 14 Table 4.1: Types of education institutions within each region ..................................................... 24

6 | P a g e

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report shares the findings and lessons learned from a small-‐scale survey on perceptions, practices and policies relating to openness in assessment and accreditation in post-‐secondary institutions. The study was carried out jointly in mid-‐2012 by Dr Angela Murphy at the University of Southern Queensland (USQ), Australia, as part of the ORION project, and Gabi Witthaus at the University of Leicester as part of the TOUCANS study, which was a project in the SCORE programme in the UK. One of the aims of both projects was to ascertain perceptions of stakeholders in tertiary education towards the Open Educational Resources university (OERu) concept. The OERu is a global consortium of post-‐secondary institutions collaborating around the assessment and accreditation of learners’ achievements based on the study of OERs, with the aim of providing affordable opportunities on a massive scale for students who lack the financial means to access traditional higher education.

The ORION-‐TOUCANS survey was conducted online from June to August 2012, and was completed by 110 individuals from 83 institutions in 29 countries. The majority of participants originated from the United Kingdom, followed by Asia, Australia and New Zealand and Canada, and most came from higher education institutions or four-‐year community colleges. Most respondents were practitioners such as lecturers or teachers, trainers or educational designers, and around a third were in management positions. Just over half the participants reported that their organizations offered face-‐to-‐face provision, and just under half, distance learning. A quarter of respondents said they came from institutions that were part of the OERu network.

It should be noted that the results represent the views of individual respondents, and are indicative of the views and knowledge held by a cross-‐section of interested stakeholders, rather than a comprehensive account of the policies and practices of the participating institutions or regions.

The main findings from the survey are summarized below:

• Accreditation activities: nearly half the respondents said that policies and procedures for Prior Learning Accreditation and Recognition (PLAR) were central to their organizations. Around a third noted that their institutions provided workplace-‐based assessment. Only around a tenth of the participants said their institutions offered challenge exams.

• Student support: in addition to traditional tutorial-‐type support offered to fee-‐paying students, just under half the respondents noted that their institutions had policies in

7 | P a g e

place to develop relationships with workplace or community organizations for the purposes of supporting students.

• Credit transfer: nine out of ten of respondents noted that their institutions allowed for the transfer of credit obtained at other institutions. However, only around a fifth said their institutions would award credits for courses in cases where more than 60% of the credits had been obtained at another institution.

• Open policies and practices: institutional participation in the development and use of OERs was found to be low, with less than a quarter indicating that their institutions published OERs or used OERs produced by other organizations.

• Assessment services for open courses: a very small number of respondents indicated that their institutions had actually implemented open courses for assessment and accreditation. Just under a fifth anticipated that their institutions might implement such courses in the future.

The findings were compared within five classification frameworks:

• OECD countries vs non-‐OECD countries: participants from institutions in OECD countries were significantly more likely to report that they had policies and procedures in place for PLAR, as well as agreements with employers for workplace-‐based assessment, than those from non-‐OECD countries. Institutions in non-‐OECD countries were more likely to recognize credit transfer than those in OECD countries, and individuals in non-‐OECD countries were more likely to use OERs developed by other people or organizations than their colleagues in OECD countries.

• Institutions with open-‐entry policies vs traditional institutions: institutions with open entry policies were found to be more likely to have policies and procedures in place for recognition of prior learning, to use analytics to enable the provision of automated support to students, and to be involved in the development of OERs than those institutions that did not allow open entry.

• Private vs publicly financed institutions: participants from private institutions were more likely to report that their organizations had policies and procedures in place for recognition of prior learning, that they were involved in the development and use of OERs, and that they provided some courses based solely on OERs than respondents in public institutions. There were, however, no differences observed in anticipated future intentions to provide accreditation services for OER courses, which was low in both cases.

• Institutions which use PLAR models vs those that do not: respondents from institutions with PLAR policies were significantly more likely to report that their organizations

8 | P a g e

provided challenge exams, and also that they collaborated with employers to provide workplace-‐based assessment for learners. A significant relationship was also evident between the existence of PLAR policies and the use and development of OERs. Significantly more institutions with PLAR policies were also actively involved in the OERu network than others.

• Open access learning resources vs conventional curricula: higher numbers of participants from institutions that use OERs indicated that their organizations had policies and procedures in place for recognition of prior learning, that their organizations used analytics to enable the provision of automated support to students, and that open-‐access and externally hosted social networking platforms were used for learner support than participants whose institutions did not use OERs.

While the individual nature of the survey responses makes it difficult to generalize in terms of either institutional or regional trends, a few tentative lessons can be drawn from the findings. There were numerous perceived benefits to participating in collaborative open accreditation initiatives, such as the opportunity to participate in an international network of accredited institutions, the ability to provide a philanthropic contribution to the sector by widening access to disadvantaged learners, and savings of money and time associated with the development of learning materials (through incorporating existing OERs into the curriculum). International marketing opportunities were also considered by many to be a possible spin-‐off of participation in collaborative, open accreditation initiatives. Participants from institutions with open policies and where OERs were used were significantly more likely to report that their institutions would be driven by philanthropic motives to participate in collaborative OER accreditation initiatives than non-‐users of OERs or respondents from traditional institutions.

For institutions without policies around recognition of prior learning and accelerated or flexible assessment, extensive policy changes may be required to policies in order to be able to offer sustainable assessment services for courses based solely on OERs. This may impact on the ease with which such organizations are able to adopt such initiatives.

In terms of cost-‐effective and sustainable approaches to student support, peer-‐to-‐peer learning support models were considered to be the most effective option, followed by support from retired academics or other volunteers, and the design of system to enable senior students or graduates to provide support for junior students.

As for the types of assessment methods that would most likely be used in the future by institutions assessing the learning outcomes of courses based on OERs for formal accreditation,

9 | P a g e

recognition of prior learning via portfolio assessment and course-‐based portfolios were both considered appropriate, as well as automated online assessments.

The greatest barriers to participation in open assessment and accreditation practices identified were the lack of availability of committed staff members to support such activities, and the potential costs of redeveloping courses as open educational resources. Lack of support for OER-‐based courses from senior management was a significantly greater concern for participants from traditional education institutions than for those from institutions with open policies, and was perceived to be a more significant barrier within public than private institutions. These findings suggest that institutions that already have policies that support open assessment and accreditation practices will be able to easily align the implementation of collaborative OER courses with existing policies and processes.

In conclusion, the key institutional success factors for the provision of open assessment and accreditation services appear to be a strong support base within institutions – both in terms of leadership and resources, and an existing culture of openness, including policies and practices around the creation and use of OERs, as well as policies that enable either open access or recognition of prior learning via credit transfer or PLAR. Institutions that are already characterized by these features are likely to be best placed for the implementation of assessment and accreditation of OER-‐based learning, and could provide models for other organizations that would like to participate in collaborative open education, assessment and credentialization initiatives in the future.

10 | P a g e

1. INTRODUCTION

This report shares the findings and lessons learned from a small-‐scale survey on perceptions, practices and policies relating to openness in assessment and accreditation in post-‐secondary institutions, which was undertaken in mid-‐2012. The study was carried out jointly by Dr Angela Murphy at the University of Southern Queensland (USQ) as part of the ORION project, and Gabi Witthaus at the University of Leicester as part of the TOUCANS project.

The ORION research project at USQ: “Benchmarking OER use and assessment in higher education”

In 2012, Dr Angela Murphy, a post-‐doctoral research fellow, received an Early Career Research Grant from USQ to identify the extent to which higher education institutions around the world were implementing open education policies and practices that supported the successful implementation of formal assessment and accreditation services for informal learning based solely on open educational resources (OERs). This research generated a report entitled “Benchmarking OER use and assessment in higher education” (Murphy, 2012). The findings of the research were presented in a conference publication and a journal article by Murphy (2012; 2013) and the data was made openly available for use by other researchers. More information can be found on the Australian Digital Futures website (http://adfi.usq.edu.au/projects/orion/2012/09/17/about/)

The TOUCANS research project

From September 2011 to July 2012, Gabi Witthaus, a member of the Beyond Distance Research Alliance at the University of Leicester, was a research fellow on the SCORE (Support Centre for Open Resources in Education) programme (http://www.open.ac.uk/score/). This programme was coordinated by the Open University (UK) and funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). The project was called TOUCANS (Testing the OER University Concept and Aspirations: a National Study), and aimed to identify perceptions of stakeholders within the UK Higher Education (HE) sector towards the concept of the Open Educational Resources university (OERu), which aimed to offer assessment and accreditation services to students studying independently based on OERs. At the time, no UK HE institutions had signed up to participate in the OERu, despite the fact that almost 100 universities in the UK had participated in OER projects over the previous two years, supported by funding from the Joint Information Support Committee (JISC) and HEFCE.

11 | P a g e

Methodology

In addition to the survey which is the focus of this report, the TOUCANS project included in-‐depth interviews with a number of thought leaders in the field of Higher Education in the UK. The study is discussed in a book chapter by Witthaus (2012) and a paper by Bird and Witthaus (2012). Further information can be found on the TOUCANS website (http://www2.le.ac.uk/departments/beyond-‐distance-‐research-‐alliance/projects/toucans)

The OERu

At the heart of both the ORION and TOUCANS studies was a desire to learn more about the perceptions of stakeholders in post-‐secondary education towards the OERu concept, and potentially to extrapolate some pointers about the future viability of such initiatives. The OERu is a global consortium of post-‐secondary institutions collaborating around the assessment and accreditation of learners’ achievements based on the study of OERs. The aim of the OERu (Taylor, 2007) is to provide free learning to all students worldwide using OERs as learning materials, with pathways provided for students to enable them to gain credible qualifications from nationally recognised education institutions. The OERu concept is rooted in the notion of community service and outreach, and institutions that are members of the OERu network are committed to developing a “parallel learning universe” to augment and add value to traditional delivery systems (Taylor, 2007) in post-‐secondary education. The ultimate vision of the OERu is to provide free learning opportunities on a massive scale for students who lack the financial means to access traditional higher education.

The logic model on which the OERu is based (Taylor, 2007; 2011) is supported by a range of open educational practices, from open business models to open software platforms on which the courses are hosted. The curriculum is intended to be based solely on existing OERs, and support for students will be provided by academic volunteers and potentially also by senior students, who would gain formal credit for supporting junior students.

The OERu currently consists of a collaborative partnership between 23 partner institutions, referred to as the OER Tertiary Education Network (OERTen). The network includes nationally accredited universities, colleges and polytechnics and publicly-‐funded organizations (Mackintosh, Taylor, & McGreal, 2011). The current geographic spread of institutions includes Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the USA, South Africa, India and the South Pacific. The initiative is co-‐ordinated by the OER Foundation which is an independent, not-‐for-‐profit organization that works internationally to support mainstream adoption of OER in the formal education sector (Mackintosh, 2012).

12 | P a g e

The survey

In May 2012, Murphy and Witthaus learnt about each other’s studies, and identified some similarities in their research aims: both researchers needed to ascertain the extent to which openness was currently featuring (or emerging as a feature) in the discourse and practices around assessment and accreditation in post-‐secondary institutions, and both had a particular interest in perceptions of educators towards the OERu. The major difference between the two studies was that the USQ research was focused on post-‐secondary institutions internationally, whereas the TOUCANS research was focused specifically on the higher education sector in the UK. Seeing obvious benefits in collaborating, the two researchers jointly drew up a set of survey questions with filtering mechanisms to ensure that relevant data would be received from respondents for both studies. The survey was made available online and was conducted from June to August 2012. It was completed by 110 individuals from 83 institutions, located in 29 countries.

The aim of this report is to share relevant aspects of the data and the findings from the survey that may contribute to the efforts of others working on larger-‐scale studies involving:

1. Mapping the existing universe of projects and initiatives exploring the integration of digital learning (online learning) into formal assessment and accreditation in post-‐secondary education globally.

2. Analysing and evaluating the existing and potential scalable approaches to formal assessment and accreditation to digital learning, comparing and contrasting such uses with more traditional approaches.

3. Documenting lessons learned so far from key initiatives in this area, proposing tentative guidance for policy makers and various stakeholder groups in this area.

4. Proposing conceptual frameworks and ways forward for further analytical work to aid in the documentation and rigorous analysis of impact-‐cost and impact-‐assessment for the formal assessment and accreditation of informal learning.

2. METHODOLOGY

A series of draft survey questions was drawn up, based on a series of interviews with thought leaders within OERu network institutions, which had been undertaken as part of the TOUCANS project. The draft questions were reviewed by a small panel of scholars from within the OERu consortium. The survey was programmed and hosted using an online survey tool (SurveyGizmo) and a link to the survey was disseminated using social media such as Twitter and Facebook and

13 | P a g e

Methodology

through newsletters and discussion forums, including mailing lists for organizations interested in open education policies and practices.

3. RESEARCH PARTICIPANT PROFILE

A total of 110 valid responses was obtained, representing 83 higher education institutions and public and private organizations. The majority of participants (n=78, 71%) came from institutions within English speaking member states of the OECD, with 11 of the 20 OECD countries represented. A further 32 individuals (29%) from 18 non-‐English speaking countries outside of the OECD group participated. Table 2.1 shows the breakdown of respondents by region.

As the survey was addressed to individuals in their capacity as scholars, and not as representatives of their institutions, more than one individual from each institution was permitted to participate. It is therefore important to note that the results represent the views of individual respondents, and reflect their sometimes partial knowledge of their own institutional policies and practices. (Wherever information was requested pertaining to institutional policies and practices, respondents were asked to rate their confidence in the accuracy of their answers. In many cases, they expressed low levels of confidence, and commented that they were only aware of events and developments in their own department or unit rather than institution-‐wide. Where applicable, this nuance is noted in the discussion in this report.) The findings reported here should therefore be seen as indicative of the views and knowledge held by a cross-‐section of interested stakeholders, rather than a comprehensive account of the policies and practices of the participating institutions or regions.

Geographical representation and institution type

The majority of participants (40%) originated from the United Kingdom, followed by Asia (14%), Australia and New Zealand (9%), and Canada (9%). Higher education institutions or four-‐year community colleges were the type of organization represented most in the research study (64%). Table 3.1 shows the sample sizes by countries represented, and figure 3.1 shows the geographic distribution of individual responses as well as the proportion of participants from each type of organization. A full list of countries and the names of participating organizations that were named by respondents is included in the appendix.

14 | P a g e

TABLE 3.1: SAMPLE SIZES BY COUNTRIES REPRESENTED

OECD Member States Sample size

United Kingdom 44 Canada 10

United States 7

New Zealand 6

Australia 4 Italy 2 Chile 1 Finland 1 Germany 1 Ireland 1 Portugal 1 Total sample 78

Non OECD Member states

India 10 South Africa 4 Brazil 3 Argentina 1 Armenia 1 Bolivia 1 Ghana 1 Indonesia 1 Iran 1 Jamaica 1 Kenya 1 Malaysia 1 Mauritius 1 Rwanda 1 Sri Lanka 1 Swaziland 1 Trinidad and Tobago 1 Vietnam 1 Total sample 32

FIGURE 3.1: REGION AND TYPE OF ORGANIZATION

15 | P a g e

Participant roles within their institutions

Participants in the research were mostly practitioners (48%), such as lecturers or teachers, trainers, educational designers, developers or project workers. A high percentage of responses (around one-‐third in total) were from participants in management positions, consisting of executive management (11%), senior management (14%) and general management (8%).

FIGURE 3.2: PARTICIPANT ROLE WITHIN THE ORGANIZATION

Types of education institutions

All respondents from institutions that offer post-‐secondary education were requested to provide additional information about their organizations. The sample consisted of 95 higher education institutions and only those individuals who noted that they worked for non-‐teaching organizations were excluded from answering these questions.

The majority of respondents reported that their organizations offered face-‐to-‐face, campus-‐based provision (62%), with distance learning institutions forming the second largest group (41%). Seventeen (19%) of respondents came from institutions with open entry policies, whereas 14% said their institutions had open entry policies for some courses. The regions with the highest proportion of respondents from open entry institutions were Asia (31%), Canada (25%) and the United Kingdom (21%). Respondents who selected “Other” for this question came largely from organizations that combined a range of the modes of study, for example offering “blended learning” programmes (distance and on-‐campus study), or had distributed campuses.

16 | P a g e

FIGURE 3.3: GEOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF INDIVIDUAL RESPONSES AND INSTITUTION CLASSIFICATION

Nearly all of the participating higher education institutions offered postgraduate qualifications (including Master’s degrees and Doctorates) or Bachelor’s degrees (77%). Certificates and Postgraduate Certificates were offered by 71% of organizations. Diplomas, including Postgraduate Diplomas were offered by 66% and 65% respectively. Advanced Diplomas (48%) and Associate or Foundation degrees (47%) were offered by just under half of the organizations.

17 | P a g e

FIGURE 3.4: CREDENTIALS CONFERRED

4. RESEARCH FINDINGS

In this section, an overview of initiatives undertaken by institutions represented in the USQ-‐TOUCANS survey is presented, followed by a comparison of initiatives within each of the regions. It is hoped that the findings from this study will contribute towards the wider objective of mapping the existing universe of projects and initiatives exploring the integration of digital learning in formal assessment and accreditation in post-‐secondary education globally.

ACCREDITATION ACTIVITIES Respondents from teaching institutions (n=90) were requested to indicate the extent to which their institutions participated in accreditation activities, including recognition of prior learning, workplace based assessment and challenge exams, on a scale of one to five, with one indicating no participation and five that the practice was central to the organization. In the discussion that follows, participants who selected a four or a five are combined to represent the percentage of organizations that participate in these activities.

18 | P a g e

Prior Learning Assessment and Recognition (PLAR)

Nearly half the participants (49%) stated that policies and procedures for Prior Learning Assessment and Recognition (PLAR) were central to their organizations, albeit under different names, such as Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) and Accreditation of Prior Experiential Learning (APEL). 61% of distance learning institutions had such policies, compared to 40% of on-‐campus institutions. However, 21% of respondents were unsure as to whether such policies existed in their institutions or not. (See figure 4.2.) Adoption of these policies appeared to be highest in Australia/ New Zealand and Canada and lowest in South American/ Caribbean countries and African countries.

Workplace-based assessment

Approximately three in ten respondents (36%) noted that their institutions provided workplace based assessment. Workplace-‐based assessment appears to be more available in Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the UK, and less available in the United States and South American or Caribbean countries.

Challenge exams

Challenge exams are exams that students or potential students with prior knowledge or experience in a subject are able to take at an institution and receive accreditation for, without having enrolled for tuition in the course. Only 12% of the participants in the study came from institutions that offered challenge exams, or knew for certain that their institution offered such an option. Universities and four year community colleges were the only institutions offering these exams, the majority of which were in Canada.

19 | P a g e

FIGURE 4.1: ACCREDITATION ACTIVITIES ADOPTED BY EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS

FIGURE 4.2: RECOGNITION OF PRIOR LEARNING POLICIES BY REGION

20 | P a g e

FIGURE 4.3: WORKPLACE-‐BASED ASSESSMENT POLICIES BY REGION

FIGURE 4.4: PROVISION OF CHALLENGE EXAMS BY REGION

21 | P a g e

STUDENT SUPPORT Policies to develop relationships with workplace or community organizations to support learners in their studies were mentioned by 42% of respondents as being present in their organizations. These policies offer students the opportunity to gain exposure to workplace experience. Most of the respondents from Canadian organizations (86%) offered these opportunities, compared to, for example, only 25% of Southern African respondents. These types of policies were more prevalent in vocational training providers (50%) and institutes of technology (60%) than universities or four-‐year community colleges (45%). Very few institutions in the sample offered additional support options such as open access social networking platforms (20%).

FIGURE 4.5: PARTICIPATION IN ACTIVITIES TO SUPPORT LEARNERS

CREDIT TRANSFER Many participants were unfamiliar with the credit transfer policies of their institutions. Of those who were aware, only one in ten (14%) said their institutions had policies that did not permit recognition of credit obtained at other institutions. Two in ten respondents said their institutions would award credits for courses even in instances where more than 60% of the credits had been obtained at another institution. These respondents were located mostly in

22 | P a g e

Canada (63%) and the United States (60%), followed by Europe (33%) and other African countries. These institutions are also more likely to be distance institutions (31%), compared to 10% of on-‐campus institutions. Regions most likely to not recognize transfer of credits are South America / Caribbean (40%) and Asia (40%).

FIGURE 4.6: INSTITUTIONAL CREDIT TRANSFER PRACTICES

OPEN POLICIES AND PRACTICES

Development of Open Education Resource content

OERs are materials used to support education that may be freely accessed, reused, modified and shared by anyone (Downes, 2011) – usually under a license such as Creative Commons. For the purposes of this study, the concept of OER included broader open educational practices associated with the design, development and delivery of courses based solely on OER.

Knowledge about OERs amongst the sample population was high, with 78% knowledgeable about the existence of these types of resources. Participants who were not knowledgeable about OERs (i.e. participants who selected one or two on the scale) were excluded from further

23 | P a g e

questions on this topic. Of those familiar with OERs, 92% were interested in this topic to a large extent. This high percentage reflects the sampling methods, as a large proportion of the participants were recruited from networks of educators interested in open learning.

Participation in developing or hosting open courses

FIGURE 4.7: KNOWLEDGE AND INTEREST IN OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

Despite the interest of participants in OERs, institutional participation in the development and use of OERs was found to be low, with just 23% of respondents indicating that their institutions published OERs, and only 22% using OERs developed by other institutions. Collaborative development of OERs between institutions could reduce the amount of time needed to develop course content; yet only 24% indicated that their institutions were involved in these practices. Furthermore, only 8% of respondents indicated that their institutions were providing courses based solely on OERs. There was more emphasis on publication, development and use of OERs by respondents in Asia, Southern Africa and Canada than from those in Europe, South America/ Caribbean and Australia and New Zealand.

24 | P a g e

FIGURE 4.8: INSTITUTIONAL PARTICIPATION IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

TABLE 4.1: TYPES OF EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS WITHIN EACH REGION

How actively does your institution currently participate in the following accreditation activities?

Total

(n=9

0)

United King

dom

(n=4

4)

Cana

da

(n=1

0)

South Am

erica /

Carib

bean

(n=8

)

Australia

/New

Zealand

(n=1

0)

Southe

rn Africa

(n=5

)

Other Africa

(n=4

)

Asia

(n=1

5)

Europe

(n=7

)

United States

(n=7

)

My institution publishes open educational resources (OERs)

2.59 2.82 2.75 1.67 1.88 3.00 2.00 3.00 1.67 2.25

Collaborative development of OERs with people in other institutions Educational Resources

2.65 2.79 3.00 2.50 2.00 3.00 2.00 2.89 1.33 3.00

Use of OERs developed by other institutions or organizations Educational Resources

2.85 2.77 3.13 2.75 2.00 3.00 3.50 3.44 2.33 3.00

Provision of courses based solely on OERs Educational Resources

1.74 1.35 2.63 1.33 1.75 1.25 1.67 2.67 1.33 2.00

Assessment services for open courses

The philosophy behind the OERu is that open courses can offer an alternative to the high costs associated with traditional forms of higher education as students are able to participate in the

25 | P a g e

course for free and only pay a relatively small fee for assessment and accreditation. Few education institutions are at present providing these types of courses, however, and only 6% of the participants in the study worked for organizations that had implemented open courses. Regions in which such courses were offered were Southern Africa (n=25%), Other Africa (n=33%), Australia, New Zealand (n=14%) and Asia (n=10%).

FIGURE 4.9: CURRENT AND FUTURE ASSESSMENT SERVICES FOR OPEN COURSES

Anticipated future provision of assessment services for courses based solely on OERs amongst those institutions that do not currently provide them was low, with only 18% of respondents anticipating that their institutions were likely to consider implementing these accreditation services.

Cross-institutional collaborative open initiatives

A large percentage of sample participants were familiar with the OERu concept (67%), in which several higher education institutions are collaborating to offer free learning using courses based solely on OERs and low-‐cost assessment and accreditation services towards formal academic credit on a mass scale. Interest in the concept was high, with 92% of those who knew about the concept expressing interest in it. 63% of participants stated that they were actively involved in the network of institutions that were personally assisting with the development of the OERu

26 | P a g e

concept, either as active institutional representatives or as interested observers. Just over a quarter (26%) of the participants were from institutions that were already officially partners in the OERu initiative and 13% intended to partner formally with the initiative in the near future. The organizations represented in the survey that were already participating as partners in this collaborative initiative included universities (50%), institutes of technology (25%), vocational training providers (17%), public organizations (17%) and not-‐for-‐profit organizations (25%). These organizations were primarily within Canada (44%), Australia / New Zealand (63%), Southern Africa (n=50%) and Asia (10%).

FIGURE 4.10: KNOWLEDGE, INTEREST AND PARTICIPATION IN THE OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCE UNIVERSITY CONCEPT

27 | P a g e

5. COMPARISON OF ACCREDITATION INITIATIVES

WITHIN FIVE CLASSIFICATION FRAMEWORKS

In this section, we analyse and compare the assessment and accreditation initiatives reported on in the survey, within the following institutional classification frameworks:

• OECD countries versus non-‐OECD countries • Institutions with open entry policies vs traditional institutions • Private versus publicly financed institutions • Institutions which use PLAR models versus those that do not • Open access learning resources vs. conventional curricula

An independent samples t-‐test was used to compare whether any significant differences were present between the mean scores of respondents from each of these groups. A confidence interval of 95% (p<.05) was used to determine whether any significant differences are reflected in the population. Chi-‐squared tests (X2) were used to determine if any significant differences were evident between groups on categorical variables. The output from these calculations as well as the mean scores (M), and the standard deviation (SD) are presented.

OECD COUNTRIES VS NON-‐OECD COUNTRIES

Countries that participate in the OECD forum work together to understand and help governments respond to economic, social and environmental concerns. A large proportion of the survey participants (71%) represented OECD countries, with the remaining 29% being from non-‐OECD countries. The two groups were compared to determine whether any significant differences were present in approaches to assessment and accreditation of learning based on open educational resources between the two groups. It should be noted that amongst the non-‐OECD countries, there were significantly more respondents at the executive management level (28%) than those from OECD countries (4%, X2 [5, N=110]=14.81, p <.05). The non-‐OECD respondents also tended to work for institutions with smaller student bodies of fewer than 10,000 (56%, as opposed to OECD=26%; X2 [5, N=110]=13.98, p <.05), whereas those

28 | P a g e

from OECD countries represented more mid-‐sized universities with between 20,001 and 40,000 students (34%, as opposed to non-‐OECD=11%).

Analysis of the results indicated that significant numbers of participants from OECD countries worked for institutions that had policies and procedures in place for recognition of prior learning (M=3.46, SD=1.15), unlike participants from non-‐OECD countries (M=2.48, SD=1.62, t(69)=2.94, p=.005). Collaborative agreements with employers to provide workplace-‐based assessment was also significantly more common amongst participants based in OECD countries (M=3.13, SD=1.29; non-‐OECD M=2.38, SD=1.35; t(75)=2.35, p=.021).

FIGURE 5.1: ACCREDITATION PRACTICES OF OECD VS. NON-‐OECD COUNTRIES

Significant differences between the two groups are also evident with regard to credit transfer practices (X2 [4, N=110]=12.41, p <.05). Individuals based in non-‐OECD countries were more likely to work for organizations that recognise credit transfer (33%) than those in OECD countries (7%).

No significant differences were evident in the types of support available to learners between the two groups. There were also no significant differences in the policies and practices for the development and provision of courses based on OERs or future assessment services for these courses. Individuals from non-‐OECD countries were, however, more likely to use OERs

29 | P a g e

developed by other organizations (M=3.28, SD=1.02) than those from OECD countries (M=3.28, SD=1.02) than those from OECD countries (M=2.70, SD=1.03, t(69)= 2.07, p=.042).

Finally, no significant differences were evident between the respondents in these two groups with regard to either their knowledge of or interest in OERs.

INSTITUTIONS WITH OPEN ENTRY POLICIES VS TRADITIONAL INSTITUTIONS

Individuals who indicated that they worked for universities with totally open entry policies or with open entry policies for some courses were combined into one group (29%) for comparison with institutions that did not allow open entry. Participants from non-‐teaching institutions were excluded from this analysis as a result of the small sample size (n=17).

Few significant differences were apparent between the two groups with regard to existing accreditation and student support policies and practices. Participants from institutions with open policies (M=3.75, SD=1.27) were more likely to report that their organizations had policies and procedures in place for recognition of prior learning than those working for institutions that did not allow open entry (M=2.85, SD=1.31, t(66)= 2.83, p=.006). Individuals from institutions with open policies were also more likely to report that their organizations used analytics to enable the provision of automated support to students (M=2.59, SD=1.31) than others (M=1.83, SD=0.92, t(43)= 2.63, p=.012).

Greater differences were evident in the use of open educational resources: participants from institutions with open policies demonstrated greater involvement in the development of OERs either individually or collaboratively with other institutions. Participants working for institutions with open policies were also more likely to report that their organizations published OERs on the Web under an open licence (M=3.04, SD=1.56) than others (M=2.19, SD=1.19; t(45)= 2.41, p=.024). Collaborative development of OERs with people in other institutions (M=3.04, SD=1.18) as well as the provision of courses based solely on OERs (M=2.00, SD=1.17) was also higher amongst participants from institutions with open policies compared to those from institutions without open entry policies (M=2.38, SD=0.99; t(63)= 2.41, p=.019 and M=1.37, SD=0.66; t(35)= 2.53, p=.016 respectively).

30 | P a g e

FIGURE 5.2: OER PRACTICES OF INSTITUTIONS WITH OPEN POLICIES VS. TRADITIONAL INSTITUTIONS

PRIVATE VS PUBLICLY-‐FINANCED INSTITUTIONS A search was conducted into each of the institutions which was named by respondents (which was optional in the survey), in order to determine whether these organizations were publicly or privately funded. Not-‐for-‐profit organizations that did not provide education services and individuals from anonymous organizations were excluded from the comparative analysis. As a large proportion of participants declined to provide the name of their institutions, only 41 cases were available for analysis.

Analysis of the results revealed few significant differences between participants from public and private institutions, which may be a consequence of the small sample size. The

31 | P a g e

only difference with regard to assessment and student support policies and practices was in relation to recognition of prior learning. Participants from private institutions (M=4.29, SD=0.76) were more likely to report that their organizations had policies and procedures in place for recognition of prior learning than public institutions (M=3.00, SD=1.59; t(22)= 2.82, p=.010).

Greater differences were observed in OER policies, with greater involvement in the development and use of OERs being reported by participants working for private institutions than those in public institutions. Publication of OERs was lower amongst public institutions (M=1.81, SD=1.12) compared to private institutions (M=3.75, SD=1.16; t(27)= 4.12, p=.000). Similar findings were evident in the use by educators in the institutions represented in the study of OERs developed elsewhere (Public: M=2.65, SD=1.14, Private: M=3.67, SD=1.00; t(27)= 2.31, p=.029). Participants working for private institutions (M=1.43, SD=0.68) were also more likely to report that their organizations provided courses based solely on OERs than respondents in public institutions (M=2.88, SD=1.46; t(8)= 2.70, p=.027). These findings were somewhat unexpected, considering the large number of funded OER projects in public institutions in recent years, particularly in the UK. However, the small sample size and geographical dispersion of responses could go some way towards explaining this result. No differences observed in respondents’ knowledge about OERs, and the anticipated future provision of accreditation services for OER courses was low in both cases.

INSTITUTIONS WHICH USE PLAR MODELS VS THOSE THAT DO NOT Participants who had previously indicated that policies and procedures for the recognition of prior learning were central to their organization (rating of 4 or 5) were identified separately from participants who indicated that these policies were not central (rating of 1, 2 or 3) or were unsure of the existence of these policies (responded “Don’t know”), to enable a comparative analysis between these two groups. A sample of 35 participants (39%) was identified as coming from institutions with PLAR models, compared to 55 that did not (61%). Participants based in non-‐teaching institutions did not answer this question and were therefore excluded from the analysis.

A significant relationship was evident between institutions that had recognition of prior learning policies and the provision of other assessment practices, as well as some student support practices. Respondents from institutions with PLAR policies were

32 | P a g e

significantly more likely to report that their organizations also provided challenge exams (PLAR: M=2.20, SD=1.56, no PLAR: M=1.38, SD=0.71; t(38)=2.65, p=.012) and collaborated with employers to provide workplace-‐based assessment for learners (PLAR: M=3.46, SD=1.36, no PLAR: M=2.43, SD=1.15; t(75)=3.60, p=.001). These institutions were also significantly more likely to award credentials to students even in cases where more than 60% of credits had been obtained from other institutions (PLAR: 34%, no PLAR: 9%; X2 [2, N=90]=15.36, p <.01). Institutions with PLAR policies were also more likely to provide access to open-‐access and externally hosted social networking platforms for students (M=2.78, SD=1.26) than those without these policies (M=2.25, SD=0.81; t(49)=2.09, p=.042).

FIGURE 5.3: ACCREDITATION AND STUDENT SUPPORT PRACTICES OF INSTITUTIONS WITH PLAR POLICIES

A significant relationship was also evident between the availability of PLAR policies in institutions and the use and development of OERs. Participants whose institutions had PLAR policies (M=2.91, SD=1.51) were significantly more likely to publish OERs or develop these resources collaboratively with people in other institutions (M=2.94, SD=1.22) than those in institutions without PLAR policies (M=2.11, SD=1.20; t(61)=2.46, p=.017 and M=2.29, SD=0.96; t(65)=2.45, p=.017). The provision of courses based solely on OERs was also more prevalent in institutions with PLAR policies (M=1.90, SD=1.14) compared to those without (M=1.34, SD=0.63; t(45)=2.46, p=.018). Significantly more institutions with PLAR policies were also

33 | P a g e

actively involved in the OERu network as anchor partners (37%), with only 7% of these institutions not currently involved in the OERu network (X2 [4, N=90]=11.51, p <.05). This suggests that institutions with PLAR policies may be more prepared to integrate OER policies and practices into their teaching and learning strategies.

INSTITUTIONS PROVIDING OPEN-‐ACCESS LEARNING RESOURCES VS CONVENTIONAL CURRICULA

All participants from institutions that developed or collaborated in the development of OERs, used OERs developed elsewhere, or provided courses based on OERs were combined into a group to represent users of OERs (n=33). These participants were combined to ensure a robust sample size for comparison purposes with organizations that did not use or develop OERS. Analysis of the differences between these two groups revealed a large number of significant differences, which suggests that institutions that already have open policies are better positioned to adopt new open assessment and accreditation policies and practices.

Higher numbers of participants from institutions that use OERs indicated that their organizations had policies and procedures in place for recognition of prior learning (M=3.77, SD=1.21) than non-‐users of OERs (M=3.11, SD=1.28; t(60)=2.04,p=.046). Two differences in student support practices were evident between the two groups. Respondents from institutions with open policies were more likely to report that their organizations used analytics to enable the provision of automated support to students (M=2.60, SD=1.41) than those working for traditional institutions (M=1.85, SD=0.86, t(35)=2.39,p=.022). There was also greater reported usage of open-‐access and externally hosted social networking platforms by individuals from institutions that used OERs (M=3.00, SD=1.30) than those that did not (M=2.23, SD=0.77; t(37)=2.80,p=.008).

34 | P a g e

FIGURE 5.4: ACCREDITATION AND STUDENT SUPPORT PRACTICES OF INSTITUTIONS USING OERS

6. LESSONS LEARNED

As noted before, the findings from this study are indicative of the views of stakeholders from a wide range of regions and different institution types, and are not necessarily generalizable. Some tentative lessons can be drawn from the study, however, and these are discussed below.

INSTITUTIONAL BENEFITS FOR PARTICIPATION IN OPEN ASSESSMENT AND

ACCREDITATION SERVICES There are numerous perceived benefits to participating in collaborative open accreditation initiatives, and yet there is still extensive uncertainty about the potential impact of these initiatives on organizations. Participants considered the greatest benefit (or potential benefit) to their organization to be the opportunity to participate in an international network of accredited institutions (M=3.93, SD=1.12). The ability to provide a philanthropic contribution to the sector by widening access to disadvantaged learners (M=3.75, SD=1.07) was also considered to be a benefit. A large proportion of respondents anticipated financial benefits in

35 | P a g e

the potential to reduce costs and save time associated with the development of learning materials (M=3.63, SD=1.25). International marketing opportunities (M=3.54, SD=1.30) were also considered by many to be a possible spin-‐off of participation in collaborative, open accreditation initiatives. Opportunities to diversify revenue streams (M=3.20, SD=1.36) and the potential low-‐risk nature of the initiative (M=3.34, SD=1.24) were mentioned by fewer respondents as being motivations for their institutions to consider participating in collaborative, open accreditation initiatives.

FIGURE 6.1: REASONS FOR PARTICIPATING IN COLLABORATIVE OER ACCREDITATION INITIATIVES

Users of OERs (M=4.03, SD=1.05) and participants from institutions with open policies (M=4.14, SD=0.89) were significantly more likely to be driven by philanthropic motives to participate in collaborative OER accreditation initiatives than non-‐users of OERs (M=3.50, SD=1.03; t(65)=2.08, p=.041) or respondents from traditional institutions (M=3.32, SD=1.09; t(60)=3.251, p=.002). Participants working for institutions with recognition of prior learning policies were most likely to report that the motivation for their organizations to participate in these initiatives was to improve their international marketing (M=4.00, SD=1.05; Non-‐RPL M=3.37, SD=1.35; t(61)=2.07,p=.042), diversify their revenue streams by incorporating value-‐added

36 | P a g e

services (M=3.69, SD=1.23; Non-‐RPL M=2.81, SD=1.37; t(60)=2.63,p=.011) and test low-‐risk OER collaboration models (M=3.86, SD=0.99; Non-‐RPL M=2.90, SD=1.22; t(58)=3.33,p=.002).

CHANGES NEEDED TO INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES For institutions without policies around recognition of prior learning and accelerated assessment, extensive changes may be required to policies in order to be able to offer sustainable assessment services for courses based solely on OERs. This may impact on the ease with which organizations are able to adopt such initiatives. Most of the respondents from institutions that were active partners in the OERu initiative (n=11) did not see the need for extensive changes to existing policies to implement these services, largely because policies such as recognition of prior learning and accelerated assessment were already in place.

FIGURE 6.2: INSTITUTIONAL POLICY CHANGE REQUIREMENTS TO PARTICIPATE IN OER ACCREDITATION INITATIVES

PERCEIVED EFFECTIVENESS OF STUDENT SUPPORT OPTIONS FOR OPEN COURSES In order to be cost-‐effective and sustainable within higher education environments, open courses offered on a mass scale will require alternative methods of student support that do not rely heavily on the individual attention of course leaders or tutors. Current participants in the OERu network were asked to indicate the extent to which they believed that various student

37 | P a g e

support options would be effective for supporting students participating in OER-‐based courses. Peer-‐to-‐peer learning support models were considered by 80% of these respondents to be the most effective option, followed by support from retired academic volunteers (60%) and the design of system to enable senior students or graduates to provide support for junior students (60%). The use of volunteers for assessment of students’ work on courses was considered to be effective by 56% of OERu partners.

FIGURE 6.3: PERCEPTIONS OF EFFECTIVENESS OF STUDENT SUPPORT OPTIONS FOR OER ACCREDITATION INITATIVES

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE OPEN ASSESSMENT PRACTICES Assessment of learners’ achievements in OER-‐based courses on a mass scale will require procedures that do not depend on the time and resource-‐consuming support usually included in traditional face-‐to-‐face or online courses. Participants whose institutions were members of the OERu network were requested to provide recommendations about the types of assessment methods that would most likely be used in the future by institutions assessing the learning outcomes of courses based on OERs for formal accreditation. Recognition of prior learning portfolio assessment and course-‐based portfolios were considered to be the assessment methods that would be used most frequently by 80% of participants. Both these methods enable students to engage in authentic, real-‐life problem solving activities.

38 | P a g e

Almost half of these participants (44%) noted that automated online assessments would be extensively used, which would be less desirable as these methods generally test for content knowledge rather than the higher order skills required in most higher education programs. Workplace assessment, which would be carried out in partnership with employers, and the use of volunteer assessors were not considered to be assessment measures that would be extensively implemented.

FIGURE 6.4: PREFERRED ASSESSMENT PRACTICES FOR OER ACCREDITATION INITATIVES

BARRIERS TO INSTITUTIONAL PARTICIPATION IN OPEN ASSESSMENT AND

ACCREDITATION SERVICES The greatest barriers to participation in open assessment and accreditation practices identified by the survey participants was the lack of availability of committed staff members to support such activities (M=3.85, SD=1.04), and the potential costs of redeveloping courses as open educational resources (M=3.85, SD=1.09). The role of volunteers to support students and possibly also grade assessments was identified in previous questions as one way of supporting the implementation of OER-‐based courses; yet the anticipated lack of availability of volunteers was considered by a large proportion of the sample to be a significant barrier (M=3.84, SD=1.14).

39 | P a g e

FIGURE 6.5: FACTORS HINDERING THE SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF OER ASSESSMENT AND ACCREDITATION PRACTICES

Lack of support for OER-‐based courses from senior management was a significantly greater concern for participants from traditional education institutions (M=4.05, SD=0.96) in comparison to those from institutions with open policies (M=3.08, SD= 1.62; t(37)=2.76, p=.009). Participants whose organizations were not using OERs (M=4.03, SD=1.07) or institutions without PLAR policies (M=4.12, SD=0.95) considered the potential lack of alignment with organizational strategy to be a more significant barrier than those already involved in the use and development of OERs (M=3.39, SD=1.29; t(63)=2.17, p=.034) or whose institutions already had PLAR policies in existence (M=3.36, SD=1.28; t(49)=2.61, p=.012).

Individuals based in traditional institutions (M=3.79, SD=0.99), public institutions (M=3.43, SD=1.21) and non-‐users of OERs (M=3.77, SD=1.16) were more concerned about the lack of a supportive community within the institution compared to respondents from institutions with open policies (M=3.12, SD=1.42; t(39)=2.05, p=.047), private institutions (M=2.00, SD=1.41; t(26)=2.60, p=.015) and current users of OERs (M=3.07, SD=1.31; t(66)=2.33, p=.023). The lack of training and support was also perceived to be a more significant barrier within public (M=3.68, SD=1.25) than private institutions (M=2.29, SD=1.38; t(27)=2.51, p=.018). These findings suggest that institutions that already have policies that support open assessment and accreditation practices will be able to easily align the implementation of collaborative OER courses with existing policies and processes.

40 | P a g e

KEY INSTITUTIONAL SUCCESS FACTORS FOR THE PROVISION OF OPEN ASSESSMENT AND ACCREDITATION SERVICES Alternative strategies to course development may be required in the future to facilitate the implementation of open practices and overcome barriers that hinder the successful development of open assessment and accreditation. Participants were requested to indicate the extent to which a range of possible approaches would be used for developing open courses in future. Collaborative development of OER courses which require institutions to share the development responsibility were considered to be the most effective approach for the future by 66% of participants (M=4.02, SD=1.07). Remixing of courses from existing OER courses that were available online was also considered to be highly effective (M=3.87, SD=1.23). This would involve the repurposing of materials developed by other organizations or individuals as OERs rather than development of new materials from scratch. Developing new courses under an open license as a single institution was considered to be effective by slightly fewer participants (60%, M=3.75, SD=1.20), but was still considered to be a viable approach.

FIGURE 6.6: PERCEIEVED EFFECTIVENESS OF APPROACHES REQUIRED FOR SUCCESSFUL PARTICIPATION IN OPEN ASSESSMENT AND ACCREDITATION PRACTICES

41 | P a g e

Only two significant differences in policy preferences were observed between the comparison groups assessed. Participants in organizations from non-‐OECD countries (M=4.59, SD=0.62) were more in favor of the development and release of OERs under a single institution development model than participants in OECD-‐based organizations (M=3.42, SD=1.22; t(54)=4.90, p=.000). Those from organizations with open policies (M=4.21, SD=1.02), however, considered the development of courses based on remixing existing OERs to be more effective than participants from traditional institutions (M=3.55, SD=1.35; t(55)=2.11, p=.039).

In conclusion, it can be said that a wide range of perceptions, practices and policies was reported by the survey participants, which clearly indicates a very large scope of approaches to openness in education, assessment and accreditation within the institutions and regions represented. The key success factors seem to be a strong support base within institutions – both in terms of leadership and resources, and an existing culture of openness, including policies and practices around the creation and use of OERs, as well as policies that enable either open access or recognition of prior learning via credit transfer or PLAR. Institutions that are already characterized by these features are likely to be best placed for the implementation of assessment and accreditation of OER-‐based learning, and could provide models for other organizations that would like to participate in collaborative open education, assessment and credentialization initiatives.

42 | P a g e

REFERENCES Bird, T. and Witthaus, G. (2012). iTunes U and the OERu: Two Different Ways to Reach the

World. Available from http://goo.gl/m19Hz (accessed 29 September 2012) Murphy, A. (2012). Benchmarking OER Use and Assessment in Higher Education. In M.

Brown,M. Hartnett & T. Stewart (Eds.), Future challenges, sustainable futures.

Proceedings ascilite Wellington 2012. (pp.675-‐677). Available from

http://www.academia.edu/2223875/Benchmarking_open_educational_practices_in_hig

her_education (accessed 28 January 2013).

Mackintosh, W. (2012). Opening Education in New Zealand: A Snapshot of a Rapidly Evolving

OER Ecosystem. In J. Glennie, K. Harley, N. Butcher, T. van Wyk (Eds.), Open Educational

Resources and Change in Higher Education: Reflections from Practice, 263-‐279.

Mackintosh, W., Taylor, J., & McGreal, R. (2011). Open education resource university: Towards a

logic model and plan for action. Edmonton: Athabasca University and OER Foundation.

Retrieved from http://wikieducator.org/images/c/c2/Report_OERU-‐Final-‐version.Pdf

Murphy, A. (In Press) Open educational practices in Higher Education: Institutional adoption

and challenges. Distance Education.

Taylor, J.C. (2007). Open courseware futures: Creating a parallel universe. e-‐Journal of

Instructional Science and Technology (e-‐JIST), 10(1). Retrieved from

http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/e-‐jist/docs/vol10_no1/papers/full_papers/taylorj.htm

Taylor, J.C. (2011). The OER university: From logic model to action plan. Keynote Address. Open

Planning meeting for the OER assessment and credit for students project, Otago

Polytechnic, 23 February 2011, Dunedin, New Zealand. Retrieved from

http://wikieducator.org/OERU_meeting_summary

Witthaus, G. (2012). The OER university: from vision to reality. In Okada, A. (ed) (2012) Open

Educational Resources and Social Networks: Co-‐learning and Professional Development.

Scholio Educational Research & Publishing. Milton Keynes. Retrieved from

http://oer.kmi.open.ac.uk/?page_id=2343.

43 | P a g e

APPENDIX

Permission was given for the names of the following institutions to be published:

Region Country (specific) Institution

Australia/New Zealand Australia Charles Sturt University

Australia/New Zealand New Zealand NorthTec

Australia/New Zealand New Zealand Open Education Resource Foundation

Australia/New Zealand New Zealand Otago Polytechnic

Canada Canada Athabasca University

Canada Canada BCcampus

Canada Canada School District 46 Sunshine Coast

Canada Canada Thompson Rivers University

Canada Canada University of Northern British Columbia

Europe Ireland Dun Laoghaire Institute of Art Design and Technology

Europe Italy CSP scarl

United Kingdom1 United Kingdom Bournemouth University

United Kingdom United Kingdom Coventry University

United Kingdom United Kingdom De Montfort University

United Kingdom United Kingdom Imperial College London

United Kingdom United Kingdom Institute of Education, University of London

United Kingdom United Kingdom King's College London

United Kingdom United Kingdom Leeds Metropolitan University

United Kingdom United Kingdom London South Bank University

United Kingdom United Kingdom Loughborough University

United Kingdom United Kingdom Middlesex University

United Kingdom United Kingdom Newcastle University

United Kingdom United Kingdom Southampton Solent University

United Kingdom United Kingdom The Open University

United Kingdom United Kingdom The University of Manchester

United Kingdom United Kingdom University of Bath

United Kingdom United Kingdom University of Cambridge

1 The United Kingdom was listed separately from Europe because of the requirement of the TOUCANS project to limit the scope of its analysis to UK-‐based institutions.

44 | P a g e

United Kingdom United Kingdom University of Huddersfield

United Kingdom United Kingdom University of Hull

United Kingdom United Kingdom University of Leeds

United Kingdom United Kingdom University of Leicester

United Kingdom United Kingdom University of Nottingham

United Kingdom United Kingdom University of Oxford

United Kingdom United Kingdom University of Southampton

United Kingdom United Kingdom University of Surrey

United States United States Blackboard

United States United States K12 Next Generation

United States United States Saint Michael's College (VT; USA)

United States United States SUNY/Empire State College

Asia India Acharya Narendra Dev College, University of Delhi

Asia India Amity University, Noida, UP, India

Asia India Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University, Gujarat, India

Asia India govt. inter college Bhojpur Moradabad

Asia India Kerala University

Asia India likeminds

Asia India Supten Institute

Asia Indonesia University of Mumbai, India

Asia Iran pedagogy.ir

Asia Malaysia Wawasan Open University

Asia Sri Lanka The Open University of Sri Lanka

Asia Vietnam SEAMEO RETRAC (South East Asian Ministers of Education Organization, Regional Training Center)

Other Africa Ghana Ghana-‐India Kofi Annan Centre of Excellence in ICT

Other Africa Mauritius University of Mauritius

Other Africa Rwanda ICTEDU Learning Centre

South America / Caribbean Brazil Colégio Oswald de Andrade

South America / Caribbean Brazil OER-‐Brazil Project

South America / Caribbean Brazil Universidade Federal Fluminense

South America / Caribbean Jamaica Nancy George & Associates

South America / Caribbean Trinidad & Tobago St Patrick Education District, Ministry of Education ,Trinidad & Tobago

Southern Africa South Africa SA Institute for Distance Education

Southern Africa South Africa University of Cape Town

Southern Africa South Africa University of South Africa

Southern Africa Swaziland University of Swaziland

Findings from a survey of openness in assessment and accreditation practices in post-secondary...

Documents

Transcript of Findings from a survey of openness in assessment and accreditation practices in post-secondary...