Commonwealth Educational
Media Centre for Asia
Higher Education
Faculty Perceptions of
Quality of Open
Educational Resources
in India
Sanjaya Mishra, PhD
Education Specialist, eLearning
Commonwealth of Learning, Canada
Background
 Access to quality educational materials
 Prohibitive costs of textbooks
 Slow adoption of OER
 Teachers as producers of educational
materials
 Why many teachers do not share with
others?
Conceptual Framework
Background
Activity Theory
Background
Research Questions
1. How are teachers’ attitudes towards OER situated
in the context of teaching and learning?
2. Is there any difference in attitude towards OER
between teachers according to different
demographic variables?
3. What are teachers’ motivations for using OER and
sharing their work as OER?
4. Is there any difference in motivations between
groups of teachers?
5. What barriers to using OER do teachers perceive?
6. How do teachers perceive the quality of OER?
7. Are there relationships between teachers’ attitudes,
motivations and perceptions of quality when it
comes to them using and adapting OER?
Methods, Instruments and Data
Sources
 Qualitative and quantitative
 Survey, interviews and workshops
 Questionnaire
 ATOER Scale (0.897 reliability coefficient
Cronbach’s α)
 Interview schedule (Activity theory based)
 WikiEducator India group and participants in
4 workshops
Workshop at Institutions
• Dual-mode University
• Single-mode Open
University
• University in rural
setting
• Private, multi-campus
University
Workshop Objectives
 Assist the participants
to understand history
and development of
OER;
 Enable them to relate
the need of OER in
their work
environment;
 Facilitate appreciation
of the importance of
open license in
educational materials;
and
 Collect data on the
research.
Workshop strategies
 Just a minute (JAM)
Session
Workshop strategies
 Interactive Q & A
session on
Motivations
Workshop strategies
 Group Discussion on Barriers to OER
Workshop strategies
 Debate on Quality
 Audio recording of
views of participants
Data Sample
 28 Participant interviews
recorded post workshop
 Survey of 227 teachers
including 107 WikiEducator
India members; with 117
usable responses
 42.7% were female
respondents and 57.2% male
Literature Review
 Quality is an important concept in education
 There are many models of assuring quality
 Quality is the result of a deliberate,
transparent, participatory negotiation process
 OER useful for improving teaching quality in
areas such as providing illustrations, teaching
difficult subjects, and supporting student
progression
 Sharing teaching materials that are incomplete
makes the faculty vulnerable to criticism
Some Key Issues
 OER to be accurate and authentic
 Appropriate to learning objectives
 Up-to-date
 Trust of the source
 Reusable
 Retaining integrity
Quality Guidelines for Open
Educational Resources
Teaching and learning
processes
Information and
material contents
Presentation, products
and formats
System, technical and
technology
http://oasis.col.org/handle/11599/562
OER TIPS Framework
 Teaching and learning processes
– Pedagogical issues, including student learning,
assessment and support
 Information and material contents
– Content accuracy, relevance and content load
 Presentation, products and formats
– Openness, multimedia, design issues and open formats
 System, technical and technology
– Discoverability, support localization and people with
disability
ANALYSES AND
RESULTS
How do teachers
perceive OER
quality?
Perceptions of Quality OER
Statements Mean
If OER are appropriate in their content, I prefer to use
them.
4.46
I prefer to use OER from trustworthy sources. 4.37
Open licensing of OER enables continuous quality
improvements.
4.17
I use trustworthy OER from reputed institutions. 4.09
I often use OER, which fulfil the pedagogical needs
of the teaching–learning process.
4.07
OER need localisation. 3.97
Lack of peer review of OER makes them susceptible to
poor quality.
3.74
Perceptions of Quality OER
Statements Mean
OER are free resources available through open
licences.
4.41
OER bring down the cost of learning materials. 4.37
OER saves teachers’ time. 4.23
OER help developing countries obtain quality
materials.
4.05
I don’t need permission to reuse OER. 3.76
The quality of OER is questionable. 3.49
Contributors vs. Non-contributors
Previous OER contribution and Quality of OER
MEAN QUALITY Total
Undecided Agree Strongly
Agree
Previous OER
contribution
No Count 1 57 24 82
% within
Previous
OER
contribution
1.2% 69.5% 29.3% 100.0%
Yes Count 3 13 16 32
% within
Previous
OER
contribution
9.4% 40.6% 50.0% 100.0%
Total Count 4 70 40 114
% 3.5% 61.4% 35.1% 100.0%
Chi-Square = 10.31, df = 2, N = 114, p = 0.006
Significant difference in perceptions of quality between contributors and non-contributors
Panel Discussion on OER Quality
“…some materials are not that well designed,
not well structured,… we must be concerned
about content …let it be unstructured but if
content is good then fine”.
Panel Discussion on OER Quality
“…it’s only the quality issue, which bothers
sometimes. If I am going to a very reputed
forum, there is information which is not from a
very trustworthy source, I may not quote it. I
will search for something, on which nobody
will question. Because if somebody questions
than your credibility depends on that”
Credibility; Trustworthiness
Panel Discussion on OER Quality
“Quality is necessary. First of all we should be satisfied
about what we have written. Does it fulfill the needs and
expectations of the learners? There should be an
authenticity. Nothing should be wrong in the Self Learning
Materials which we prepare. Secondly I think there should
be an editor or board of editors who check it seriously all the
text [contents] not only the language. So it should be
checked on the both levels -- individual as well as
institutional”
• Role of the institution
• Peer Review of OER
Panel Discussion on OER Quality
“…collaboration will help building good content
and also different thinking… By collaboration
these materials can be well designed and better
prepared…”
Course Team to Develop OER
Key Findings on OER Quality
 Personal criteria of appropriateness to measure
OER quality
 Trustworthiness of OER sources and reputation of
the source are important consideration when
deciding about quality
 To be considered quality materials, OER should
support the pedagogical needs of the teaching and
learning processes
 An open licence is itself an indicator of quality, as
it provides the opportunity for continuous
improvement of the resource
Key Findings on OER Quality
 OER need to be localised and adapted to
specific contexts to be fit for purpose
 OER should undergo the rigour of peer
review to be considered quality materials
 Quality assurance of OER should be the
responsibility of those who prepare the
materials, and institutions should create
mechanisms to assure quality
Other Related Resources
 ATOER Scale
 Open Praxis Paper
 Presentation at OE Global 2015
 Monograph: Promoting Use and Contribution
of Open Educational Resources
 Poster Presentation at PCF8, 2016
 Presentation at Dissemination workshop
THANK YOU
This work was carried out with the aid of a grant from the International
Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada as part of the Research
on Open Educational Resource for Development (ROER4D) Project.
(Grant: 107311-001). Thanks are also due to Cheryl Cheryl Hodgkinson-
Williams and colleagues at UCT for supporting the research work.

Higher Education Faculty Perceptions of Quality of Open Educational Resources in India

  • 1.
    Commonwealth Educational Media Centrefor Asia Higher Education Faculty Perceptions of Quality of Open Educational Resources in India Sanjaya Mishra, PhD Education Specialist, eLearning Commonwealth of Learning, Canada
  • 2.
    Background  Access toquality educational materials  Prohibitive costs of textbooks  Slow adoption of OER  Teachers as producers of educational materials  Why many teachers do not share with others?
  • 3.
  • 4.
  • 5.
    Research Questions 1. Howare teachers’ attitudes towards OER situated in the context of teaching and learning? 2. Is there any difference in attitude towards OER between teachers according to different demographic variables? 3. What are teachers’ motivations for using OER and sharing their work as OER? 4. Is there any difference in motivations between groups of teachers? 5. What barriers to using OER do teachers perceive? 6. How do teachers perceive the quality of OER? 7. Are there relationships between teachers’ attitudes, motivations and perceptions of quality when it comes to them using and adapting OER?
  • 6.
    Methods, Instruments andData Sources  Qualitative and quantitative  Survey, interviews and workshops  Questionnaire  ATOER Scale (0.897 reliability coefficient Cronbach’s α)  Interview schedule (Activity theory based)  WikiEducator India group and participants in 4 workshops
  • 7.
    Workshop at Institutions •Dual-mode University • Single-mode Open University • University in rural setting • Private, multi-campus University
  • 8.
    Workshop Objectives  Assistthe participants to understand history and development of OER;  Enable them to relate the need of OER in their work environment;  Facilitate appreciation of the importance of open license in educational materials; and  Collect data on the research.
  • 9.
    Workshop strategies  Justa minute (JAM) Session
  • 10.
    Workshop strategies  InteractiveQ & A session on Motivations
  • 11.
    Workshop strategies  GroupDiscussion on Barriers to OER
  • 12.
    Workshop strategies  Debateon Quality  Audio recording of views of participants
  • 13.
    Data Sample  28Participant interviews recorded post workshop  Survey of 227 teachers including 107 WikiEducator India members; with 117 usable responses  42.7% were female respondents and 57.2% male
  • 14.
    Literature Review  Qualityis an important concept in education  There are many models of assuring quality  Quality is the result of a deliberate, transparent, participatory negotiation process  OER useful for improving teaching quality in areas such as providing illustrations, teaching difficult subjects, and supporting student progression  Sharing teaching materials that are incomplete makes the faculty vulnerable to criticism
  • 15.
    Some Key Issues OER to be accurate and authentic  Appropriate to learning objectives  Up-to-date  Trust of the source  Reusable  Retaining integrity
  • 16.
    Quality Guidelines forOpen Educational Resources Teaching and learning processes Information and material contents Presentation, products and formats System, technical and technology http://oasis.col.org/handle/11599/562
  • 17.
    OER TIPS Framework Teaching and learning processes – Pedagogical issues, including student learning, assessment and support  Information and material contents – Content accuracy, relevance and content load  Presentation, products and formats – Openness, multimedia, design issues and open formats  System, technical and technology – Discoverability, support localization and people with disability
  • 18.
  • 19.
  • 20.
    Perceptions of QualityOER Statements Mean If OER are appropriate in their content, I prefer to use them. 4.46 I prefer to use OER from trustworthy sources. 4.37 Open licensing of OER enables continuous quality improvements. 4.17 I use trustworthy OER from reputed institutions. 4.09 I often use OER, which fulfil the pedagogical needs of the teaching–learning process. 4.07 OER need localisation. 3.97 Lack of peer review of OER makes them susceptible to poor quality. 3.74
  • 21.
    Perceptions of QualityOER Statements Mean OER are free resources available through open licences. 4.41 OER bring down the cost of learning materials. 4.37 OER saves teachers’ time. 4.23 OER help developing countries obtain quality materials. 4.05 I don’t need permission to reuse OER. 3.76 The quality of OER is questionable. 3.49
  • 22.
    Contributors vs. Non-contributors PreviousOER contribution and Quality of OER MEAN QUALITY Total Undecided Agree Strongly Agree Previous OER contribution No Count 1 57 24 82 % within Previous OER contribution 1.2% 69.5% 29.3% 100.0% Yes Count 3 13 16 32 % within Previous OER contribution 9.4% 40.6% 50.0% 100.0% Total Count 4 70 40 114 % 3.5% 61.4% 35.1% 100.0% Chi-Square = 10.31, df = 2, N = 114, p = 0.006 Significant difference in perceptions of quality between contributors and non-contributors
  • 23.
    Panel Discussion onOER Quality “…some materials are not that well designed, not well structured,… we must be concerned about content …let it be unstructured but if content is good then fine”.
  • 24.
    Panel Discussion onOER Quality “…it’s only the quality issue, which bothers sometimes. If I am going to a very reputed forum, there is information which is not from a very trustworthy source, I may not quote it. I will search for something, on which nobody will question. Because if somebody questions than your credibility depends on that” Credibility; Trustworthiness
  • 25.
    Panel Discussion onOER Quality “Quality is necessary. First of all we should be satisfied about what we have written. Does it fulfill the needs and expectations of the learners? There should be an authenticity. Nothing should be wrong in the Self Learning Materials which we prepare. Secondly I think there should be an editor or board of editors who check it seriously all the text [contents] not only the language. So it should be checked on the both levels -- individual as well as institutional” • Role of the institution • Peer Review of OER
  • 26.
    Panel Discussion onOER Quality “…collaboration will help building good content and also different thinking… By collaboration these materials can be well designed and better prepared…” Course Team to Develop OER
  • 27.
    Key Findings onOER Quality  Personal criteria of appropriateness to measure OER quality  Trustworthiness of OER sources and reputation of the source are important consideration when deciding about quality  To be considered quality materials, OER should support the pedagogical needs of the teaching and learning processes  An open licence is itself an indicator of quality, as it provides the opportunity for continuous improvement of the resource
  • 28.
    Key Findings onOER Quality  OER need to be localised and adapted to specific contexts to be fit for purpose  OER should undergo the rigour of peer review to be considered quality materials  Quality assurance of OER should be the responsibility of those who prepare the materials, and institutions should create mechanisms to assure quality
  • 29.
    Other Related Resources ATOER Scale  Open Praxis Paper  Presentation at OE Global 2015  Monograph: Promoting Use and Contribution of Open Educational Resources  Poster Presentation at PCF8, 2016  Presentation at Dissemination workshop
  • 30.
    THANK YOU This workwas carried out with the aid of a grant from the International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada as part of the Research on Open Educational Resource for Development (ROER4D) Project. (Grant: 107311-001). Thanks are also due to Cheryl Cheryl Hodgkinson- Williams and colleagues at UCT for supporting the research work.

Editor's Notes

  • #5 The third-generation Activity Theory (AT) framework (Engeström, 1987) can be used to discuss the whole process from OER creation to consumption, as it includes the four dominant aspects of human activity — production, distribution, exchange and consumption. Figure 2.1 presents an overview of the issues within this approach. To complement the AT framework, we also use Vygotsky’s (1978) idea of a mediating tool. Along with subject and object these are: the rules — the “norms, conventions and values” that “represent a way of minimizing conflicts in an activity system” and “affect how the subjects move towards the object and how they interact within a community”; the community, “a larger group including the subject,” where “learning is situated” and participants “share the same objects, are governed by rules and divide tasks”; and the division of labour, which “is related to the organisation of the community,” “comprises roles, tasks and power relationships in an activity system” and “mediates between the objects and the community” (Buchem, Attwell, & Torres, 2011, p. 8). In this study, a broad view of AT is applied with respect to OER creation, distribution, exchange and consumption, as it is relevant in the context of OER to incorporate the different perspectives of user, non-user, contributor and non-contributor.
  • #8 Workshop as a modified FGD