Moving to open educational resources at Athabasca University: A case study

Since the birth of the World Wide Web, educators have been exchanging ideas and sharing resources online. They are all aware of the turmoil in higher education created by freely available content, including some hopeful developments charted in this issue. Interest has grown steadily over the past decade in making a university-level education openly available to students around the globe who would otherwise be overlooked, and recommendations for how to do this are well documented (e.g., UNESCO, 2002; OECD, 2007). Initiatives in the United States (Thille, 2012), Canada (Stacey, 2011b), Africa (OER Africa, n.d.), and the United Kingdom (JISC, 2012) are easily accessed and case studies abound (e.g., Barrett, Grover, Janowski, van Lavieren, Ojo, & Schmidt, 2009). Supporting the widespread availability of OER is a goal that Athabasca University (AU) has embraced through association with the Commonwealth of Learning and by becoming a charter member of the OER University (OERu, 2011). The use of OER in AU programs has strategic local implications that go beyond the five reasons for institutions to engage in OER projects described by Hylen (2006). Recently at AU explorations have begun into the potential of using OER in course design and production.

[1]  B. Zimmerman.  Investigating Self-Regulation and Motivation: Historical Background, Methodological Developments, and Future Prospects , 2008, American Educational Research Journal.

[2]  W. Sandoval,et al.  Design-Based Research Methods for Studying Learning in Context: Introduction , 2004 .

[3]  S. d'Antoni.  Open Educational Resources: reviewing initiatives and issues , 2009 .

[4]  D. Wiley,et al.  Open Educational Resources: Enabling Universal Education. , 2008 .

[5]  Diana G. Oblinger,et al.  Educating the Net Generation , 2005 .

[6]  P. Schmidt,et al.  Challenges in the adoption and use of OpenCourseWare: experience of the United Nations University , 2009 .

[7]  George Siemens,et al.  The MOOC model for digital practice , 2010 .

[8]  Philip H. Winne,et al.  Inherent details in self-regulated learning , 1995 .

[9]  M. Scriven.  Types of Evaluation and Types of Evaluator , 1996 .

[10]  David Richard Moore,et al.  E-Learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning , 2006 .

[11]  S. Downes.  Models for Sustainable Open Educational Resources , 2007 .

[12]  Dr. Jan Hylén.  Open Educational Resources: Opportunities and Challenges , 2008 .

[13]  C. Weinstein,et al.  Self-Regulation Interventions with a Focus on Learning Strategies , 2000 .

[14]  Candace Thille.  Open Learning Initiative , 2013 .

[15]  Richard Mayer,et al.  Multimedia Learning , 2001, Visible Learning Guide to Student Achievement.

[16]  T. Anderson.  Getting the Mix Right Again: An Updated and Theoretical Rationale for Interaction , 2003 .

[17]  Gráinne Conole,et al.  Learning design - making practice explicit , 2010 .

[18]  John Keller,et al.  Learner motivation and E-learning design: A multinationally validated process , 2004 .

[19]  George Siemens,et al.  Developing University Courses with OERs , 2010 .

[20]  J. Treviranus,et al.  Bridging the Digital Divide in Higher Education. , 2000 .

[21]  Mohamed Hamada,et al.  An Integrated Virtual Environment for Active and Collaborative e-Learning in Theory of Computation , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies.

[22]  Sean Wiebe,et al.  The Role of Digital Technologies in Learning: Expectations of First Year University Students , 2012 .