OER Synthesis and Evaluation / Institutional-issues-evidence
  • If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Finally, you can manage your Google Docs, uploads, and email attachments (plus Dropbox and Slack files) in one convenient place. Claim a free account, and in less than 2 minutes, Dokkio (from the makers of PBworks) can automatically organize your content for you.



Page history last edited by Lou McGill 9 years, 8 months ago

Strand evidence: release | cascade |  omac | collections


This cross-strand evidence supports the discussion on Phase2 Institutional Issues  and unless otherwise indicated is generally taken from project final reports, evaluation reports and discussions at the final programme meeting. Links to apporpriate strand evidence pages are included below and these provide links to project reports. Where questions are addressed by only one strand you are directed to strand evidence pages.


Jump to the appropriate section on this page




Institutional/Organisational type

How do different institutions manifest OER readiness? How does this change through engagement with a UKOER project?

See also evidence around motivations and barriers 

Strand evidence: cascade |  release | omac

Strategic readiness

  • strategic vision and senior buy-in (C-SAP, ADM, Ripple)
  • academic manager involvement (C-SAP)
  • high level stakeholders (Ripple)
  • openness to changing existing strategies/policies  - developing new strategies/policies (O4B) 

Recognition and reward - see also staff section below

  • budgeting for staff time (C-SAP)
  • recognising staff involvement in OER (release and use) (C-SAP)

open educational practice (recognised at institutional level)

  • at individual and department levels (cascade strand, omac strand, 
  • embedding into professional activities and training (OERCaFE, OMAC strand)
  • need for degree's of openness (ADM, Ripple, ALTO - UAL commons licence recognises this https://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/26963) )

institutional awareness needed

  • digital and information literacy of staff and students (C-SAP, IPR4EE, DELILA)
  • conditions under which staff might be innovative (C-SAP)
  • student willingness to engage with OER (C-SAP, ALTO, SPACE, SCOOTER, Learning to Teach Inclusively, O4B, ACTOR, RLT for PA)
  • balance of costs/benefits (O4B) 

institution-wide initiatives

  • can be useful (such as repositories encouraging OER engagement)
  • can present problems and cause delays - e.g. reviews of policies, development of frameworks (Learning from WOeRK)
  • other compatible projects helpful - particularly with more than one OER project in an institution/organisation/Community (DMU - SCOOTER/TIGER, DHOER/CPD4HE, C-SAP (collections and cascade), BMAF - O4B/LEARNING LEGACIES, EDOR/Learning from WOeRK, ACTOR/PORSCHE, UoL-TIGER/Ripple)
  • OERs as addressing institutional priorities (eg flexible curriculum delivery) (Learning from WOeRK, ALTO)

institutional processes and infrastructure

  • even with strategic level agreement existing processes can cause infrastructure unreadiness (Learning from WOeRK)
    • contract issues often cause barriers/delays (Learning from WOeRK)
  • readiness to reconsider curriculum processes (paradigm shifts) (Learning from WOeRK)

HE in FE (see also Phase2 Cross sector issues)

  • need for a long term ongoing conversation (SPACE) 

non educational institutions

  • very different cultures and different readiness to engage with concept of OER
    • Commercial cultures very suspicious (and even antagonistic) (LEARNING LEGACIES) 
    • sector challenges can get in the way (e.g. pending NHS changes) (PORSCHE)
    • needs for income generation can conflict with open agenda (PORSCHE


See also Phase2 Impacts and Benefits more detail on how projects have advanced institutional readiness.


What issues arise for different types of institution in regard to OER release, adoption, and use?

Strand evidence:  release | cascade | omac


Wider contexts

  • Welsh language teaching 
  • Subject discipline contexts
  • Economic climate 
  • Subject Centre closures 

Educational institutions

  • different cultures of openness within institutions (Cascade strand, ALTO)
  • range of factors identified by projects which need an institutional approach (as opposed to individual or departmental) (All strands were engaged with these issues to some extent see individual strand evidence)
    • Open licensing of content: how far is this allowed, assumed, actively supported? (Impact measure – how much learning and teaching content is openly licensed in practice?)

    • Hosting and managing of learning and teaching content: how well does the institution support this and how open are its resources? (Impact measures: investment in institutional repository and other content management systems; open repository?)

    • OER awareness/use: to what extent are OERs seen as an integral part of the digital resource environment? (Impact measures: engagement of library and learning resources with OER issues; institutional guidance to staff/students on use of digital resources includes OERs)

    • Curriculum design: to what extent are OERs integral to curriculum and course design?

    • Reputation management: to what extent are open educational resources an aspect of marketing and reputation management? (Impact measures: data on downloads etc is actively collected by marketing or similar unit; any evidence of OER use influencing choice of course/institution)

    • Use of web 2.0 services to host and access content: to what extent is this allowed, assumed, actively supported? (Impact measures: how much learning and teaching content is web 2.0 accessible? Is there a contract with i-tunes-U, youtube-edu etc?)

    • Support to staff: what legal, technical and pedagogic support is available?

    • Staff expertise: what staff development is available that specifically deals with OER issues?

    • Staff reward and recognition: how are staff recognised for making learning and teaching content openly available? Are staff confident that the impact on their reputation will be positive?

    • Quality systems: how far have these been adapted to support the development and use of OERs? Have any OER-specific quality issues been formalised or noted (e.g. in relation to branding, technical format...)?

  • HE in FE

Otherl institutions

  • NHS has similar barriers to HE (PORSCHE, ACTOR)
  • need to separate content from accreditation for employers (Learning from WOeRK) 


How do different types of institution ensure embedding and sustainability?

Strand evidence:  release | cascade | omac

See factors listed above - by addressing these factors at an institutional level mechanisms to support sustainability are developed. All strands engaged with these issues and adopted a range of measures to support sustainability and embedding. Strand evidence above points to project evidence of embedding and sustainability.


What new policies or strategies are required to support sustained release and use?

What existing policies and strategies require changing?

Strand evidence: release | omac

Existing strategies - revisions to include OER in some way

  • Learning and teaching strategy (Learning from WOeRK)
  • IPR Policy (ALTO, PORSCHE)
  • NHS policies and guidelines on sharing, copyright and consent (ACTOR, PORSCHE)
  • Future National frameworks (NHS)  (PORSCHE)
  • Marketing strategy (O4B, OPENSTEM)

New strategies

  • Enterprise agenda (Learning from WOeRK)
  • Sustainability and social responsibility agenda (Learning from WOeRK)
  • Consent commons (http://www.medev.ac.uk/ourwork/oer/oer_intro/(NHS) (PORSCHE, ACTOR) 


What issues arise in collecting together and sharing disciplinary collections of OERs across institutional boundaries?

Strand evidence: collections


What issues arise in curation of discipline collections?

Strand evidence: collections

Institutional/organisational cultures

see also:  Cultural change evidence 


How do cultures of OER release, adoption and use differ between different subject disciplines?

Strand evidence: collections


How are existing academic/subject discipline cultures being challenged, strengthened, contested, changed etc through the availability of OERs?

Strand evidence: collections


What are the best ways of working with teachers?

Strand evidence: omac


In what roles do we find OER advocates and how are they affecting change within institutions?

What new capabilities and expertise do institutions require?

Strand evidence: cascade


How do institutions support staff to change practice/develop skills/knowledge?

Strand evidence: release | omac 


Events and workshops around OERs as a concept (O4B, TIGER, SCOOTER, DHOER)

Capacity building

  • technical including networks, content management systems and repositories (OPENSTEM, CPD4HE, LEARNING LEGACIES)
  • IPR (ALTO) 
  • OER expertise (ALL STRANDS)
  • subject nature and teaching/learning expertise (OPENSTEM, LEARNING LEGACIES) 
  • OER withing PGCerts (SCOOTER,

Developing/supporting Communities of Practice (DELILA, O4B, Learning from WOeRK, DHOER)

Creating a culture of openness (O4B)


  • recognition and reward (IPR4EE)

  • support and guidance (O4B)
  • Impact on teaching practice  and teacher training - (ORIC, ALTO, Learning from WOeRK) 
  • Asking teachers for permission to use their materials (CPD4HE)
  • Empowering, and supporting with guidance, teachers to negotiate rights clearance  - this was seen as a way of upskilling and likely to impact on future development of resources (CPD4HE)
  • cross-team collaboration and support (O4B, Learning from WOeRK)
  • guidance (all strands) see Release guidance materials Cascade: Outputs




Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.