Keywords

1 Introduction

The movement around Open Educational Resources (OER) aims to make educational resources available to all through the use of open licenses. The vast number of OER available in online repositories and the fact that these numbers are increasing continuously shows that sharing OER is commonplace (Bliss & Smith, 2017). Our understanding of the extent to which OER are reused, however, is still limited. While previous studies have explored educators’ behavior regarding reusing resources and aligning them with their specific teaching needs within a specific course (Pulker, 2019; Wills & Pegler, 2016; Kimmons, 2015; Windle et al., 2010), these insights are results of funded projects on OER adoption. Yet, projects on OER often cease to exist when the initial funding disappears (Orr et al., 2015). Even though the barriers to OER adoption are known (Cox & Trotter, 2017), our insights into the actual reuse of OER is limited. Only a small number of studies examine OER adoption outside dedicated OER projects, and so-called dark reuse must be considered as well (Beaven, 2018). To improve our understanding of educators’ behavior with OER in their daily practice, we must first gain insight into their interaction with the phases of OER reuse. How do educators search and select OER? Do educators adapt resources? And how do they embed them in their teaching or integrate them in their classes?

In this chapter, we present insights into these questions. First, recent research on the different phases of reuse is presented. Next, we describe educational practices where the reuse of OER is an essential part for both educators and students and the implications for educators’ and students’ competencies. We proceed with describing activities educators and students perform to create their mix of educational resources in a process model. We use this process model to analyse the necessary requirements for optimal support of these activities. We conclude with a discussion of the use of the process model in relation to educators’ OER competencies and the consequences for support.

2 Educators’ Interaction with the Phases of OER Reuse

Over the years, many studies have examined the different phases of the OER reuse process (Clements & Pawlowski, 2012). The first phase in OER reuse relates to finding OER. Most OER users experience it as a difficult endeavor to find relevant, up-to-date and good-quality OER (Admiraal, 2022). To support educators in finding and evaluating OER, institutes and organisations offer different types of scaffolding. In online repositories, for example, educators are guided by ratings, statistics, and peer reviews to quickly assess OER (Clements et al., 2015). However, research shows that the design and functions of repositories should be further optimized to simplify the search process and further the aims of the open movement (Atenas & Havemann, 2014; Tang et al., 2020). Outside these online repositories, educators can use one of the many scoring rubrics that exist to assess OER (Yuan & Recker, 2015) or, if available, engage with an OER expert within the institute who can help with finding and curating OER (e.g., librarians or teaching and learning centres). Although educators can be supported in finding OER, evaluation of these resources is a more personal matter. Several studies have tried to gain more insights into educators’ curational behavior, which can be defined as ‘selecting and structuring resources for educational purposes, while providing context and a coherent presentation for a particular audience’ (Leighton & Griffioen, 2021, p. 3). Yet what do educators consider when evaluating resources for possible use in teaching and learning? Leighton and Griffioen (2021) conducted a review study and found that when educators are selecting resources, they appraise the resource on its reliability based on peer reviews and publication date, its pedagogical quality, the quality of the design, and whether the resource aligns with their course objectives. Similar findings are provided by studies that examine educators’ criteria for quality OER. For example, Karolčik and colleagues (2017) found that educators identified the correctness and clarity of the content, the ease of use, and clarity supported by examples as key elements of quality resources. Clements & Pawlowski (2012) found that educators define quality resources as resources that are scientifically correct, align with their course content, can be used in their digital environment, and make good use of media. Baas et al (2022) analysed educators’ collaborative conversations when assessing OER and elicited five topics that OER were assessed by: content, design, usability, engagement, and readability.

Although these findings show which elements educators could take into account when evaluating OER, educators also have the opportunity to adapt these resources to fit the context of use. This is advocated as one of the advantages of OER. Yet, do educators actually make use of this possibility? Based on an analysis of the dataset of the OER Research Hub (OERRH, 2014), Admiraal (2022) distinguished five types of educators using OER:

  • Type 1, called Adapt and Reuse, are relatively inexperienced educators that mainly adapt and reuse all different kinds of OER. Main challenge: finding suitable and quality resources;

  • Type 2, called Adapt and Comment, are educators who make comments about the quality of resources and adapt resources to their own needs. They work relatively often with video materials and images, and less with full courses. Main challenge: lack of time to find suitable resources and to experiment with them;

  • Type 3, called Adapt, Create, and Add, are educators that add resources to a repository, adapt resources to their needs, and some of them also create OER. They use mainly videos, images, lectures, and course parts. They reuse OER to obtain new ideas, to supplement their work, to organize self-study for their students, to learn themselves, and to broaden their resources. Main challenge: finding suitable and quality resources;

  • Type 4, called Adapt, Create, Publish, Add, and Comment, are relatively experienced, ICT-minded educators that interact with all phases of the reuse process. Main challenge: finding suitable and quality resources, getting acceptance and support from their organization.

  • Type 5, called Retain and Consume, are educators who mainly retain and consume OER. In contrast to the other types, they report fewer challenges in finding suitable and quality resources.

What can be discerned from this classification is that almost all OER users adapt resources to their teaching needs. This is in line with a study by Pulker (2019), who found that even if resources align with their teaching methodologies and beliefs, educators adapt, modify, and re-appropriate resources. If educators are content with the adaptations or if no adaptations are needed, they may reuse the resources. They can use OER, both ‘as-is’ and adapted, in the design of the curriculum, or during the course delivery (Armellini & Nie, 2013). Yet, studies have shown that it is difficult to gain a good insight into educators’ adoption of OER due to the ambiguity and unfamiliarity of the term OER (Allen & Seaman, 2015) and, related to this, the influence of so-called dark reuse (Wiley, 2009). Beaven (2018), for example, found that many uses of OER are hidden. Educators might not be aware of using OER or they may be using OER from a personal or a colleague's collection. To gain more insight into educators’ use of OER, including dark reuse, Baas and Schuwer (2020) conducted a survey study to obtain more insight into the day-to-day practices of educators when selecting and using resources in Dutch higher education. This study shows that resources that are hard or time-consuming to develop are most often reused by third parties without adaptations while resources that need to be more context-specific are often created by the educators themselves.

As previously mentioned, the possible alignment of retrieved OER with educators’ teaching methods and current educational designs is an important selection criterion. However, it is important to stress that the characteristics of OER (open access and rights to adapt) can also have an influence on the educational design. This will, in turn, have an influence on the reuse of OER. This is described in the next section.

3 Open Educational Practices and Open Pedagogy

Being involved with OER is a means to creating an impact in education. Activities leading to such impact are referred to as Open Educational Practices. From 2009 to 2011, the project OPAL ran, partly funded by the EU. In this project, the concept of Open Educational Practices (OEP) was defined as (Andrade et al, 2011, p. 12) (emphasis added by us):

“Practices which support the (re)use and production of OER through institutional policies, promote innovative pedagogical models, and respect and empower learners as co-producers on their lifelong learning path.”

This definition links educational practices with new pedagogical models and didactical scenarios. Increasingly, the value of OER is not only measured in terms of efficiency or their contributions to qualitative improvements of education, but also regarding the value they have for realizing didactical scenarios that are (almost) impossible without OER. These scenarios are called open pedagogy (Cronin & MacLaren, 2018; Hegarty, 2015) or OER-enabled pedagogy (Wiley & Hilton III, 2018). Clinton-Lisell (2021) describes the many interpretations of open pedagogy as follows (p. 256):

“The concept of open pedagogy has had multiple interpretations. A model of open pedagogy with eight key attributes to guide instructors in using OER was developed by Hegarty (2015). These attributes were helpful for open pedagogy but did not necessarily require open licensing to incorporate, such as connected community, peer review, and reflections. This broader approach is contrasted with a more precise approach by Wiley and Hilton (2018) who coined the term OER-enabled pedagogy. OER-enabled pedagogy is a specific approach regarding teaching and learning techniques that are only possible through open licensing (the 5Rs). Similarly, DeRosa and Robison (2017) describe OER use as a “jumping off point” for empowering students with student-centered, process-oriented learning through open licensing. This was further developed by describing open pedagogy as an “access-oriented commitment to learner-driven education AND as a process of designing architectures and using tools for learning that enable students to shape the public knowledge commons of which they are a part” (DeRosa & Jhangiani, 2018, pp. 13–14). In other words, open pedagogy is a method for students to be knowledge creators rather than only knowledge consumers.”

So, one of the attributes of open pedagogy is that students are involved and empowered as co-producers of their learning. This requires students to be open to creativity, to collaborate with peers and teachers, and to be comfortable and self-regulated with less prescriptive teaching approaches (Inamorato Dos Santos, 2019). This requires educators to shift their course designs to include more open educational practices.

When educators are designing an educational setting (in most cases a course), the starting point is that the learning outcomes, the teaching and learning activities, and the method of assessment are aligned, which is known as the principle of constructive alignment (Biggs, 1996). Paskevicius (2017) provides a framework in which elements of Open Pedagogy and examples of OEP are connected in this constructive alignment (see Fig. 1). This model may guide educators to consider and include open pedagogy as part of their course design.

Fig. 1
A process model depicts how the teaching and learning resources and activities, assessment, and evaluation are associated with learning outcomes.

Aspects of OEP within the model of constructive alignment (Paskevicius, 2017)

Full size image

Nascimbeni et al. (2018) introduce the Open Educators Factory (OEF) framework that addresses four open practice areas for teachers, which are design, content development, teaching, and assessment and propose a classification of the capacity of teachers to adopt Open Educational Practices. Regarding educational resources, OER provide access to adaptable and zero cost resources. For example, Hilton III and colleagues (2014) explore cost-savings of OER as an alternative to the burden of expensive commercial resources. In this case, students have the choice which resources they use. We also explored student behavior through focus groups in which 40 students from Dutch higher education participated (Schuwer et al., 2020). Although the majority of students indicated that the literature prescribed by their educators was sufficient for their learning process, the majority also stated they searched for alternative resources to gain a better understanding of the content, to fulfil their needs regarding their preferred media (e.g., video versus text), or to save time by using summaries. Students stressed they were not prepared to pay for a resource that was not included in the mandatory reading list. Instead, if a resource behind a paywall might be of interest, they would look for alternatives, for example by contacting the library or exploring illegal means. Students in the focus group also mentioned the need to find and reuse OER as being an integral part of the educational process they were facing in some courses. In this regard, courses apply student-centred learning outcomes, which is often part of problem-based educational scenarios in which students are expected to find their own learning materials (Savery, 2019).

In reality, educators strive for a mix of educational resources that has the best fit with the learning outcomes to achieve, the didactical and pedagogical principles they will use in teaching, and the type of assessment they will use. This mix of educational resources consists of open, semi-open (only freely accessible for a specific group of people), and commercial materials, digital or on paper.

The educational setting will usually be determined by an educator, but the setting of a student may differ from that of the educator (e.g., by focusing only on a few learning outcomes or by wanting to achieve more than the educator has thought of). In educational visions where more agency is placed with the student (such as OER-enabled pedagogy), the student will primarily determine the set-up of their educational setting and the optimal mix of learning resources that goes with it.

4 Competencies Needed for Reusing OER

To be able to reuse OER, both in more traditional course design as in OER-enabled pedagogies, educators should be competent in using OER. To guide institutes in developing or reusing professional development programmes for educators, the International Organisation of La Francophonie (IOF) (2016) published an OER competency framework. In this framework, five fields of competencies are distinguished:

  1. D1.

    Becoming familiar with OER

  2. D2.

    Searching for OER

  3. D3.

    Using OER

  4. D4.

    Creating OER

  5. D5.

    Sharing OER

Each field of competencies covers several abilities an educator should have to successfully include OER in their teaching practices. Fields D1, D2, and D3, and the abilities in D4 that are geared to adapt an existing OER are necessary competencies for OER reuse. Thus, we will zoom in on these four fields of competencies. Table 1 describes the abilities for these fields, with each ability divided into several capabilities.

Table 1 Educators’ needed abilities for reusing OER (extracted from IOF, 2016)
Full size table

Even though we refer to this competency framework, we must remark on this framework in relation to reuse. This framework focuses on OER and suggests an important role for specialized OER repositories. Yet, educators also consider freely available resources without the 5R rights as valuable resources to reuse (Baas & Schuwer, 2020). Logically, this means that educators may not only be using specialized OER repositories for finding resources to reuse but may also rely on resources they find on the Web by using common search engines like Google. Consequently, competencies D1 (awareness) and D3.1 (familiar with Creative Commons licenses) are important, especially in case resources are adapted, to avoid infringing on copyright with resources other than OER.

5 A Process Model for Creating and Using an Optimal Mix of Educational Resources

In line with our remark, more insight into the processes of selecting and using educational resources is necessary to advance the adoption of OER by educators. We need insight into their processes of searching, evaluating, adapting, and reusing resources. By mapping these processes, it becomes possible to organize and optimize the institutional support around them including linking the competencies of the described OER competency framework. Although several process models on using OER exist (Hodgkinson-Williams et al., 2017; Schuwer et al., 2010, 2011; Stagg, 2014), these models are either too generic to be useful for the purpose of organizing support or are too specifically geared on one institution and, therefore, difficult to apply within other organizational contexts. Furthermore, as we have described earlier, educators strive for an optimal mix of educational resources consisting not only of OER. We, therefore, agree with Zourou (2017) who states that ‘the value of openness is understood differently and it triggers different types of practice, not always open’ (paragraph 43). We have not encountered process models that focus on the (re)use of open and non-open resources. Moreover, existing models have not included students creating the mix of educational resources. Thus, in this section, we present our process model but first, we will provide some background on the development of this model.

From 2019 to 2022, the innovation programme “Acceleration Plan for Educational Innovation with IT” aims to make Dutch higher education benefit from digitalisation, as it can contribute to the quality of education and strengthen the position of institutes internationally. This Acceleration Plan is divided into eight zones in which 40 universities, research as well as applied sciences, collaborate. One such zone is directed at digital educational resources; open (accessible for everyone without costs), semi-open (accessible for a specific group, without costs), and non-open (only accessible after paying an amount of money). To structure activities within this zone, a process model was developed, based on practical observations and experiences of the project members. The model was refined step-by-step through group discussions. Through several iterative adaptions, an educator’s vision of teaching and learning was considered the most distinguishing characteristic that arose from the discussion. This resulted in two scenarios: one aimed at the process of selecting an optimal mix for an educator-centred vision, one aimed at a student-centred vision (like an OER-enabled pedagogy).

The process model shows the activities an educator and a student undertake in order to achieve their optimal mix of educational resources. The two scenarios can be characterized as follows:

  • Scenario 1: the list of educational resources. The educator assembles what s/he considers to be an optimal mix for supporting the student’s learning process and for use in his/her educational process. The educator determines which learning resources are compulsory and which are recommended. The student uses these materials to compile his/her optimal mix. Communication about these resources usually takes place via a list of required and optional educational resources (“the list of educational resources”) compiled by the educator.

  • Scenario 2: the instruction. The educator defines an assignment and usually provides a list of recommended literature. Communication regarding educational resources is more diffuse than in scenario 1. Initially, there will be at least one instruction from the educator to the student that will help compiling the optimal mix of learning resources for the student (“the instruction”).

Scenario 1: List of Educational Resources

Figure 2 shows the process model for scenario 1.

Fig. 2
A process model depicts how an educator and a student use a mix of learning resources to meet educational goals. The educator and the student are connected with the cloud.

Creation of an optimal mix of educational resources, process model for scenario list of educational resources

Full size image

An educator will compile a mix of learning resources that best fits the learning outcomes to be achieved and his/her own educational process. That compilation is visualised by the dotted rectangle in the diagram. The educator searches for learning resources that can be either open, semi-open, or non-open (commercial) (Schuwer & Janssen, 2021). Those resources can already be in his/her possession in a private database (generally a hard drive), in a local database (for example a departmental or institutional repository of learning resources, often a shared network drive), or in the “cloud”. In many cases, an educator will also create educational resources which also include remixes and adaptations of educational resources found elsewhere. The mix of educational resources will be subjected to a quality control process, which may or may not be explicit. This quality control can also be carried out by people other than the educator (e.g., by peers). Eventually, the mix of educational resources will either be published (i.e., made available to students) or used in educational activities. In the latter case, those materials may not be made available to students, for example, a video that is shown in the lecture hall but that is not distributed further. It may also be the case that resources used in the educational activity become available to students. These might include copies of the slides that the educator uses in the educational activity. In any case, publishing the optimal mix of learning resources involves specifying the titles of the resources (usually textbooks) that must be studied and, for each title, whether it is compulsory (the list of educational resources).

Experiences with using educational resources can provide input for a quality check and possibly lead to an adjustment of the optimal mix during or after the course for which the optimal mix is composed. Consider, for example, a situation in which students indicate during an educational activity that they do not possess the prior knowledge the educator assumed existed. The educator can then supplement the optimal mix with educational resources to close the knowledge gap. Feedback on the quality by the students can also take place via a course evaluation (represented in the figure by the dotted arrow).

Based on the published mix of educational resources (including the reading list), the student will compile his/her own mix of educational resources. While studying or when participating in an educational activity, the student can search for or create additional educational resources and add these to his/her optimal mix of educational resources. Quality control is expected to be implicit and based on the usefulness the student experiences in achieving the formulated learning objectives. Think, for example, of the experiences the student makes when doing exercises to master a certain mathematical concept. When the student is not able to do all the exercises, s/he will look for additional sources to gain the knowledge that is, apparently, not yet present.

A student may decide to publish parts of their mix for third parties, for example, by making lecture notes available to fellow students in a study group.

Scenario 2: The Instruction

Figure 3 shows the process model for scenario 2.

Fig. 3
A process model depicts how an educator and a student use a mix of learning resources to meet educational goals, in which both are connected with the cloud.

Creation of an optimal mix of educational resources, process model for scenario instruction

Full size image

The activities correspond largely to those described in scenario 1. The educator at least defines an assignment. If necessary, a list of recommended literature for carrying out the assignment is compiled and, if necessary, the educator also produces educational resources. All of this is published and made available to students (the instruction). What was written about quality control on the educator’s side in scenario 1 also applies in this scenario. Based on the instructions, the student starts compiling their optimal mix of educational resources.

In this scenario, students can also publish their own (learning) materials (open or semi-open), both in local storage and in the “cloud”. An example of this practice is presented in (University Utrecht, 2021). Students in the course Dynamical Oceanography produced several Wikipedia articles about topics from this field.

The student will then also have access to local storage for materials in their optimal mix. This situation arises, for example, when students create and publish educational resources as part of their learning process (e.g., in an Open Pedagogy design). Quality control of the materials to be published can be carried out by both the educator and the student. Conversely, when an educator and students jointly create and publish educational resources (shown by the dotted shape in the figure), the students can also be part of the group that carries out a quality check for the educator.

Not shown in the figure is the situation where educational resources created by a student during their learning process are added to the optimal mix by an educator the next time the course is given.

As this process model shows the activities undertaken to compile an optimal mix of resources in both scenarios, it provides a broader picture in which reuse is one of the activities. The question that arises is how OER may effectively be reused and which implications this has for the support and professionalisation of educators.

6 Accomplishing Effective Reuse of OER

In this paragraph, we will outline the reuse of OER for each of the scenarios described and derive from this the consequences for the support that needs to be organized and the competencies both educators and students should have to effectively reuse OER.

Scenario List of Educational Resources

In this educator-centred scenario, the added value of OER is mainly that they offer additional, though mostly not mandatory resources. An example of such a scenario are zero-textbook-cost degrees, in which students can opt for open alternatives instead of buying the expensive commercial resources (Bliss, 2015). This is valuable in case students cannot afford to buy the commercial resources. Another possible application of OER for students are additional resources that students can use, e.g., when they need alternative explanations or need more exercises. These resources can already be part of the course design but can also be added by educators during the course as a response to students’ needs. In this scenario, students will rarely create OER by remixing or reworking OER with the intention to republish the resulting artefact as new OER. Therefore, competencies in field D4 will only be relevant for educators in most cases, as will be support in this.

Scenario Instruction

In this student-centred scenario, the added value of OER is manifold. Firstly, the instruction may just define some general conditions the result of the learning process should fulfil, with no or only few suggestions for resources. The student will look for OER, but in many cases also for other resources not specifically OER that will help him comply with the instruction. Consider, for example, the instruction “Design a computer programme to support scheduling a football tournament. Use the C# language to implement the programme”. The student will then look for resources to learn about C# (this could be open courses, but also manuals), examples of C# code to reuse (mostly after some adaptation), resources to learn about planning algorithms, and so on. The challenge for them is to determine the quality of these resources. For them, especially capability 1 of ability D2.2 (know the quality criteria of an OER) is important in this scenario.

Secondly, the instruction may contain the task to publish some artefact the students have to create as part of their learning process. These are examples of open pedagogy. The student will not only look for OER, but should also be able to create the artefact, which can include reworking OER. That means they should especially have the competencies of field D4 (creating OER). Consider, for example, the following scenario, inspired by Rutkowski et al (2002): A course in Software Management is split into two parts. In the first part, the course is taught simultaneously at universities in the Netherlands and in Hong Kong, based on the same mandatory literature. For that part, the process model of scenario 1 is taken. In part 2, virtual groups of students are formed, each group including students from the Netherlands and from Hong Kong. Each group is given the assignment to create an open-access website based on a topic from the literature from part 1. For this website, they have to study how the topic is dealt with in practice, both in the Netherlands and in Hong Kong. Part of the website should contain a comparison between both countries.

Which group (educators or students) needs which competencies in this scenario is context-dependent. In contrast with scenario 1, students should have competencies in creating OER (field D4). When educators have no role in creating the artefact, they need not have these competencies. Yet, in specific cases, where students can contribute to an OER in collaboration with their educator, e.g., in creating an open textbook where students will add specific cases, both groups should have the competencies of field D4.

Table 2 maps the activities for both scenarios in the context of reuse of OER for both groups to the competency framework.

Table 2 Activities mapped to competency framework
Full size table

The table illustrates what competencies both student and educator should have to effectively reuse OER in their teaching and learning processes. Although this table does not highlight differences between both scenarios, the description from scenario 2 shows that having specific competencies on a more detailed level is context-dependent.

To support both target groups, institutions could also create support teams for both groups. Table 2 shows for which topics support should be organized, depending on whether the stakeholders involved have the competencies. An example is to devise a process where a library provides support for educators in copyright clearing (D4.1, D4.2) and searching (D1.1, D1.2, D2.1). Resources to learn about these competencies can be made available as OER. In the spirit of this contribution, reuse of such resources is advised. A search for the term “OER101” provides many examples that can be reused. The context dependency of the need for certain competencies, especially in scenario 2, makes providing support for both groups a challenge.

The analysis also demonstrates that the framework should be expanded to comply with settings where OER are essential for the pedagogy used (open pedagogy). Currently, the framework focuses only on competencies for dealing with the more instrumental characteristics of OER. Yet aligning OER to an open pedagogy requires competencies not listed in the framework. As an example, educators should be aware of the opportunities open pedagogy can offer (an extension of field D1, awareness of OER) and may also be able to look for examples elsewhere (reuse of an idea used elsewhere) (an extension of field D2, searching for OER). The European Framework for the Digital Competence of Educators (Redecker, 2017) provides guidances to include in professionalisation and education programmes. These guidances can also be applied to students.

7 Conclusion

In this chapter, we presented two process models in which the activities educators and students perform to create their mix of educational resources are visualized. We connected these process models with the OER competency framework to support the reuse of OER. Mapping this framework on the process models revealed that not only educators need professionalisation to acquire the competencies, but also students. As yet, no competency profiles for using educational resources are available for students. It would be of interest to examine the work done on students’ information literacies and extend it to OER reuse. Especially in scenario 2, where student agency is high, competencies on finding, evaluating, and reusing resources are crucial to succeed in this specific educational scenario. Hence, institutes should consider extending support activities on compiling a mix of educational resources to include not only educators, but also students.

Overall, we may conclude that current trends in OER, moving from a more instrumental view towards a view where OER influence educational design and pedagogy, increase the need for more insight into practices of OER reuse to adequately organize support and skills programmes. These insights define an agenda for the next stage of broadening the reuse of OER.