Ipts opensurvey final

How are higher education institutions in Europe
dealing with openness?
An analysis of practices, beliefs and strategies in five European
countries
JRC - Institute for Prospective Technological Studies
(on behalf of DG-EAC)
Jonatan Castaño Muñoz
Yves Punie
Andreia Inamorato dos Santos
(@jcastanom @yves998 @aisantos)
and ACA external team
© European Commission
Reuse is authorised provided the source is
acknowledged

FORTHCOMING…
Reference:
How are higher education institutions dealing with openness? A survey of practices,
beliefs and strategies in five European countries. JRC Science for Policy Report,
European Commission, to be published (January 2016).

• √ This presentation summarises the main results of the OpenSurvey
study undertaken by EC JRC IPTS in collaboration with ACA.
• √ It is done on behalf of EC Directorate-General for Education and
Culture (DG-EAC).
• √ It is part of the JRC IPTS OpenEdu project aiming to provide
evidence and a framework for opening up practices in higher
education institutions in Europe.
Disclaimer: The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European
Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is
responsible for the use which might be made of this publication.

OPENEDU studies
Besides in-house research OPENEDU runs 5 studies:
Moocknowledge: a survey on MOOC learners (ongoing)
OpenCred: desk research and case studies on recognition of
non-formal learning via MOOCs (May-November 2015)
OpenSurvey: a representative survey of higher education
institutions in 5 European countries to enquire about their
openness strategies (ended Nov 2015)
OpenCases: case studies on openness in higher education
(ended Nov 2015)
BMOpen: exploring a framework for assessing & developing
business models for open education (ongoing)

Structure
a. Scope and methods
b. ICT based learning
c. Open Education provision
d. Massive Open Online Courses
e. Open Educational Resources
f. Collaboration
g. Recognition
h. Open Education strategy and
organisation
i. Open Science and Open
Software
j. Final remarks

Open education
is understood here as a mode of delivering education using
Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) which offers
alternative ways of learning and access routes to formal and non-
formal education and aims to be open to everyone.
(E.g. MOOCs, OER, badges)

√ Starting point: While there is a need of reliable Open Education
data from EU HE institutions, surveys usually suffer from positive
selection bias towards Open Education.
OpenSurvey however is representative of HE institutions in 5 EU
countries: France, Germany, Poland, Spain and UK.
√ Aim: Overview of Open Education institutional practices, strategies,
perceptions, motivations, barriers, business models and its variations
by country.
√ Scope: Full range of openness (OER, MOOCs, Recognition,…).
√ Team: IPTS in collaboration with Academic Cooperation Association
(ACA)

√ Total Responses (n)=178
- Data collection between February and June 2015.
- Respondents profile: Open Education responsible, vice-rectors for ICT-related
activities, vice-rectors for academic affairs/teaching and learning, and in cases where
no other information was available rectors were directly asked for information.
√ Reduction of selection bias. Respondent characteristics adjusted to
sampling frame characteristics via weights: Country, region, type of
institution, and past MOOC offer (last 3 years according European MOOC
Scoreboard).
√ Consequences for statistical power: Reduction of sample size after
weighting. According to Kish approximation, effective net sample size
(neff)=117,75 -> CI: +-9% for overall analysis

Responses rates and confidence intervals
Country
Sampling
Frame
Contacted Responses
Response
Rate
Effective net
sample size
(neff)
CI neff
N
N N % N %
Poland 306
191 (stratified sample) 55 28,8 50 +-13.9
France 294
Germany 361
Spain 157
157 35 22,3 27 +-18.5
UK 147
147 41 27,9 38 +-15.9
Total 1,264
889 178 20,0 117.75 +-9
Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Use of ICT-based learning
84.4%
72.1%
64.7%
61.5%
54.1% 52.5%
43.4%
36.6% 34.3% 32.1% 29.2% 28.6%
22.5%
3.2%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
%
Number of valid responses after weighting :118 –Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Which type of learning is most effective promoting the
following aspects in your institution?
43.5%
37.1%
20.7%
18.3%
14.5%
10.8%
8.4%
5.5%
4.1%
3.4%
44.4%
43%
73%
64.4%
71.6%
70.8%
79.9%
72.2%
68.2%
75.4%
12%
20%
6.3%
17.3%
13.9%
18.5%
11.7%
22.3%
27.7%
21.2%
Lower cost burden of the education for the students
Lower cost of the education provision for the institution
Acquisition of ICT skills
Efficient use of the lecturer’s time
Efficient use of the student’s time
Collaboration between students
Pedagogical innovation
Personalized learning
Teacher-student communication
Active learning
100% Online Blended 100% Face-to-face
Number of valid responses after weighting: 118 –Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

SUMMARY FOR ICT BASED LEARNING
- √ Provision of learning materials online is the most important use of ICT for HEI.
- √ Uses of ICT in HE can be divided into two groups according to degree of adoption:
- The more "classical" uses of ICT (materials available online, online discussions, videorecording of lectures
and social networks) are widespread
- New uses (online simulations and laboratories, mobile learning, serious games, and learning analytics) are
less adopted
- √ Blended learning (72.1%) is more widespread than the offer of fully online courses (34.3%) or
online study programmes (28.6%)
• √ In line with above, blended learning is perceived by university managers as the most effective way to
promote all the aspects asked in the survey (see slide 13)
• √ 100% online learning is, in the case of 6 dimensions, perceived as the least suitable form of
provision. On the other hand it is perceived as useful for lowering the cost burden for students.
• √ 100% online learning is considered a better option than 100% face-to-face learning for the
categories “acquisition of ICT skills”, “efficient use of lecturer’s time” and “efficient use of the students’
time”.

c) Perception of Open Education provision

Is Open Education (in any of the different forms) provided
within your institution?
39.4%
41.6%
21.8%
43% 43.4%
63%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
OVERALL France Germany Poland Spain UK
%
Number of valid responses after weighting :117 (for overall) and 144 (for country comparison) –Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Provision of Open Education at the level of faculties (or
similar units)
25.1%
29.2%
34.2%
11.5%
In most faculties (more than 50%) In several faculties (between 10 and 50%)
In a few faculties (less than 10%) In no faculties at all
Number of valid responses after weighting : 46 (only respondents who provide Open Education) –Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

SUMMARY FOR PERCEPTION OF OPEN EDUCATION OFFER
- √ Close to 40% of institutions state they provide open education in any form.
- √ There are significant variations per country:
- UK institutions stand out with 60% of institutions stating that they offer OE
- In Germany this figure is only 21.8%. Institutions in Germany are more likely to state they do not provide
OE than they do.
- In Spain, France and Poland about 42-43% of institutions state to offer OE.
- √ In about one third of the institutions (34.3%) OE offer is provided by a few of the faculties, slightly
fewer institutions report provision in several faculties (29.2%) or most of them (25.1%).

d) Massive Open Online Courses

Offer of MOOCs
21.8%
36%
10.1% 8.4%
33.8% 35.1%
19%
26.2%
13%
23.7%
14.5% 12.3%
59.2%
37.8%
76.9%
67.9%
51.7% 52.6%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
OVERALL France Germany Poland Spain United Kingdom
MOOCs offered MOOCs planned No plans or don't know
%
Number of valid responses after weighting :117 (for overall) and 144 (for country comparison) –Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Is offering MOOCs part of your institutions's official educational
strategy?
57.5%
42.5%
Yes No
Number of valid responses after weighting : 25 (Only respondents who offer MOOCs) –Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Connection of MOOCs with recognition instruments and
qualification frameworks
1.2%
9%
25.7%
65.3%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Some or all MOOCs are connected to other reference frameworks
(Please specify)
Some or all MOOCs are connected to the national qualifications
framework
Some or all MOOCs are connected to the European Credit
Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS)
No, the MOOCs are not connected to any reference framework
%
Number of valid responses after weighting: 25 (only respondents who offer MOOCs) –Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

14.9%
43.6%
17.7%
23.8%
Yes, it uses the same quality assurance
mechanisms as for face-to-face
programmes
Yes, it uses different quality assurance
mechanisms than those for face-to-face
programmes
No
I don't know
MOOCs quality assurance mechanisms compared with those
for face-to-face
Number of valid responses after weighting : 25 (only respondents who offer MOOCs) –Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

SUMMARY FOR MOOCs
• √ MOOCs are on the agenda of almost half of all HE institutions (41%): 21.8% of institutions are
already offering MOOCs and 19% plans to do it in the near future, demonstrating an important growth
potential.
• √ These numbers are lower compared to other EU surveys (E.g. EADTU 2014 states that 72% of
institutions is offering or planning to offer a MOOC, and EUA 2013 survey situates this figure at 58%).
Our survey avoided overrepresentation of OE leading institutions.
• √ By country, in France, Spain and the UK, the proportion of universities which are offering MOOCs is
similar and relatively high (around 35%), compared to 10.0% and 8.4% respectively in Germany and
Poland.
• √ However, both France and Poland stand out regarding the planning of future MOOCs: respectively
26.2% and 23.7% of HEIs plan to offer MOOCs in the near future
• √ When analysing the institutions which offer MOOCs (n=25), the survey shows that:
• In many cases, the MOOC offer is part of the institutional educational strategies (57%).
• The majority of MOOCs are not linked to recognition instruments or qualification frameworks, and when they are,
ECTS is the framework most used (25.7%). The use of EQF is lower (9%).
• MOOCs usually have different quality assurance mechanisms than face-to-face courses (43,6%). Only 17.7% of
institutions do not have a quality mechanism for their MOOC offer.

e) Open Educational Resources (OER)

51.4
58.6
35.2
49.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
OER Other digital educational
materials (not licensed
OER)
OER Other digital educational
materials (not licensed
OER)
Promotion of development and use of OER and other
digital materials
Promotion of use
Promotion of
development and offer
%
%
%
%
%
Number of valid responses after weighting : from 108 to 114 depending on the question –Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Promotion of USE and DEVELOPMENT of OER and other
digital materials - per country
51.4
76.2
44.3
36.3
50.5
53.7
58.6
76.3
50.9
48
57.1
69
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
OER Other digital educational materials (not licensed OER)
35.2
44.6
27.7
26.9
37.4
40.3
49.2
56.2
42.6
48.4
43.4
67
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
OER Other digital educational materials (not licensed OER)
Promotion of use
Promotion of
development and offer
% %
Number of valid responses after weighting: form 108 to 114 (for overall) and from 135 to 140 (for country comparison) depending on the question –Data from OpenSurvey
study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Promoting OER – Planning to do so – No planning
51.4%
35.2%
10%
11.1%
38.6%
53.6%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Use Development and offer
Promotion Not ,but planned No plans or don't know
%
Number of valid responses after weighting: from 108 to 114 depending on the question -Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Use of own OER
86.6%
82.8%
50.7%
37.1%
13.7%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
recommended as
complementary materials
for blended learning
courses
recommended as
complementary materials
for face-to-face courses
used by the lecturers in
face-to-face courses
used in free of charge (no
fee) MOOCs
used in paid (against a
fee) online courses
%
Number of valid responses after weighting : 34 (Only respondents who promote the development and offer of OER) –Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Quality assurance mechanisms for the OER offered
10.9%
40.8%
27.1%
21.1%
Yes, it uses newly developed quality
assurance mechanisms specific for OER
Yes, it uses already existing quality
assurance mechanisms
No
I don't know
Number of valid responses after weighting: 38 (Only respondents who promote the development and offer of OER) –Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

SUMMARY FOR OER
• √ Digital materials and OER are adopted by institutions.
• 51% promote use of OER in their institution, 58% promote use of other digital materials.
• Developing and offering these material is lower: 35% for OER and 49% for other digital materials.
• √ OER use is currently more widespread than MOOCs use, but the latter have more growth potential:
19% against 10% planning to use them.
• √ The proportion of French institutions promoting the use of OER is higher than in the remaining
countries. In addition, in Polish institutions it is lower than in the remaining countries (Poland offer of
MOOCs is also lower). No significant differences were found for the other 3 categories (Use of digital
materials, development of OER and development of digital materials.
• √ When analysing the institutions which promote the development of OER (n=38), the survey shows
that:
• Own OER are more often used as recommended materials (86%) than as core material. In addition, there is a
tendency to use OER more in face to face courses than in online courses.
• Quality assurance (QA) approaches specific to OER are rare (just over 10% which contrast with the 43,6% for
MOOCs). Standard QA methodologies seem to prevail (40%).

Collaboration of the institution in…
42.7% 42.6%
46.4%
20.1% 20.4% 20%
45.9% 47.4%
49.7%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Design of digital learning strategies Shared online courses for students Shared teacher training
Yes, with institutions in own country Yes, cross-border (i.e. with institutions from other countries) No
%

Collaboration of the institution in.. (by country)
59
53.8
24.4
38.1
30.7
68.4
50.1
23.7
39.5
19.9
58.5
53.7
25.1
49.9
22
23.7
26.4
7.9
18.7
22
25.3
23.4
10.1
14.6
30
22
13.7
21.2
22.5
11.2
36.7
26
68.9
51.5
57
25
36.4
68.5
58.3
57.7
37.5
40.8
52.8
41.6
62.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
France
Germany
Poland
Spain
UK
France
Germany
Poland
Spain
UK
France
Germany
Poland
Spain
UK
Design of digital learning strategies Shared online courses for students Shared teacher training
%

Collaboration in the development of OER
45.7%
21.4%
45.7%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Yes, with institutions in own country Yes, cross-border (i.e. with
institutions from other countries)
No
%
Number of valid responses after weighting: 38 (Only respondents who promote the development and offer of OER) –Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Collaboration in MOOCs
55.9%
41.4%
12.6%
3.9%
39.6%
56.8%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
MOOCs development MOOC recognition
%
Number of valid responses after weighting : 25 (Only respondents who promote the development and offer of OER) –Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

SUMMARY FOR COLLABORATION
• √ National collaboration is higher than cross-border collaboration.
• Cross-border collaboration in the design and development of online courses and strategies, in shared online courses,
or in teacher training is around 20%,
• This percentage is more than 40% in the case of collaboration with institutions in own country.
• √ In national collaboration, differences between countries are detected.
• France is the country with higher level of “within country” collaboration and Poland the one with lower.
• Cross-border collaboration, however, is similar in the five studied countries and no significant differences can be
observed in the data
• √ Although figures come from limited subsamples, the survey data shows how the collaboration in
development of OER follows the same patterns described above. However, cross-border collaboration in
MOOCs seems to be lower than in other areas (12,6% for development and only 3,9% for recognition).
Collaboration on MOOCs has room for growing.

Could the following cases get recognition in credit points via
prior learning recognition procedures?
3.1
7.3
10.1
16.0
17.3
17.9
29.9
67.9
55.6
57.1
50.0
50.1
43.8
42.1
28.9
37.1
32.8
33.9
32.6
38.2
28.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
A MOOC certificate without any identity control
A certificate based on online proctored exam of a MOOC that does not
have a specific number of credit points allocated to it in the course…
A certificate based on an on-site exam of a MOOC that does not have
a specific number of credits allocated to it in the course description
Prior knowledge achieved via independent self-study
A certificate achieved via studying with OER
A certificate based on online proctored exam of a MOOC that has a
specific number of credit points allocated to it in the course…
A certificate based on an on-site exam of a MOOC that has a specific
number of credits allocated to it in the course description
Yes, it could be recognised in credit points No, it could not be recognised in credit points I don’t know
%
Number of valid responses after weighting: from 109 to 113 depending on the question –Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Could the following cases get recognition in credit points via
prior learning recognition procedures? (by country)
17.4
49.9
28.1
19.5
29.2
18.7
3.7
13
5
7.5
10.5
33.6
16
10.6
21.5
8.7
3.9
12.4
1.4
7.5
7.7
0
1.9
5.9
1.1
15
33
7
13
20.4
30.7
4.3
12.5
5.9
32.9
60.6
28.8
37.4
43.9
41.8
62.3
56.9
47
59.9
58.1
56.8
37.5
34.8
49.5
38.7
63.2
54.6
42.6
65.7
51.7
74.5
80.6
46.3
67.1
75.6
54.3
46.5
44.3
54.1
52.5
37.4
61.3
41.4
64.5
41.3
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
France
Germany
Poland
Spain
UK
France
Germany
Poland
Spain
UK
France
Germany
Poland
Spain
UK
France
Germany
Poland
Spain
UK
France
Germany
Poland
Spain
UK
France
Germany
Poland
Spain
UK
France
Germany
Poland
Spain
UK
A certificate based
on an on-site exam
of a MOOC that has
a specific number of
credits allocated to
it in the course
description
A certificate based
on an on-site exam
of a MOOC that
does not have a
specific number of
credits allocated to
it in the course
description
A certificate based
on online proctored
exam of a MOOC
that has a specific
number of credit
points allocated to
it in the course
description
A certificate based
on online proctored
exam of a MOOC
that does not have
a specific number of
credit points
allocated to it in the
course description
A MOOC certificate
without any identity
control
A certificate
achieved via
studying with OER
Prior knowledge
achieved via
independent self-
study
Yes, it could be recognised in credit points No, it could not be recognised in credit points
%

SUMMARY FOR RECOGNITION
• √ Few institutions have recognition mechanism for MOOCs, whether certificates are based on an on-site
or online exam, even when they have a specific number of credits allocated (29,9% for on-site exam
and 17.9% for online proctored exam). This similarly applies to studying with OER or independent
studies (17,3% and 16% respectively). Even fewer recognise a certificate without an identity control.
• √ Although there are variations by country, only two of them are significant.
• In the UK prior knowledge achieved via independent self-study could more likely be recognized in credit points than
in the remaining countries, whereas in Spain this situation would be less likely than in the remaining countries.
• In Poland the proportion of institutions who referred to this type of MOOC could not be recognised in credit points
was lower than in the remaining countries (but due to a higher proportion of I don't know).
• √ Formal recognition of Open Education is mentioned as the second most important barrier for
engagement on OE (See slide 49)

h) Open Education strategy and
organisation

Importance of elements in university's overall strategy
11.4
19.4
14.5
22.8
35.8
40.1
37.2
39.7
39.3
38.9
48.2
55.7
53.6
47.4
52.4
52.4
25.7
15.7
16.6
12.5
7.4
8.5
7.0
5.9
23.0
20.4
19.4
8.6
3.3
3.5
3.4
2.0
0.6
5.6
1.3
0.4
0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
“Provide educational opportunities without entry requirements”
“Provide free (no tuition fees) access to education”
“Production and use of Open Educational Resources”
“To offer recognition for any kind of learning and competences”
“To support the collaboration with other Higher Education Institutions”
Provide time and place flexibility to learners (when and where they
learn)”
“Promote innovative pedagogies through the use of ICT”
“To support the collaboration between your institution and society at
large”
Very important Rather important/Important Partly importnant/Partly unimportant
Unimportant/rather unimportant Very unimportant
%
Number of valid responses after weighting: from 110 to 113 depending on the question–Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Importance of elements in university's overall strategy (by
country)
6.1
4.64
4.31
5.04
5.98
5.65
5.38
5.81
5.93
4.45
4.89
4.48
5.75
5.52
6.1
5.85
5.84
4.96
5.34
5.2
5.94
5.64
6.28
6.22
5.57
4.55
4.6
5.05
6
5.18
6.31
6.41
6.24
3.85
3.41
4.29
6.57
5.06
5.3
6.33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Provide time and
place flexibility
to learners
(when and
where they
learn)
Provide
educational
opportunities
without entry
requirements
Provide free (no
tuition fees)
access to
education
Production and
use of Open
Educational
Resources
Promote
innovative
pedagogies
through the use
of ICT
To offer
recognition for
any kind of
learning and
competences
To support the
collaboration
with other
Higher Education
Institutions
To support the
collaboration
between your
institution and
society at large
France Germany Poland Spain UK
Very
unimportant
Meanvalues
Very
important

Unbundling the tasks of HE institution by 2020
13.6
9.2
19.5
32.8
30.8
39.8
40.7
51.0
47.9
43.5
52.3
45.7
24.5
23.7
14.8
15.1
11.3
7.9
19.8
15.6
17.0
8.4
5.6
5.9
1.4
0.6
0.9
0.2
0.0
0.6
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Guidance provider for non-enrolled learners
Assessment and certification body, validating competences
acquired anywhere
Digital content provider
Assessment and certification body, validating competences
acquired in the university
Provider of guidance (tutor) for enrolled learners
Research centre, producing new knowledge
Very important Rather important / Important Partly important/ Partly Unimportant
Unimportant/Rather unimportant Very unimportant
%

Policy or mission statements in Open Education
32.2%
60.1%
21.2%
28% 26.4%
18.9%
65.3%
39.9%
78.8%
64.1%
68.4%
81.1%
2.5% 0% 0%
7.9% 5.2%
0%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Yes, policy or mission statement in support of Open Education
No, no policy or mission statement is available on Open Education
Yes, policy or mission statement expressing reservations concerning Open Education
%
Number of valid responses after weighting: 113 (for overall) and 141 (for country comparison) –Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Importance of factors for engaging in Open Education
13.2
28.7
35.0
34.9
48.3
43.1
55.5
49.9
62.2
48.4
16.2
10.7
7.2
0.9
3.4
21.2
4.5
7.9
2.1
6.3
0.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Reduce the costs of the educational provision for the institution
Increase enrolment in formal education
Enhance the quality of the educational offer
Reach more learners
Enhance the image and visibility of the institution
Very important Rather important/Important Partly importnant/Partly unimportant
Unimportant/rather unimportant Very unimportant
%
Number of valid responses after weighting : 43 (Only respondents who provide Open Education)–Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Has the engagement in Open Education produced so far
financial benefits for your institution?
23%
77%
Yes No
- Reach more students is
the most common
mentioned benefit for
institutions.
- Others: marketing, small
income directly generated
by OE (external fund,
freemium..), more quality
and retention.
Source: OpenSurvey open question
Number of valid responses after weighting : 43 (Only respondents who provide Open Education)–Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Importance of barriers for Open Education
7.7
7.1
8.1
16.9
18.9
22.8
39.1
21.4
22.3
47.7
59
58
55.1
53.3
14.6
27.5
20.5
17.6
13.2
17.1
4.7
48.1
32.3
19.3
6.2
9.2
3.8
2.8
8.2
10.8
4.4
0.2
0.6
1.3
0.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Open Education is not in line with our pedagogical approach
There is a risk that Open Education affects negatively the quality
of our institution’s educational provision
We do not see financial benefit for our institution to so it
Open Education requires more financial resources than
anticipated
Lecturers are used to traditional pedagogies that don’t include
Open Education
Formal recognition of Open Education is still an unresolved issue
at the institutional level
Open Education requires teacher training before becoming
effective
Strongly agree Rather agree/Agree Partly agree/Partly disagree Disagree/rather disagree Strongly disagree
%
Number of valid responses after weighting : From 108 to 115 depending on the question - Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Importance of barriers for Open Education (by country)
5.41
3.61
5.51
5.9
4.57
5.66
4.79
2.97
4.98
5.3
3.65
5.685.55
3.93
6.09
5.77
2.84
5.21
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Lecturers are used to traditional
pedagogies that don’t include Open
Education
Open Education is not in line with our
pedagogical approach
Formal recognition of Open Education is
still an unresolved issue at the
institutional level
Meanvalues
Very
unimportant
Very
important
Number of valid responses after weighting : From 138 to 142 depending on the question - Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Support for the involvement of lecturers in Open Education
14.5
26.9
34.3
42.7
52.1
54.9
64.9
83.7
29.4
16.4
40.6
22.2
33.1
22.4
24.6
11.2
56.1
56.7
25.2
35.1
14.8
22.7
10.5
5.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Evaluation mechanisms for career development of lecturers take
into account their engagement in Open Education
Allowing the lecturers to reserve specific working hours for the
development of Open Education
Publicity of the best practices in Open Education
Investment of money in Open Education kick-starting initiatives
Training opportunities in Open Education
Inclusion of digital skills of the students as part of the curricula in
the introductory phase of the study programme
General awareness-raising
Support by specialist staff when planning and designing the
courses and resources (e.g. ICT experts, learning technologists)
Yes No, but we are planning No
%
Number of valid responses after weighting : 40 (Only respondents who provide Open Education) - Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

Hierarchical level approval needed for lecturer (or lecturers
from same unit) engagement in Open Education
65%
59.9%
50.3%
16.1%
2.8%
51.7% 49.2%
44.9%
23.3%
4%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
The central-level
leadership of the
university
The faculty-level
leadership
The department which
they are part of
None of the above,
individuals are free to
offer Open Education
Other
In order to offer a MOOC In order to produce OER
%
Number of valid responses after weighting: 118- Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

SUMMARY FOR OPEN EDUCATION STRATEGY AND
ORGANISATION (I)
• √ Although with country variations (See slide 44 for details), all proposed elements of the
university strategy which are related to Open Education are perceived as important for the overall
institutional strategy.
• √ However, the elements with the lowest means are those related to the democratisation of
education (to “provide educational opportunities without entry requirements” (4.55) and the
intention to “provide free (no tuition fees) access to education (4.66) ). Also, to provide services to
students from outside the universities is perceived as a less important role for their institution by
2020.
• √ Institutions offering OER give more importance to institutional strategies related to offering free
access to education, but this social aim is not so prominent in the case of institutions offering
MOOCs.
• √ 32,3% of all institutions report to have a policy or mission statement in support of Open
Education. By country, institutions in France outstand with a percentage of 60%, showing a more
formal approach to OE.

ORGANISATION (II)
• √ The main challenges for engaging with OE are are teachers untrained in the use of Open
Education (mean=6.08 out of 7 ) and the difficulties with the formal recognition of Open Education
(mean= 5.51).
• √ Respondents reported as the lowest risks: pedagogical issues (“Open Education is not in line with
our pedagogical approach” – mean=3.61) and that the use of Open Education resulting in a
lowering of the quality of educational provision (mean=3.75). Financial challenges are ranked in a
middle position.
• √ By country, in France, the fact that lecturers are used to traditional pedagogies that don't include
Open Education is more important than in other countries. In UK and Germany the possibility that
Open Education is not in the line with the pedagogical approach is not seen as a big problem when
compared with the remaining countries. Finally, in Spain, recognition is considered a higher barrier
compared to the other countries.
• √ Pedagogical issues matter. Institutions who provide MOOCs agree to a lesser extent with the
notion than OE can affect negatively the quality of the institution's educational provision.
• √ In the majority of cases, permission is necessary form hierarchy to develop a MOOC or OER. Only
in about 16% of cases can staff offer a MOOC without anyone’s consent. No need for permission is
slightly more common in case of the production or offer of OER (23.3%).

ORGANISATION (III)
• √ Regarding the reasons to engage in Open Education (n=43), institutions declare that “enhance
the image and the visibility of the institution“ is the highest (at 6.29), followed by “reach more
learners” (at 6.10). The answer “reduce the cost of the educational provision for the institution”
has the lowest mean, at 4.56.
• √ 23% of institutions which declare to be engaged on Open Education (n=43) report financial
benefits from it. Further analysis show that they mainly refer to reaching more students and to a
lesser extent to marketing, direct income or quality and retention issues.
• √ The survey explored the willingness of institutions to support their lecturers in Open Education in
a number of ways.
• Support by specialist staff to design courses and resources reached the highest agreement level
(94.9%), followed by general awareness raising (89.5%) and the provision of training opportunities
in Open Education (85.2%).
• Relatively low agreement rates were reached for job-description related incentives, taking
engagement in Open Education into consideration in staff evaluation and for career development
(43.9%) and allow lecturers to reserve specific working hours for the development of Open
Education (43.3%).

i) Open Science and Open Software

Does your institution support any of the following topics
related to Open Science?
66.7%
54%
51.3% 49.9% 48.7% 46.7%
38.6%
35.1%
31.3%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Shared
infrastructures
with other
universities
Open Data in
research
Publication in
Open Access
routes (green
route, gold
route)
Dissemination
of research
outputs via
social networks
and blogs
Conducting
scholarly
research with
non-scientific
participants
(e.g. citizen
science
projects)
Shared
research
infrastructures
with citizens
and society
Use of
alternative
metrics for
scientific
reputation
(e.g.
Altmetrics,
ResearchGate)
Use of
alternative
funding
mechanisms
(e.g. crowd
funding
inducement
prizes)
Open peer
reviewing
%
Number of valid responses: from 94 to 102 depending on the question–Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

What type of incentive mechanisms, if any, are used in your
institution to promote Open Science?
50.1%
47.4%
31.6%
3.2%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Mechanisms related to time
allocation (e.g. activities are
part of job description)
Mechanisms related to
economic support (e.g. funding)
Mechanisms related to career
development and promotion
(e.g. salaries taking into
account for promotions)
Others
%
Number of valid responses: from 77 to 78 depending on the question (Only respondents who support any of the Open Science topics)- Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS
2015.

Does your institution use Free and Open Source Software
(FOSS)?
4.1%
46.6%
22.5%
8.9%
17.8%
Yes, extensively across the institution: the university rarely pays proprietary software
Yes, we use it across the institution but mixed with proprietary software
Yes, but only in some faculties
No, but we are planning to do so
No, the university almost always uses proprietary software
Number of valid responses: 112 -Data from OpenSurvey study. JRC-IPTS 2015.

SUMMARY FOR OPEN SCIENCE AND OPEN SOFTWARE
• √ Open Science is on the agenda of about half of all institutions. By topic, the highest percentage
value is observed for the support of shared research infrastructures with other universities (66.7%),
followed by open data in research (54.0%) and publication in open access routes (51.3%).
• Institutions are less supportive of open peer reviewing (31.3%), the use of alternative funding
mechanisms such as crowdfunding (35.1%) and the use of alternative metrics (38.6%), but
overally, these still concern about 1/3 of all institutions.
• √ The more common incentive for Open Science activities among the universities engaged (n=78)
is to regard it as part of existing job descriptions (50.1%), followed with economic support. Again,
like in the case of Open Education, mechanisms related to career development and promotion are
less adopted by institutions (31.6%).
• √ Almost half of all respondents state that their university uses FOSS in a mix with proprietary
software (46.6%). 17.8% declare to use only proprietary software and only 4.1% declare to use
only FOSS.

 Providing learning materials online is most important use of ICT for HEI.
 Blended learning (72.1%) more widespread than fully online courses (34.3%)
or online study programmes (28.6%).
 Close to 40% of HEI state they provide open education in any form (UK 1st).
 Less than half of HEI collaborate with others (mainly within country).
 Main challenges for OE: lack of teacher experience and difficulties with the
formal recognition of Open Education.
 Main enablers for OE: “enhance the image and the visibility of the institution“,
“reach more learners” <-> “Reducing the cost of the educational provision for
the institution” has the lowest mean (4.56).
 23% of HEI engaged in OE report financial benefits from it.
=> OE dimensions interconnected and part of broader trend towards
Summary OpenSurvey

 MOOCs are on agenda of almost half of all HEI (41%): 22% already offering
MOOCs and 19% planning in the near future (= growth potential).
 By country: France, Spain and the UK are relatively high (around 35%)
compared to 10% and 8% respectively in Germany and Poland.
 France & Poland stand out on plans for future MOOCs: resp. 26% and 24%.
 For those offering MOOCs (n=25): part of the institutional educational
strategies (57%) & majority of MOOCs are not linked to recognition
instruments or qualification frameworks.
 Almost half (44%) have different quality assurance mechanisms for MOOC's
(18% have none).
 OER use is currently more widespread than MOOCs, but MOOCs have
more growth potential: 19% against 10% for OER is planning to offer them.
MOOCs & OER

Thank you for your attention!
Jonatan Castaño, Yves Punie, Andreia Inamorato:
jonatan.castano-munoz@ec.europa.eu
yves.punie@ec.europa.eu
andreia-inamorato-dos.santos@ec.europa.eu

Ipts opensurvey final

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Ipts opensurvey final

Similar to Ipts opensurvey final (20)

More from Yves Punie

More from Yves Punie (6)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Ipts opensurvey final