Authors Christina Hendricks Clint Lalonde Jessie Key Rajiv S. Jhangiani Rebecca Pitt
License CC-BY-3.0
BCcampus Research Report
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF
OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
AT BRITISH COLUMBIA POST-
SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS
January
18,
2016
Prepared
by:
Rajiv
S .
Jhangiani,
Ph.D.,
Kwantlen
Polytechnic
University
Rebecca
Pitt,
Ph.D.,
OER
Hub
Christina
Hendricks,
Ph.D.,
University
of
British
Columbia
Jessie
Key,
Ph.D.,
Vancouver
Island
University
Clint
Lalonde,
M.A.,
BCcampus
About BCcampus
BCcampus
supports
the
work
of
the
B.C.
post-‐secondary
system
in
the
areas
of
teaching,
learning
and
educational
technology.
This
involves
the
coordination
of
collaborative
projects
that
span
multiple
institutions,
introducing
and
supporting
innovations
about
the
ways
in
which
people
learn,
and
helping
institutions
evaluate
and
develop
good
practice
in
the
use
of
technology
for
learning.
BCcampus
also
provides
technologies
that
enable
students
to
apply
to
and
transfer
between
institutions.
About the OER Hub
OER
Hub
(OERH)
gathers
research
on
the
impact
of
open
educational
resources
(OER)
on
learning
and
teaching
practices.
The
OERH
responds
to
the
need
from
the
OER
world
for
more
research
on
which
they
can
base
decisions.
The
OERH
shares
the
evidence
they
gather
through
mixed
methods
research
including
interviews,
surveys,
focus
groups,
critical
incidence
analysis,
activity
theory
and
analysis
of
learning
design.
About the Open Textbook Project
The
B.C.
Open
Textbook
Project
began
in
2012
with
the
goal
of
making
post-‐secondary
education
in
British
Columbia
more
accessible
by
reducing
student
cost
through
the
use
of
openly
licensed
textbooks.
The
B.C.
Open
Textbook
project
is
administered
by
BCcampus
and
funded
by
the
British
Columbia
Ministry
of
Advanced
Education.
License
This
report
is
released
with
a
Creative
Commons
Attribution
license.
Feel
free
to
copy,
adapt
and
redistribute
this
report
as
per
the
attribution
requirements
of
the
Creative
Commons
license.
This
work
is
licensed
under
a
Creative
Commons
Attribution
3.0
Unported
License.
Citation
Jhangiani,
R.
S.,
Pitt,
R.,
Hendricks,
C.,
Key,
J.,
&
Lalonde,
C.
(2016).
Exploring
faculty
use
of
open
educational
resources
at
British
Columbia
post-‐secondary
institutions.
BCcampus
Research
Report.
Victoria,
BC:
BCcampus.
Table of Contents
Abstract
______________________________________________________________________
4
Key
Findings
__________________________________________________________________
5
Introduction
__________________________________________________________________
6
Literature
Review
______________________________________________________________
7
OER
policy
_________________________________________________________________________
7
Barriers
to
use
______________________________________________________________________
8
Perceptions
of
quality
________________________________________________________________
8
Method
______________________________________________________________________
9
Survey
Design
______________________________________________________________________
9
Data
Collection
____________________________________________________________________
10
Results
______________________________________________________________________
11
Characteristics
of
the
Sample
_________________________________________________________
11
Use
of
OER
_______________________________________________________________________
12
Personality
Trait:
Openness
__________________________________________________________
14
Purposes
for
Using
OER
_____________________________________________________________
14
Types
of
OER
Being
Used
____________________________________________________________
15
Perceived
Quality
of
OER
____________________________________________________________
16
Awareness
and
Use
of
Open
Textbooks
from
the
BC
OTP
___________________________________
17
Awareness
of
Open
Licensing
_________________________________________________________
18
Barriers
to
Use
____________________________________________________________________
19
Enabling
Factors
___________________________________________________________________
22
Perceived
Impact
on
Learning
Outcomes
and
Classroom
Practice
____________________________
23
Perceived
Cost
Savings
to
Students
&
Financial
Benefits
to
Institutions
________________________
26
Institutional
OER
Policies
____________________________________________________________
27
Sharing
of
Teaching
Materials
________________________________________________________
28
Meaning
of
“Openness”
in
Education
__________________________________________________
28
Discussion
___________________________________________________________________
29
Limitations
__________________________________________________________________
31
Recommendations
____________________________________________________________
32
Conclusion
___________________________________________________________________
34
References
___________________________________________________________________
35
Appendix
A:
Institutional
Types
__________________________________________________
38
Appendix
B:
Figures
____________________________________________________________
39
Appendix
C:
Tables
____________________________________________________________
40
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 3
Abstract
This
research
examines
the
use
of
Open
Educational
Resources
(OER)
by
post-‐secondary
faculty
in
British
Columbia,
including
their
motivations
and
perceptions,
as
well
as
what
factors
help
to
enable
or
act
as
challenges
for
OER
use
and
adaptation.
Although
the
findings
provide
a
snapshot
of
the
BC
post-‐
secondary
system
as
a
whole,
we
also
explore
similarities
and
differences
in
OER
use
among
faculty
across
the
three
institution
types
in
British
Columbia:
research-‐intensive
universities,
teaching-‐intensive
universities,
and
colleges/institutes
(see
Appendix
A).
This
research
also
investigates
the
relationships
between
faculty
use
of
OER
and
institutional
policies,
the
tendency
to
share
teaching
materials,
and
the
personality
trait
of
openness.
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 4
Key Findings
1. While
faculty
at
all
three
institutional
types
(research-‐intensive
universities,
teaching-‐intensive
universities,
and
colleges/institutes)
reported
similar
adoption
patterns
of
OER,
faculty
at
research-‐
intensive
universities
were
more
likely
to
adapt
and
create
OER
than
faculty
at
teaching-‐intensive
universities
or
colleges/institutes.
2. Faculty
who
score
higher
on
the
personality
trait
of
openness
(to
experience)
were
more
likely
to
both
adapt
and
create
OER.
3. Regardless
of
institutional
type,
the
top
three
reasons
faculty
reported
for
using
OER
were
for
ideas
and
inspiration,
to
supplement
existing
coursework,
and
to
prepare
for
teaching.
4. The
most
frequently
used
types
of
OER
were
videos,
images,
and
open
textbooks.
5. A
majority
of
faculty
perceive
OER
to
be
comparable
or
superior
in
quality
to
traditional,
proprietary
materials;
however,
faculty
who
have
adopted
OER
rate
the
quality
of
OER
significantly
higher
than
those
who
have
not
adopted
OER.
6. The
barriers
of
locating
high-‐quality,
relevant
and
up-‐to-‐date
OER
were
reported
to
be
significantly
lower
by
faculty
at
research-‐intensive
universities
than
by
faculty
at
both
teaching-‐intensive
universities
or
colleges/institutes.
7. Quantitatively,
lack
of
institutional
support
for
use
of
OER
was
reported
as
a
more
significant
barrier
by
faculty
at
colleges/institutes
than
faculty
at
either
teaching-‐intensive
universities
or
research-‐
intensive
universities.
However,
a
qualitative
analysis
of
open-‐ended
responses
shows
that
faculty
at
all
types
of
institutions
face
institutional
barriers
such
as
lack
of
administrative,
staff,
or
department
support
for
their
use
of
OER.
8. The
availability
of
up-‐to-‐date
resources
from
a
reputable
producer
was
reported
to
be
relatively
more
important
by
faculty
at
teaching-‐intensive
universities
and
colleges/institutes
than
those
at
research-‐intensive
universities.
9. On
average,
respondents
agreed
that
the
use
of
OER
in
the
classroom
benefited
their
students
and
had
a
positive
impact
on
their
teaching
practice.
10. Whereas
two-‐thirds
of
respondents
believe
that
their
students
save
money
by
using
OER,
only
one-‐
third
of
respondents
believed
that
their
institution
did.
11. Two-‐thirds
of
respondents
were
unaware
of
any
relevant
institutional
policy
concerning
OER.
Faculty
at
teaching-‐intensive
universities
and
colleges/institutes
reported
more
encouragement
to
use
OER
than
those
at
research-‐intensive
universities.
These
findings
are
expanded
on
in
this
report.
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 5
Introduction
There
are
close
to
1.5
million
full-‐time
undergraduate
students
enrolled
in
programs
at
Canadian
post-‐
secondary
institutions,
with
an
additional
500,000
taking
courses
part-‐time
(Government
of
Canada,
2015).
The
Financial
Consumer
Agency
of
Canada
(2013)
recommends
that
the
typical
Canadian
student
ought
to
budget
$800-‐$1000
per
year1
to
cover
the
cost
of
textbooks
and
other
required
course
materials.
However,
this
estimate
is
likely
to
increase
in
the
face
of
ever-‐rising
textbook
costs,
which
have
increased
by
1041%
since
1977,
including
82%
between
2002
and
2013
alone
(Senack,
2014).
According
to
a
study
conducted
by
the
Council
of
Alberta
University
Students,
textbook
prices
increased
by
2.8
times
the
rate
of
inflation
between
1995
and
2014
(2014),
creating
a
perception
of
academic
book
pricing
among
Canadian
students
as
“unfair,”
“overpriced”,
“ridiculous”,
and
“expensive”
(EKOS
Research
Associates,
2015).
One
implication
of
these
high
costs
has
been
the
adoption
of
more
economical
and
sometimes
creative
methods
by
students
seeking
to
obtain
required
course
materials.
These
strategies
include;
buying
used
copies,
buying
older
or
international
editions,
renting,
sharing
with
classmates,
using
library
reserve
copies,
photocopying,
and
even
illegally
downloading.
This
in
turn
helps
explain
why
student
spending
on
course
materials
at
campus
bookstores
has
been
steadily
decreasing
in
recent
years
(OnCampus
Research,
2015).
However,
concerns
over
high
costs
still
lead
65%
of
students
to
opt
out
of
buying
a
required
course
textbook
(even
though
94%
of
these
recognize
doing
so
hurts
their
course
performance),
49%
to
take
fewer
courses,
45%
to
not
register
for
a
course,
and
27%
to
drop
a
course
(Donaldson,
Nelson,
&
Thomas,
2012).
It
is
against
this
backdrop
that,
in
October
2012,
the
British
Columbia
(BC)
Ministry
of
Advanced
Education
tasked
the
BCcampus-‐led
Open
Textbook
Project
(OTP)
with
the
development
of
a
total
of
60
open
textbooks2
in
a
range
of
subject
areas,
either
by
reusing
existing
open
content
or
creating
new
open
textbooks
through
innovative
methods
such
as
book
sprints3.
Three
years
later,
BCcampus
has
greatly
surpassed
their
initial
targets,
with
137
open
textbooks
currently
in
the
BC
Open
Textbook
collection
(and
several
more
in
development).
These
textbooks
have
been
adopted
in
at
least
300
courses
at
19
(out
of
25)
BC
public
post-‐secondary
institutions,
with
total
savings
to
BC
students
conservatively
estimated
at
$1,137,900-‐$1,414,4754.
1
For
context,
average
undergraduate
tuition
costs
during
2014-‐15
was
$6,191
(Statistics
Canada,
2015)
2
Initially,
the
project’s
remit
was
the
creation
of
40
open
textbooks.
This
number
increased
to
60
with
the
announcement
in
Spring
2014
that
a
further
20
were
to
be
added
to
the
collection.
See:
http://bccampus.ca/open-‐textbook-‐project/
3
For
more
on
the
BCcampus
open
textbook
sprints,
see:
http://oerresearchhub.org/2014/07/02/clint-‐lalonde-‐bccampus-‐reflections-‐on-‐an-‐
open-‐textbook-‐sprint/
4
As
of
January
14,
2016.
For
updated
statistics,
see:
http://open.bccampus.ca/2015/09/10/more-‐bc-‐open-‐textbook-‐stats/
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 6
Since
early
2014
the
OTP
has
collaborated
with
the
OER
Hub
(OERH),
a
Hewlett-‐funded
open
research
project
examining
the
worldwide
impact
of
open
educational
resources
(OER)
on
learning
and
teaching
through
an
open
collaborative
model.
This
collaboration
includes
the
present
survey
of
post-‐secondary
educators
in
BC,
which
was
aimed
at
examining
the
following:
1. how
OER
are
currently
being
used;
2. correlates
of
OER
use;
3. for
what
purposes
OER
are
currently
being
used;
4. what
types
of
OER
are
currently
being
used;
5. perceived
quality
of
OER;
6. awareness
and
use
of
open
textbooks
from
the
BC
OTP;
7. awareness
of
open
licensing;
8. individual
and
institutional
barriers
to
OER
use;
9. individual
and
institutional
factors
that
enable
OER
use;
10. perceived
impact
of
OER
use
on
learning
outcomes
and
classroom
practice;
11. beliefs
that
OER
use
results
in
cost
savings
to
students
and
financial
benefits
to
institutions;
12. sharing
of
teaching
materials;
and
13. how
each
of
the
above
varies
by
the
type
of
institution
(i.e.
research-‐intensive
university,
teaching-‐intensive
university,
college,
or
institute).
This
paper
presents
the
findings
of
this
survey,
data
which
provide
an
empirical
basis
for
a
series
of
recommendations
for
educators
and
policy-‐makers
who
wish
to
facilitate
wider
adoption
of
OER.
Literature Review
Prior
to
discussing
the
survey
method
and
results,
we
briefly
review
some
existing
OER
policy
approaches,
along
with
relevant
data
collected
outside
of
BC
concerning
barriers
to
use
and
the
perceived
quality
of
OER,
in
order
to
provide
some
context
for
the
results
that
will
follow.
OER policy
Policy
at
both
institutional
as
well
as
local,
provincial,
or
federal
government
levels
to
increase
the
amount
of
OER
used,
created,
and
shared
takes
various
forms.
For
example,
funding
councils
often
specify
that
research
outputs
are
openly
licensed
(Government
of
Canada,
2014;
Vancouver
Foundation,
2015).
However,
in
Canada,
perhaps
the
most
significant
OER
policy
initiative
is
the
2012
Tri-‐Provincial
Memorandum
of
Understanding
on
OER
between
the
provinces
of
Alberta,
Saskatchewan
and
British
Columbia
(Government
of
British
Columbia,
Government
of
Alberta,
&
Government
of
Saskatchewan,
2014).
The
agreement
states
that
the
three
provinces
will
work
collaboratively
with
one
another
on
the
creation
and
sharing
of
OER
between
the
provinces
(McGreal,
Anderson,
&
Conrad,
2015).
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 7
In
the
United
States,
the
Affordable
Textbook
Act,
which
went
before
Congress
in
October
2015,
aims
to
increase
the
amount
of
openly
licensed
material
used
and
shared
in
and
by
educational
institutions
across
the
nation
(Durbin,
2015).
Individual
states,
such
as
Utah,
have
also
introduced
a
range
of
policies
which
promote
more
‘open’
approaches,
including
one
in
2009
relating
to
intellectual
property
(IP)
issues
(Boston
Consulting
Group,
2013,
p.
14)
and
another
in
2012
to
engender
statewide
support
for
the
creation
and
use
of
open
textbooks
(Wiley,
2012).
In
addition,
post-‐secondary
institutions
in
the
United
States
have
also
responded
to
the
high
cost
of
proprietary
materials
with
pioneering
initiatives
such
as
shifting
to
100%
e-‐resource/OER
for
their
courses
(Klein,
2015)
or
creating
“Z-‐degrees”
where
students
do
not
need
to
purchase
any
proprietary
materials
as
the
courses
have
“zero-‐textbook-‐cost”
(Lumen
Learning,
n.d.).
In
the
UK,
school
sector
initiatives
have
been
implemented
to
promote
the
sharing
of
resources
with
an
open
license
(Leicester
City
Council,
n.d.)
and
higher
educational
institutions
such
as
Leeds
University
(Cordell,
n.d.)
and
Glasgow
Caledonian
University
(Kelt,
2015)
have
introduced
institutional
policies
to
“encourage”
educators
to
release
their
resources
with
a
Creative
Commons
license.
Such
policies
also
clarify
uncertainty
around
copyright
and
the
IP
of
resources
created,
particularly
within
an
employment
context.
Concerns
about
IP
and
copyright
within
the
workplace
are
not
uncommon
and
are
likely
a
contributing
factor
to
the
relatively
small
number
of
OER-‐using
educators
who
share
their
materials.
OERH
research
reports
that
although
many
educators
adapt
OER
and
are
familiar
with
open
licensing,
a
much
smaller
number
of
educators
reciprocally
share
their
material
with
a
CC
license
(Arcos,
Weller,
Pitt,
Perryman,
&
Farrow,
2014,
p.
14).
Barriers to use
Research
carried
out
by
the
OERH
reports
the
top
three
challenges
most
frequently
faced
by
educators
in
all
sectors
(N=997)
when
using
OER
as
being:
1. Finding
suitable
resources
in
my
subject
area
(58.2%)
2. Finding
resources
of
sufficiently
high
quality
(56.1%)
3. Knowing
where
to
find
resources
(53.3%)
The
fourth
most
frequently
noted
barrier
to
using
OER
was
time,
with
47.8%
of
educators
reporting
not
having
enough
time
to
look
for
suitable
resources
(Arcos,
Farrow,
Pitt,
Perryman,
&
Weller,
2015).
Perceptions of quality
Although
the
question
of
the
quality
of
a
resource
can
make
reference
to
a
number
of
potential
aspects/characteristics
(e.g.,
Does
it
align
with
the
curriculum?
Is
it
fit
for
the
specific
purpose?
Is
it
error
free?
Is
it
up-‐to-‐date?),
the
perception
of
OER
as
‘poor
quality’
when
compared
with
proprietary
material
can
act
as
a
potential
barrier
to
OER
adoption
and
adaptation
and
is
therefore
a
key
area
when
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 8
exploring
perceptions
of
OER
(Bliss,
Hilton
III,
Wiley,
&
Thanos,
2013;
Bliss,
Robinson,
Hilton
III,
&
Wiley,
2013;
Clements
&
Pawlowski,
2012).
The
Boston
Consultancy
Group
report,
which
focused
on
US
perceptions
and
uptake
of
OER,
revealed
that
“proven
efficacy”
and
“trusted
quality”
were
the
two
most
important
factors
for
potential
users
of
OER
in
the
K-‐12
sector
(2013,
p.
8).
Yet,
whereas
quality
is
of
concern
to
non-‐OER
users,
it
is
of
note
that
only
8%
and
4%
of
K-‐12
current
OER
users
in
this
study
report
“quality”
and
“efficacy”
respectively
as
their
reason
for
continued
OER
use
(2013,
p.
20).
For
this
group
of
educators
who
are
already
using
OER,
almost
60%
report
“flexibility/modularity”
and
“low
cost”
as
the
most
important
factors
for
their
current
use
of
OER
(29%
&
29%,
respectively;
p.
20).
Quality
thus
appears
to
be
less
of
an
issue
once
educators
are
using
OER
and
therefore
more
familiar
with
the
practice
of
using
OER,
its
impact
on
students
and
the
potential
for
remix.
Improved
perceptions
of
quality
and
efficacy
by
educators
using
OER
are
also
reflected
in
a
number
of
research
studies:
Allen
&
Seaman
(2014)
report
that
nearly
85%
of
OER
using
respondents
thought
the
“proven
efficacy”
of
OER
when
contrasted
with
proprietary
resources
was
“superior”
or
“about
the
same”
(16.5%
and
68.2%,
respectively)
whereas
over
70%
of
participants
thought
the
“trusted
quality”
of
OER
was
“superior”
or
“about
the
same”
(12.1%
and
61.5%,
respectively;
2014,
p.
38).
Moreover,
in
a
2014-‐2015
study
of
OpenStax
College
open
textbook
users
(which
utilised
the
same
question
as
used
in
the
OTP
survey
reported
on
below),
43.5%
of
OSC
educators
told
us
they
thought
OER
was
“comparable”
when
contrasted
with
“traditional,
proprietary
materials”
(n=20)
whilst
47.8%
of
respondents
said
they
thought
OER
was
“significantly
better”
or
“slightly
better”5.
The
remaining
small
number
of
respondents
reported
that
they
thought
the
quality
of
OER
was
“slightly
worse”
than
that
of
proprietary
resources
(8.7%,
n=4)
(Pitt,
2015,
p.
15).
Method
Survey Design
Hypotheses
addressed
by
the
OTP
survey
were
based
on
the
eleven
hypothesis6
around
which
the
OERH’s
research
is
organized.
Specifically,
the
key
hypotheses
the
OTP
study
focused
on
were
the
following:
1. Use
of
OER
leads
to
improvement
in
student
performance
and
satisfaction;
2. The
open
aspect
of
OER
creates
different
usage
and
adoption
patterns
than
other
online
resources;
5
26.1%,
n=12
“Slightly
better”
and
21.7%,
n=10
“Significantly
better”
6
All
eleven
hypothesis
used
by
the
OERH
in
their
research
available
at
http://oerresearchhub.org/collaborative-‐research/hypotheses/
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 9
3. Use
of
OER
leads
to
critical
reflection
by
educators,
with
evidence
of
improvement
in
their
practice;
4. OER
adoption
at
an
institutional
level
leads
to
financial
benefits
for
students
and/or
institutions;
5. Participation
in
OER
pilots
and
programs
leads
to
policy
change
at
institutional
level.
A
significant
advantage
of
working
with
a
subset
of
the
OERH
hypotheses
is
that
it
enables
comparisons
across
different
contexts
and
other
OERH
collaborations
to
investigate
whether
and
how
behaviours
and
attitudes
toward
OER
differ
or
are
similar.
Accordingly,
the
initial
survey
was
designed
by
the
OERH
researcher
and
subsequently
modified
by
the
OTP
project
team,
which
included
three
Faculty
Fellows
from
post-‐secondary
institutions
in
BC.
The
final
survey
instrument
included
both
closed-‐
and
open-‐
ended
questions
that
addressed
the
following
themes:
1. Demographic
characteristics
(e.g.,
age,
gender,
spoken
language)
2. Institutional
and
teaching
context
(e.g.,
institutional
affiliation,
type
of
teaching,
years
of
teaching
experience)
3. Use
of
OER
(e.g.,
adoption,
adaptation,
creation;
types
of
OER
used)
4. Awareness
and
use
of
open
textbooks
from
the
BC
Open
Textbook
Project
5. Purposes
of
using
OER
6. Challenges
and
enabling
factors
for
using
OER
7. Perceived
quality
of
OER
8. Perceived
impact
of
OER
use
on
learning
outcomes
and
classroom
practice
9. Belief
that
OER
use
results
in
cost
savings
to
students
and
financial
benefits
institutions
10. Existence
of
(or
changes
in)
institutional
policies
concerning
OER
11. Awareness
and
importance
of
open
licensing
12. Meaning
of
“openness”
in
education
13. Sharing
of
teaching
materials
and
reasons
for
(not)
doing
so
14. Use
of
computers
and
the
internet
15. A
brief
self-‐report
measure
of
the
“Big
Five”
personality
traits7
(openness
to
experience,
conscientiousness,
extraversion,
agreeableness,
and
neuroticism)
Data Collection
The
survey
was
conducted
online
using
LimeSurvey
between
November
2014
and
February
2015.
Participants
were
recruited
through
BCcampus
mailing
lists
and
websites,
social
media
platforms
such
as
Twitter
and
Google
Plus,
as
well
as
snowball
sampling.
Participation
in
the
survey
was
incentivised
by
separately
entering
respondents’
names
into
a
prize
draw
to
win
a
Kindle
e-‐reader.
It
was
made
clear
to
participants
that
their
survey
responses
were
kept
separate
from
any
entry
into
the
prize
draw
in
order
to
protect
participant
privacy.
7
The
ten-‐item
personality
inventory
(TIPI;
Gosling,
Rentfrow,
&
Swann,
2003)
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 10
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
population
being
sampled
specifically
included
those
educators
who
had
used
OER
or
were
interested
in
using
OER.
Consequently,
the
sample
is
not
representative
of
all
BC
post-‐
secondary
educators.
However,
it
is
equally
important
to
note
that
this
is
not
a
design
flaw,
as
we
were
specifically
interested
in
learning
about
the
motivations,
experiences,
and
perceptions
of
those
who
have
already
adopted
(or
would
like
to
adopt)
OER.
Results
Characteristics of the Sample
The
sample
consists
of
78
educators
from
17
BC
post-‐secondary
institutions
(see
Figure
1).
Just
over
half
of
the
sample
(53%)
reported
working
at
a
teaching-‐intensive
university,
with
the
remainder
at
research-‐
intensive
universities
(14%),
community
colleges
or
institutes
(14%),
public
institutions
outside
of
BC
(13%),
or
private
institutions
within
BC
(6%).
Nineteen
percent
of
the
sample
reported
working
at
multiple
institutions.
Figure
1:
Sample
by
Institution
Respondents
range
in
age
from
28
to
73
(M
=
53,
SD
=
9.94),
and
the
ratio
of
female
to
male
respondents
is
nearly
even
(46%
vs.
54%).
Nearly
all
of
the
participants
hold
either
a
doctorate
(54%)
or
a
Master’s
degree
(40%).
Although
the
vast
majority
of
the
sample
(77%)
are
classroom
instructors,
12%
are
department
chairs,
8%
are
administrators,
and
5%
are
in
technology-‐based
positions
(28%
hold
multiple
roles).
Just
over
half
of
the
sample
(54%)
teach
face-‐to-‐face
(F2F)
full-‐time,
with
others
teaching
F2F
part-‐time
(17%),
online
full-‐time
(6%),
online
part-‐time
(36%),
blended
full-‐time
(13%),
and
blended
part-‐time
(6%).
On
the
whole
the
sample
represented
fairly
experienced
educators
(figure
2),
with
72%
having
taught
for
more
than
10
years.
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 11
Figure
2:
Years
of
teaching
experience
Practically
the
entire
sample
(97%)
reported
accessing
the
internet
at
home
using
a
broadband
connection,
with
a
clear
majority
also
doing
so
at
work
(85%)
or
at
an
educational
institution
(78%),
including
via
a
smartphone
(74%)
or
iPad
or
tablet
computer
(71%).
Relatively
few
reported
accessing
the
internet
at
a
community
(e.g.,
library;
21%)
or
commercial
(e.g.,
cyber-‐cafe;
23%)
facility,
or
using
a
video
game
console
(8%).
Use of OER
The
vast
majority
of
the
sample
(77%)
reported
having
used
OER
in
some
fashion,
whether
by
adopting
OER
for
use
in
the
classroom
(60%),
adapting
OER
to
suit
their
specific
classroom
context
(35%),
or
creating
OER
(28%).
As
can
be
seen
in
Figure
3,
although
OER
adoption
was
similar
across
the
different
types
of
institutions,
educators
at
research-‐intensive
universities
were
more
likely
to
report
having
adapted
and
created
OER
than
educators
at
teaching-‐intensive
universities
or
community
colleges/institutes.
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 12
Figure
3:
Use
of
OER
by
type
of
institution
Of
course,
adopting,
adapting,
and
creating
OER
are
not
mutually
exclusive
behaviours,
and
44%
of
the
sample
reported
using
OER
in
more
than
one
way.
Accordingly,
moderate
positive
correlations
were
found
among
each
of
these
three
behaviours
(see
Table
1),
indicating
that
those
who
had
adopted
OER
were
moderately
likely
to
have
also
adapted
or
created
OER.
Table
1:
Intercorrelations
among
uses
of
OER
1
2
3
Adopting
OER
-‐
.39
.43
Adapting
OER
-‐
.45
Creating
OER
-‐
Note:
All
correlations
are
statistically
significant
at
p<.001;
According
to
Cohen
(1988),
correlations
between
.30-‐.50
are
considered
moderate.
OER
creation
was
more
likely
to
be
reported
by
those
using
smartphones
[t(57)
=
4.46,
p
=
.000]
and
iPads
or
tablet
computers
[t(74.68)
=
2.87,
p
=
.005],
or
accessing
the
internet
at
work
[t(65)
=
4.37,
p
=
.000]
or
at
an
educational
institution
[t(60)
=
4.42,
p
=
.000],
but
less
likely
to
be
reported
by
those
accessing
the
internet
via
a
video
game
console
[t(71)
=
-‐5.59,
p
=
.000].
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 13
Figure
4
illustrates
the
relationships
between
years
of
teaching
experience
and
the
use,
adaptation,
and
creation
of
OER.
Although
it
appears
that
adaptation
and
creation
are
more
common
at
the
earliest
(1-‐3
years)
and
later
(over
10
years)
stages
of
teaching
career,
these
differences
are
not
statistically
significant
(and
likely
due
to
the
skew
of
the
distribution
in
favour
of
greater
experience).
Figure
4:
OER
use,
adaptation,
and
creation
by
years
of
teaching
experience
Personality Trait: Openness
Respondents
who
scored
higher
on
the
personality
trait
of
openness
(to
experience)
were
more
likely
to
report
having
both
adapted
and
created
OER
[r(64)
=
.25,
p
=
.04;
r(64)
=
.32,
p
=
.01].
There
were
no
significant
relationships
between
the
other
four
major
factors
of
personality
(extraversion,
agreeableness,
conscientiousness,
and
neuroticism)
and
OER
use.
Purposes for Using OER
Two-‐thirds
of
the
sample
reported
using
OER
for
“ideas
and
inspiration.”
Other
purposes
for
using
OER
that
were
reported
by
a
majority
of
respondents
included
to
supplement
existing
coursework
(59%),
to
prepare
for
teaching
(52%),
and
to
broaden
the
range
of
resources
available
for
learners
(50%;
see
Figure
5
for
the
top
10
purposes).
Less
frequently
cited
purposes
for
using
OER
included
staying
up-‐to-‐
date
in
their
subject
(28%),
learning
about
a
new
topic
(24%),
to
assess
the
quality
of
their
materials
(17%),
to
make
their
teaching
more
culturally
diverse
(15%),
to
interest
hard-‐to-‐engage
learners
(14%),
and
to
connect
with
instructors
or
learners
who
have
similar
interests
(13%).
Overall,
although
respondents
were
more
likely
to
report
using
OER
within
a
classroom
context
(e.g.,
for
coursework
or
as
study
materials,
whether
optional
or
compulsory)
than
for
reasons
related
to
professional
development,
the
breadth
of
responses
to
this
question
reveal
the
extraordinary
pedagogical
value
of
OER.
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 14
Figure
5:
Most
frequently
cited
purposes
for
using
OER
Purposes
for
using
OER
were
remarkably
similar
across
the
different
types
of
institutions
(see
Figure
6),
although
respondents
from
research-‐intensive
universities
were
more
likely
than
those
from
teaching
universities
and
especially
those
from
community
colleges
or
institutes
to
report
using
OER
for
ideas
and
inspiration,
to
supplement
coursework,
as
optional
self-‐study
materials,
as
e-‐learning
materials,
and
to
stay
up-‐to-‐date
within
their
subject
area.
Figure
6:
Purposes
for
using
OER
by
type
of
institution
Types of OER Being Used
The
most
frequently
used
types
of
OER
were
videos
(63%)
and
images
(47%),
which
illustrate
the
common
use
of
OER
as
supplementary
teaching
resources.
Just
over
a
third
of
our
sample
reported
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 15
using
open
textbooks
(35%)
while
slightly
fewer
(32%)
reported
using
elements
of
a
course.
Figure
7
shows
the
10
most
used
types
of
OER.
Figure
7:
Most
frequently
used
types
of
OER
Perceived Quality of OER
When
asked
to
rate
the
quality
of
OER,
59%
of
the
37
respondents
who
answered
this
question
rated
OER
as
comparable,
slightly
better,
or
significantly
better
than
traditional,
proprietary
materials
(see
Figure
8).
Interestingly,
those
educators
who
had
adopted
OER
rated
the
quality
of
OER
as
significantly
higher
than
those
who
had
not
adopted
OER
[1.88
vs.
3.28
on
a
5-‐point
Likert
scale;
F(1,
35)=7.88,
p=.008].
Figure
8:
Perceived
quality
of
OER
relative
to
traditional,
proprietary
materials
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 16
When
invited
to
support
their
ratings
with
comments,
respondents
were
generally
quite
positive
about
OER:
“Customization
to
the
lesson
you
are
teaching
and
is
more
relevant
and
up
to
date.”
“Less
expensive,
current,
and
readily
available
using
instructional
technology.”
“Solid
product,
searchable,
and
with
links.”
While
others
noted
deficiencies
within
existing
OER
and
especially
the
availability
of
ancillary
resources:
“It's
often
difficult
to
find
materials
in
my
subject
area.
The
open
texts
I've
reviewed
have
not
been
as
high
quality
or
have
been
lacking
support
materials.”
“The
quality
of
the
images
and
lack
of
supplementary
material
is
a
huge
detriment.”
However,
several
respondents
noted
that
the
quality
of
the
resource
mattered
less
than
its
effective
use:
“For
the
most
part,
again
it
is
not
so
much
the
resource
but
how
you
engage
its
use
in
learning.”
“Well
quality
to
me
defined
as
if
my
students
are
able
to
learn
from
the
content,
its
a
good
quality.
weather
[sic]
it
is
OER
or
proprietary.”
Other
respondents
noted
great
variation
in
the
quality
of
OER:
“‘Quality’
is
often
in
the
eye
of
the
user
-‐
while
production
standards
may
be
lower
in
OER,
their
flexibility
and
range
of
options
add
value.”
“There
is
good
and
poor
quality
OER
and
non-‐OER
stuff
out
there.”
“It
really
depends
on
the
discipline
and
it
really
depends
on
the
resource.”
“In
the
past,
it's
taken
quite
a
bit
of
work
to
find
good
quality
open
resources.
This
seems
to
be
changing
though.”
Awareness and Use of Open Textbooks from the BC OTP
Seventeen
respondents
(22%)
reported
using
an
open
textbook
from
the
BC
OTP.
When
asked
about
how
they
learned
about
the
BC
OTP,
these
respondents
cited
presentations
at
conferences
or
workshops
(16),
referrals
from
colleagues
(12),
emails
or
newsletters
from
BCcampus
(9),
conducting
a
review
of
an
open
textbook
(8),
and
searching
online
for
resources
(7).
Among
the
remaining
majority,
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 17
the
most
significant
reason
for
not
using
open
textbooks
from
the
BC
OTP
was
the
unavailability
of
a
textbook
for
their
discipline
or
course
(see
Figure
9).
Figure
9:
Reported
reasons
for
not
using
open
textbooks
from
the
BC
OTP
Awareness of Open Licensing
Given
the
widespread
use
of
OER
among
our
sample,
it
is
perhaps
unsurprising
that
the
respondents
were
quite
familiar
with
open
licensing,
with
69%
recognizing
and
knowing
the
meaning
of
the
Creative
Commons
logo8.
Furthermore,
a
clear
majority
reported
that
open
licensing
was
“very
important”
(53%)
or
“important”
(22%)
to
them
when
using
resources
in
their
teaching
(see
Figure
10).
8
Another
9%
recognized
the
logo
but
did
not
know
what
it
means,
while
19%
did
not
recognize
the
logo.
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 18
Figure
10:
Perceived
importance
of
open
licensing
when
using
resources
for
teaching
Barriers to Use
The
top
10
barriers
to
using
OER
(as
identified
by
our
sample)
are
shown
in
Figure
11.
As
can
be
seen,
locating
relevant
and
high
quality
OER
appear
to
be
the
most
significant
challenges
identified
by
our
respondents
(58%
and
49%,
respectively).
Also
significant
is
the
lack
of
time
faculty
experience
to
look
for
OER
(39%)
or
to
try
the
OER
themselves
to
determine
their
relevance
and
quality
for
themselves
(28%).
Interestingly,
whereas
19%
of
our
sample
noted
unsupportive
colleagues
as
a
challenge
to
OER
adoption
(understandable
especially
in
cases
where
instructional
materials
are
selected
by
committee),
only
13%
of
our
sample
specifically
noted
an
unsupportive
institution
as
a
challenge.
Figure
11:
Most
significant
barriers
to
OER
adoption
Looking
at
barriers
by
the
type
of
institution
it
becomes
clearer
that
educators
at
research-‐intensive
universities
do
not
experience
quite
as
much
of
a
challenge
in
locating
relevant,
high-‐quality,
and
up-‐to-‐
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 19
date
OER
(or
having
the
time
to
search
for
these)
as
those
at
teaching-‐intensive
universities
and
community
colleges/institutes
(see
Figure
12).
This
may
reflect
a
range
of
factors,
including
teaching
loads
and
available
institutional
resources
(including
staff
with
relevant
expertise).
Figure
12:
Most
significant
barriers
to
OER
adoption,
by
type
of
institution
In
order
to
capture
any
barriers
to
adopting
OER
that
were
not
already
listed
in
the
survey
instrument,
respondents
were
posed
an
open-‐ended
question
about
barriers
to
using
OER
they
had
encountered
at
their
own
institution.
These
qualitative
responses
were
categorised
and
whilst
41%
of
these
respondents
reported
no
explicit
barriers
to
using
OER
at
their
institution,
by
far
the
largest
number
of
comments
(31%)
highlighted
lack
of
administrative,
staff,
or
departmental
support
for
use
of
OER,
followed
by
concerns
about
poor
quality
(12%)
and
the
availability/opportunity
to
use
OER
(7%).
University
or
department
policies,
including
those
that
mandate
the
standardization
of
course
materials
were
more
likely
to
be
cited
as
a
barrier
to
the
use
of
OER
by
respondents
at
teaching-‐intensive
universities
(41%)
than
at
research-‐intensive
universities
(14%)
or
community
colleges/institutes
(16%):
“Requirements
to
match
all
courses
within
the
University
to
the
same
text
and
outcomes”
“Our
dean
is
pressuring
us
to
use
the
same
resources
for
a
multi-‐section
course,
so
if
one
of
us
wants
to
try
open
resources
it
would
be
difficult.”
“I
have
been
interested
in
promoting
the
use
of
the
Open
Text
at
[institution]
but
I
do
not
teach
the
introductory
courses
it
is
designed
for.
There
is
a
lot
of
delicacy
involved
in
trying
to
raise
the
issue
because
of
concerns
of
stepping
on
people's
feet.
In
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 20
particular,
the
commercial
text
currently
being
used
was
written
by
the
current
instructor.
At
[institution],
the
courses
that
the
textbook
would
apply
to
have
just
gone
through
major
revision,
so
despite
support
for
the
Open
Text
it
is
unlikely
that
they
are
going
to
be
revised
again
in
the
near
future.”
“Not
allowing
much
use
of
tools
outside
the
LMS/ILP.”
Some
responses
highlighted
the
need
for
training
to
enable
educators
to
find,
use,
and
adapt
OER
effectively:
“Two
barriers:
(1)
where
to
access
the
resources
in
a
timely
manner
and
(2)
limited
OERs
related
specifically
to
my
focused
discipline
[nursing]”
“Adaptation
of
the
OER
materials
to
my
courses.”
“Just
around
copyright
law
as
it
obtains
to
an
OER.”
“I
just
don't
understand
the
process;
I
don't
know
where
these
resources
are;
I
don't
know
who
has
access
how,
when,
where.
I
don't
know
how
that
student
access
impacts
student
privacy,
which
we
must
uphold.
If
students
are
going
on
third
party
sites,
we
have
to
get
their
consent.
Where
is
the
support
that
tells
us
how
to
uphold
the
laws?”
The
time
required
to
review
and
then
‘localise’
resources
by
adapting
material
to
one’s
own
context
was
also
highlighted
as
an
issue
by
one
instructor,
along
with
the
absence
of
ancillary
materials:
“No
time
to
check
them
out
carefully.
Some
are
very
American
and
would
take
work
to
adopt.
Some
not
as
good
as
other
texts
that
come
with
student
DVD
and
instructor
resources
etc...extras”
Within
the
contexts
described
above
it
would
be
a
challenge
to
use
or
experiment
with
open
resources.
However,
other
respondents
reported
a
seemingly
different
and
more
positive
experience.
Such
variation
in
response
reflects
important
differences
between
institutions
in
the
province
and
the
amount
of
autonomy
that
educators
are
given:
“None,
Our
institution
is
very
flexible
and
encourages
faculty
to
explore
new
areas.”
“None,
no
one
has
mentioned
cutting
into
book
store
profits
yet…”
“None.
Any
perceived
barriers
would
be
self-‐imposed.
Nothing
prevent
me
or
colleagues
from
actively
using
OER.
I
use
OER.”
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 21
One
instructor
who
had
already
been
using
OER
described
how
his
“barriers”
were
the
time
it
took
to
“adapt”
OER
and
develop
other
materials
to
provide
a
replacement
for
proprietary
material
whilst
also
becoming
more
familiar
with
the
fact
that
combining
resources
(or
‘remixing’
them)
was
a
possibility
with
open
materials:
“To
be
honest
the
barriers
(for
me)
were
entirely
mental.
I
was
always
incorporating
OER
into
my
courses
because
you
can
do
that
incrementally
and
don't
have
to
make
a
huge
time
investment,
but
forcing
myself
to
take
the
time
to
adapt
an
open
textbook
to
replace
my
commercial
textbook
that
came
with
a
flashy,
interactive,
enriched
website
was
hard
because
I
had
to
put
in
the
time
to
make
something
that
wasn't
nearly
as
flashy.
The
other
mental
leap
I
had
to
make
was
that
I
didn't
have
to
adopt
one
open
textbook
and
stick
with
it-‐-‐I
could
combine
the
available
texts
with
various
OER
may
eventually
have
something
as
flashy
as
the
companion
site
for
the
commercial
textbooks.”
Enabling Factors
The
top
10
factors
that
would
facilitate
OER
adoption
are
depicted
in
Figure
13,
most
of
which
were
identified
by
a
majority
of
respondents.
These
include
the
existence
of
resources
that
are
relevant
to
interests
or
needs
(58%),
the
resource
being
created
and
uploaded
by
a
reputable
institution
or
person
(56%),
being
easy
to
download
(55%),
having
a
Creative
Commons
license
(54%),
especially
one
that
permits
adaptation
(54%),
and
the
provision
of
learning
objectives
or
outcomes
(51%).
Across
the
identified
enabling
factors
it
may
be
useful
to
distinguish
between
those
that
are
characteristics
of
the
OER
itself
(e.g.,
relevant,
recently
updated)
and
those
that
are
interpersonal
or
experiential
factors
(e.g.,
a
personal
recommendation,
successful
experience).
Figure
13:
Most
significant
enabling
factors
for
using
OER
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 22
Looking
at
enabling
factors
by
the
type
of
institution,
it
appears
that
an
up-‐to-‐date
resource
from
a
reputable
producer
is
relatively
more
important
to
educators
at
teaching-‐intensive
universities
and
colleges/institutes
than
those
working
at
research-‐intensive
universities
(see
Figure
14).
Also
worth
noting
is
that
the
use
of
a
Creative
Commons
license
(particularly
those
that
permit
adaptation)
appears
to
be
especially
attractive
to
those
working
at
community
colleges/institutes.
Figure
14:
Most
significant
enabling
factors
for
using
OER,
by
type
of
institution
When
given
the
opportunity
to
describe
additional
factors
that
would
encourage
the
adoption
of
OER,
nearly
a
third
of
these
respondents
(32%)
reported
that
the
provision
of
more
institutional
resources
or
incentives
(e.g.,
time,
funding,
recognition,
expertise)
would
encourage
adoption
of
OER:
“Time/funding
to
search
for
more
up
to
date
resources.”
“The
administration
could
create
incentives
(like
time
release)
for
faculty
who
are
developing/adapting
open
textbooks.”
“Additional
internal
support
through
teaching
and
learning
people
and
librarians.”
“Need
institutional
recognition
-‐
if
the
university
supported
a
sabbatical
leave
for
developing
OER
courses
then
would
do
it.”
Perceived Impact on Learning Outcomes and Classroom Practice
On
average,
respondents
slightly
agreed
(on
a
5-‐point
Likert
scale)
that
the
use
of
OER
in
the
classroom
benefited
their
students,
including
by
improving
grades,
increasing
engagement
with
lesson
content,
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 23
increasing
satisfaction
with
the
learning
experience,
or
better
accommodating
diverse
learners’
needs
(see
Table
2).
There
were
no
significant
differences
across
these
beliefs
between
respondents
from
different
types
of
institutions.
Table
2:
Perceived
impact
of
OER
use
on
learners.
Based
on
responses
where
1
=
Strongly
Disagree,
2
=
Disagree,
3
=
Neither
Agree
or
Disagree,
4
=
Agree
and
5
=
Strongly
Agree.
Learning
Outcomes
Average
Better
accommodates
diverse
learners’
needs
3.53
Increases
learners’
satisfaction
with
the
learning
experience
3.51
Increases
learners’
experimentation
with
new
ways
of
learning
3.51
Increases
learners’
engagement
with
lesson
content
3.47
Increases
learners’
participation
in
class
discussions
3.39
Increases
learners’
interest
in
the
subjects
taught
3.35
Leads
to
improved
students’
grades
3.27
Develops
learners’
increased
independence
and
self-‐reliance
3.25
Leads
to
learners
becoming
interested
in
a
wider
range
of
subjects
3.25
Increases
collaboration
and/or
peer-‐support
among
learners
3.21
Increases
learners’
enthusiasm
for
future
study
3.18
Builds
learners’
confidence
3.12
When
given
the
opportunity
to
support
their
ratings
with
comments,
several
respondents
pointed
to
their
personal
experiences:
“Personal
experience
that
students
like
the
online
material,
and
free
resources.
better
student
questions..”
“I
went
all
OER
fall
2014
and
completion
went
up
significantly.
I
also
gave
a
pre
and
post
test
of
course
objectives
and
100%
of
students
increase
percentage
right
and
the
average
went
from
a
40%
on
pretest
to
70%
on
theorist
test.”
“Students
comment
in
evals
that
they
like
the
diverse
materials
used
for
teaching
in
the
classroom.”
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 24
“A
student
feedback
survey
suggested
increased
level
of
engagement.”
“I
think
when
resources
are
free
and
easily
accessible
students
are
much
more
likely
to
access
them.
When
I
post
links
to
videos
on
Youtube,
I
can
tell
students
watch,
and
when
I
use
free
resources
students
that
don't
buy
textbooks
will
have
access
to
the
materials.”
Other
respondents
described
benefits
of
OER
use
within
the
broader
context
of
classroom
practice:
“What
I
primarily
look
for
is
variety
on
a
topic:
I
might
post
a
short
written
lecture,
and
then
look
for
an
interactive
tutorial
that
explains
the
concept
or
task.
Then
I
might
look
for
a
very
short
video
that
demonstrates
a
concept.
The
other
thing
I
often
do
is
post
"extras"
on
my
course
site-‐-‐these
are
usually
OERs
related
to
the
topic
that
students
are
not
required
to
view,
but
can
if
they
are
interested
in
learning
more
about
the
topic.”
“I
don't
believe
OER's
increase
the
learning
within
a
subject
area,
per
se..
But
I
do
think
they
introduce
students
to
new
ways
of
learning
and
familiarize
them
with
digital
literates
and
responsible
use
of
the
Internet
for
academic
studies.
Instructor
modeling
is
key.”
“The
ability
of
a
student
to
explore
additional
info
outside
of
class
helps.”
Respondents
also
perceived
a
slight
positive
impact
of
OER
use
on
their
teaching
practice,
including
through
making
wider
use
of
multimedia,
using
a
broader
range
of
teaching
and
learning
methods,
and
reflecting
more
on
the
ways
that
they
teach
(see
Table
3).
The
only
dimension
on
which
the
mean
response
fell
below
the
neutral
point
was
“I
collaborate
more
with
colleagues.”
Once
again,
there
were
no
significant
differences
across
these
beliefs
between
respondents
from
different
types
of
institutions.
Table
3:
Perceived
impact
of
OER
use
on
classroom
practice.
Based
on
responses
where
1
=
Strongly
Disagree,
2
=
Disagree,
3
=
Neither
Agree
or
Disagree,
4
=
Agree
and
5
=
Strongly
Agree.
Classroom
Practice
Average
I
use
a
wider
range
of
multimedia
3.74
I
use
a
broader
range
of
teaching
and
learning
methods
3.68
Reflect
more
on
the
way
that
I
teach
3.57
Improved
information
and
communication
technology
skills
3.4
Broadened
my
coverage
of
the
curriculum
3.32
More
up-‐to-‐date
knowledge
of
my
subject
area
3.31
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 25
Make
use
of
more
culturally
diverse
resources
3.24
Frequently
compare
my
own
teaching
with
others
3.15
Now
use
OER
to
develop
my
teaching
3.12
Collaborate
more
with
colleagues
2.79
Representative
comments
included
the
following:
“By
having
more
access
to
OER,
I
have
had
recent
discussions
with
colleagues
in
relation
to
team
teaching
course
content
and
changing
the
format
of
courses
significantly
-‐
something
that
fits
the
21st
cen.
learner
better
as
far
as
I
can
tell.”
“I
believe
that
more
diversified
sources
provide
me
with
a
greater
breadth
of
knowledge
to
pass
along
to
students.”
“Faculty
need
to
continuously
learn
and
adapt
their
teaching
methodologies
to
align
with
the
learners
we
encounter.
Using
OERs
is
one
method
of
providing
many
different
opportunities
for
students
to
gain
exposure
to
the
content.”
“I've
noticed
in
the
past
two
or
three
years
that
OER
are
now
often
created
by
universities
and
seem
to
be
of
higher
quality
(and
more
interactive)
than
in
the
past.
The
open
textbooks
that
were
available
in
my
area
were
not
very
interactive-‐-‐they
are
just
e-‐books,
but
a
new
one
has
recently
been
developed
and
it's
very
enriched
with
short
films
and
links
to
other
cool
stuff.
I
can
only
imagine
OER
getting
better
and
better
with
the
passage
of
time
and
increased
adaptations
of
material.”
Perceived Cost Savings to Students & Financial Benefits to
Institutions
Although
nearly
two-‐thirds
of
respondents
(65%)
believed
that
their
students
had
saved
money
by
using
OER,
only
33%
of
respondents
believed
that
their
institution
benefited
financially
from
the
use
of
OER
(see
Figures
15
and
16).
This
disconnect
suggests
that
BC
educators
may
be
unaware
that
cost
savings
to
students
can
accrue
additional
benefits
to
the
institution,
such
as
improved
student
retention
and
program
completion
rates
(Hilton
&
Laman,
2012;
Robinson,
Fischer,
Wiley,
&
Hilton,
2014).
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 26
Figure
15:
Belief
that
students
save
money
by
using
OER
Figure
16:
Belief
that
their
institution
benefits
financially
from
the
use
of
OER
Institutional OER Policies
When
asked
about
whether
their
institution
had
explicit
policies
or
procedures
concerning
OER,
two
thirds
of
respondents
(66%)
reported
that
their
institution
did
not
have
any
relevant
policy
or
that
they
were
unaware
of
any
specific
policy9
(see
Figure
17).
Encouragement
of
the
use
of
OER
varied
by
type
of
institution,
with
participants
from
research-‐intensive
universities
reporting
less
encouragement
(14%)
than
those
from
either
teaching-‐intensive
universities
(39%)
or
community
colleges/institutes
(30%).
However,
only
two
respondents
(both
working
at
community
colleges)
reported
that
this
encouragement
was
supported
through
specific
grants
or
other
incentives.
Finally,
only
one
respondent
(working
at
a
teaching-‐intensive
university)
reported
being
actively
discouraged
to
adopt
OER.
9
Interestingly,
18%
of
respondents
reported
becoming
aware
of
changes
to
institutional
policies
and/or
practices
as
a
result
of
an
OER
pilot
or
program.
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 27
Figure
17:
Institutional
OER
policies,
by
type
of
institution
Sharing of Teaching Materials
In
order
to
provide
some
insight
into
inclinations
to
adopt
OER
(and
because
of
the
relatively
low
awareness
of
OER
among
many
faculty),
the
survey
included
questions
pertaining
to
the
sharing
of
teaching
materials.
However,
only
13
respondents
completed
this
section
of
the
survey.
Of
these,
six
reported
sharing
their
teaching
materials
with
their
colleagues
(but
only
when
asked),
three
reported
sharing
their
teaching
materials
publicly
(with
two
of
these
explicitly
adopting
a
license
that
permits
revision
and
reuse),
while
two
reported
sharing
their
teaching
materials
only
with
students.
When
asked
about
their
motivations
for
sharing,
the
respondents
cited
fairness,
providing
assistance
to
others,
and
collaboration.
Among
the
reasons
listed
for
not
sharing
one’s
teaching
materials
were
university
ownership
of
teaching
materials
(reported
by
7
respondents),
no
forum
or
place
to
share
(6),
not
knowing
how
to
share
teaching
materials
(5),
enjoying
more
control
over
materials
when
not
sharing
(2),
insufficient
time
(2),
and
either
deriving
no
benefit
or
facing
detrimental
consequences
(2).
Thirty-‐eight
respondents
answered
questions
about
whether
they
faced
any
institutional
or
policy
barriers
to
sharing
their
teaching
materials
publicly.
Of
these,
the
majority
(21)
reported
experiencing
no
barriers
while
about
a
third
(12)
cited
university
ownership/copyright
policies.
Other
responses
included
beliefs
that
sharing
relinquishes
the
instructor’s
rights
to
the
materials
(2),
that
their
teaching
materials
were
their
“competitive
edge”
(1),
and
that
sharing
teaching
materials
with
students
would
lead
them
to
not
continue
in
school
(1).
Meaning of “Openness” in Education
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 28
Finally,
we
asked
respondents
to
describe,
in
their
own
words,
what
“openness”
in
education
meant
to
them.
The
most
common
themes
to
emerge
were
those
of
access/availability
(44%),
sharing
knowledge/democratizing
education
(27%),
the
use
of
the
“5R”
permissions
(to
reuse,
revise,
remix,
retain,
and
redistribute;
13%),
openness
to
a
diversity
of
perspectives
(10%),
pedagogical
innovation
(7%),
transparency/accountability
(5%)
and
collaboration
(5%).
Comments
included
the
following:
“I
think
openness
is
a
pedagogical/political
philosophy
committed
to
increasing
access
and
democratizing
education.”
“Free
education
to
anyone
who
wants
it
and
the
encouragement
for
citizens
to
be
fully
educated
complex
thinking
individuals.”
“Better
access.
News
ways
of
thinking
about
classroom
materials.
Wide
range
of
options.
Teaching
to
the
content
and
the
learner's
needs
rather
than
teaching
to
the
book.”
“Greater
openness
in
terms
of
pedagogy.
An
ability
to
learn
from
others
in
the
field,
with
regards
to
how
they
have
developed
their
courses
and
how
they
have
created
environments
that
foster
active
learning.
I
love
open
resources,
as
they
allow
me
to
learn
from
a
diverse
range
of
experts
with
regards
to
how
material
is
covered,
different
ways
to
connect
with
students.”
Discussion
This
survey
represents
the
first
systematic
attempt
to
study
the
attitudes
and
experiences
of
current
and
potential
OER
users
at
post-‐secondary
institutions
in
British
Columbia.
Although
the
results
of
this
survey
reinforce
several
of
the
conclusions
from
previous
research,
the
analyses
of
OER
use
along
with
associated
barriers
and
enabling
factors
by
type
of
institution
addresses
a
gap
in
the
research
literature
while
providing
an
empirical
basis
for
the
specific
and
tangible
recommendations
that
follow.
Almost
four
out
of
five
respondents
had
used
OER
in
some
capacity,
whether
for
ideas
and
inspiration,
to
supplement
coursework,
to
prepare
for
teaching,
or
to
broaden
the
range
of
resources
available
to
learners.
Videos
and
images
were
the
most
frequently
used
types
of
OER,
followed
by
open
textbooks,
and
elements
of
a
course.
Just
over
a
fifth
of
the
sample
reported
having
adopted
textbooks
from
the
BC
OTP,
with
the
remainder
citing
the
unavailability
of
a
relevant
textbook
as
their
principal
barrier.
OER
use
was
remarkably
similar
across
the
different
types
of
institutions
and
was
a
moderate
predictor
of
OER
adaptation
and/or
creation,
which
suggests
that
use
may
be
a
gateway
to
the
use
of
the
permissions
to
revise
and
remix
these
types
of
resources.
That
being
said,
respondents
working
at
research-‐intensive
institutions
were
more
likely
to
report
having
adapted
and
created
OER.
This
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 29
tendency
is
perhaps
more
easily
understood
through
the
lens
of
the
reported
personal
and
institutional
barriers.
To
our
knowledge,
this
survey
is
the
first
study
to
explore
the
relationship
between
OER
use
and
educator
personality
traits.
Only
one
of
the
“Big
5”
factors
of
personality
was
found
to
relate
to
OER
use—the
factor
known
as
“openness,”
which
in
this
context
refers
to
openness
to
experience
and
to
trying
new
things
(including
the
unconventional).
This
perhaps
explains
why
those
educators
who
scored
higher
on
this
trait
were
more
likely
to
have
adapted
and/or
created
OER.
In
other
words,
there
is
indeed
such
as
thing
as
openness
to
openness
in
education.
Overall,
the
most
frequently-‐cited
barriers
to
OER
use
in
this
survey
correspond
quite
closely
to
those
listed
in
the
OERH
report
(Arcos
et
al.,
2014),
namely
finding
relevant,
high
quality
resources,
and
having
enough
time
to
search
for
them
and
assess
their
quality.
Other
barriers
reported
by
our
sample
(albeit
to
a
lesser
degree)
included
unsupportive
colleagues
(e.g.,
within
one’s
academic
department)
and
an
unsupportive
institution
(in
terms
of
both
policy
and
personnel).
All
of
these
barriers
were
especially
likely
to
be
reported
by
educators
working
at
teaching-‐intensive
universities.
Together
with
heavier
teaching
loads
and
sparser
institutional
resources,
these
barriers
may
explain
their
lesser
likelihood
of
adapting
and
creating
OER.
This
interpretation
is
further
supported
by
the
finding
that
faculty
at
teaching-‐intensive
institutions
were
most
likely
to
report
that
additional
institutional
resources
or
incentives
would
encourage
their
adoption
of
OER.
A
majority
of
respondents
rated
OER
as
comparable
to,
or
better
than,
proprietary,
publisher-‐produced
instructional
materials.
This
mirrors
the
findings
of
Allen
&
Seaman
(2014)
and
Pitt
(2015),
who
found
that
the
majority
of
educators
who
had
used
or
were
familiar
with
OER
rated
their
quality
as
equal
to
or
higher
than
that
of
traditional
educational
resources.
However,
our
results
additionally
demonstrate
that
those
who
had
used
OER
rated
the
quality
of
OER
more
highly
than
those
who
had
not.
This
survey
also
provides
new
information
about
factors
that
enable
OER
use
among
faculty.
Relevance
to
needs,
as
well
as
various
indicators
of
quality
(produced
by
a
reputable
source,
recently
updated,
recommended
by
someone
one
knows,
and
having
had
a
successful
experience
with
an
OER
in
the
past)
place
high
on
the
list.
Equally
high
are
some
technical
factors,
such
as
ease
of
downloading
and
the
freedom
to
use
and
adapt
the
resource,
as
indicated
by
an
open
license
(such
as
a
Creative
Commons
license).
A
more
surprising
result
is
that
although
most
of
the
enabling
factors
for
use
of
OER
were
similar
amongst
institution
types,
the
factors
of
OER
being
produced
by
a
reputable
source
and
having
been
recently
updated
were
cited
as
much
more
important
by
those
at
teaching
universities
and
colleges/institutes
than
by
those
at
research
universities.
We
can
only
speculate
why
this
result
emerged
from
the
survey,
but
it
is
possible
that
the
reasons
for
this
pattern
mirror
the
general
tendency
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 30
for
educators
at
teaching-‐intensive
universities
to
be
less
likely
to
report
adapting
and
creating
OER.
That
is,
with
less
time
and
fewer
resources
to
locate
relevant
and
high-‐quality
OER,
faculty
at
teaching-‐
intensive
universities
may
not
be
in
a
position
to
take
advantage
of
the
permissions
to
update
and
otherwise
adapt
OER
to
their
courses.
As
a
result,
they
may
be
especially
reliant
on
direct
(e.g.,
up-‐to-‐
date
resources)
and
indirect
(e.g.,
reputable
producer)
indices
of
OER
quality.
On
average,
the
respondents
were
in
slight
agreement
that
the
adoption
of
OER
has
a
positive
impact
on
both
students’
learning
outcomes
as
well
as
their
own
teaching
practice.
The
respondents
also
appeared
quite
well
aware
of
the
significant
cost
savings
to
students
that
result
from
the
adoption
of
OER;
however,
awareness
of
the
resulting
benefits
to
the
institution
(e.g.,
on
enrolment,
completion,
and
retention)
was
low.
This
gap
may
also
help
explain
why
most
respondents
were
also
unaware
of
any
institutional
policy
concerning
OER.
At
least
for
the
moment,
then,
in
BC
the
decision
to
adopt
OER
appears
to
be
largely
confined
to
individual
faculty
who
have
the
knowledge,
time,
inclination,
and
freedom
(e.g.,
not
restricted
by
unsupportive
colleagues)
to
make
this
choice.
However,
as
much
as
this
suggests
that
the
OER
movement
has
a
long
way
to
go
in
BC,
the
findings
from
this
survey
provide
a
path
forward
in
terms
of
several
specific
strategies
to
encourage
more
OER
use,
adaptation,
and
creation.
Limitations
There
are
several
limitations
to
this
survey,
including
that
(as
previously
noted)
the
respondents
to
this
survey
were
self-‐selected
and
therefore
the
results
cannot
be
taken
as
representative
of
the
views
of
faculty
in
postsecondary
institutions
in
BC.
The
methods
for
disseminating
the
survey
favoured
faculty
members
who
were
already
likely
to
be
aware
of
and
have
used
OER
in
the
past:
the
survey
was
sent
to
people
on
email
lists
provided
by
BCcampus
(many
of
whom
would
be
aware
of
the
OER
work
BCcampus
has
done
in
the
past),
publicized
through
social
media
accounts
of
people
already
familiar
with
OER,
and
through
snowball
sampling
through
those
who
had
already
received
the
survey.
Thus
we
do
not
have
much
representation
in
the
data
of
the
views
of
those
entirely
unfamiliar
with
OER
(as
noted
above,
77%
of
respondents
reported
having
used
OER
in
some
fashion).
However,
as
most
of
the
respondents
were
familiar
with
and
have
used
OER,
the
survey
provides
useful
information
about
how
such
faculty
perceive
OER
quality,
barriers
and
enabling
factors
regarding
their
use,
as
well
as
institutional
and
other
policies.
The
results
are
also
limited
in
that
there
was
a
much
greater
number
of
respondents
from
teaching-‐
intensive
universities
(61%
of
the
sample)
than
from
colleges/institutes
or
research-‐focused
universities
(16%
each).
The
results
regarding
institutional
differences,
noted
above,
may
be
somewhat
less
reliable
due
to
this
significant
discrepancy.
It
is
possible
that
if
there
were
more
respondents
from
research
universities,
some
of
the
comparisons
and
contrasts
against
responses
from
faculty
at
teaching-‐intensive
institutions
may
have
been
significantly
different.
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 31
All
of
the
questions
in
the
survey
were
optional.
In
general,
open-‐ended
questions
had
a
higher
non-‐
response
rate.
These
include
questions
pertaining
to
institutional
policies
that
would
encourage
them
to
be
more
open10
(45%),
institutional
barriers
to
using
OER
(42%)
or
sharing
teaching
materials
(40%),
the
experience
of
using
OER
at
their
institution
(33%),
institutional
practices
or
policies
regarding
OER
(26%),
reasons
for
sharing
(or
not
sharing)
teaching
materials
(23%),
and
the
meaning
of
“openness”
in
education
(21%).
Closed-‐ended
questions
that
remained
unanswered
by
more
than
10%
of
respondents
concerned
the
perceived
quality
of
OER
(53%),
institutional
affiliation
(19%),
personality
characteristics
(18%),
and
the
impact
of
OER
on
teaching
practice
(13%).
Finally,
the
length
of
the
survey
may
have
been
an
obstacle
for
at
least
some
respondents.
The
survey
included
38
questions
that
the
informed
consent
form
advised
would
take
20
minutes
to
complete.
The
median
amount
taken
by
the
78
respondents
who
completed
the
survey
was
15
minutes
39
seconds.
However,
40
incomplete
responses
were
recorded,
almost
all
of
which
(37)
represent
attempts
at
fewer
than
half
of
the
questions
in
the
survey.
These
partial
responses
have
not
been
analyzed
or
included
in
the
summary
of
results
above.
It
is
possible
that
some
of
these
40
respondents
attempted
the
survey
a
second
time
and
are
included
among
the
78
complete
responses.
Recommendations
Based
on
the
research
findings
the
following
recommendations
are
suggested
to
reduce
the
barriers
of
using
OER
in
courses
and
to
successfully
advocate
for
mainstream
adoption
of
OER:
1. Institutional
commitment
to
OER.
First
and
foremost,
institutions
should
raise
awareness
of
the
existence
of
OER;
where
to
find
these
materials,
how
to
review
their
quality,
and
how
to
adopt
OER
for
courses.
Awareness
should
also
be
raised
of
the
pedagogical
and
financial
benefits
of
OER
to
students
(e.g.,
cost
savings,
flexible
and
permanent
access,
course
performance),
instructors
(e.g.,
ability
to
adapt
materials,
improved
learning
outcomes,
OER
creation
as
course
assignments),
and
institutions
(e.g.,
enrolment,
retention,
completion).
Awareness
can
be
raised
through
workshops,
panels
(e.g.,
during
Open
Education
week
or
other
designated
professional
development
periods),
and
other
information
sessions.
These
efforts
might
be
spearheaded
by
institutional
working
groups
that
include
students,
librarians,
faculty
representatives,
teaching
and
learning
centre
staff,
administrators,
and
other
internal
stakeholders
(e.g.,
Kwantlen
Polytechnic
University’s
Open
Studies
Working
Group).
2. Support
for
adaptation
and
adoption
is
required
to
ensure
successful
adoption
of
OER.
Teaching
and
Learning
Centres
as
well
as
Libraries
can
provide
expertise
and
support
on
best
practices
for
OER
adoption
and
adaption.
Further
education
is
recommended
on
copyright
laws
and
Creative
10
Four
participants
noted
that
this
question
was
phrased
ambiguously.
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 32
Commons
licenses,
preferably
through
the
support
of
the
Library
and/or
the
Institution’s
Copyright
Office.
3. Sufficient
time
to
create,
adapt,
and
adopt
OER
is
a
significant
barrier
to
using
OER
in
a
course.
Institutions
and
departments
should
provide
release
time
or
paid
educational
leave
to
faculty
to
create,
adapt,
and/or
adopt
OER.
4. Internal
funding
should
be
provided
to
support
the
development
or
redevelopment
of
courses
to
incorporate
OER
(e.g.
OER
Resource
Grants
at
Simon
Fraser
University11)
as
well
as
the
development
of
ancillary
materials
(e.g.
video
tutorials12,
question
banks13,
etc).
Investing
in
the
development
of
ancillary
resources
eliminates
a
major
barrier
to
open
textbook
adoption
for
faculty
who
rely
heavily
on
publisher-‐provided
resources.
5. Institutional
policies
concerning
OER
should
be
developed
and
disseminated
to
help
raise
awareness,
dispel
myths,
and
to
encourage
members
of
the
university
community
to
adopt
open
educational
practices.
These
university
policies
should
ideally
be
tied
to
the
university
mission
and
academic
plan.
6. The
creation
and
adaptation
of
OER
should
be
appropriately
recognized
as
curricular
innovation
and
service
to
the
academic
profession
during
the
tenure,
promotion,
and
reappointment
process
at
research-‐intensive
universities.
Without
this
recognition,
the
benefits
of
open
educational
practices
will
be
slow
to
accrue
at
research-‐intensive
universities.
7. Faculty
should
be
encouraged
and
incentivized
to
review
open
textbooks
that
are
available
in
their
areas
of
specialization.
Reviewing
open
textbooks
helps
raise
awareness
of
their
existence
and
negates
perceptions
of
inferior
quality
while
also
serving
as
a
gateway
to
adoption
and
adaptation.
The
BC
OTP
offers
a
$250
honorarium
to
qualified
faculty
reviewers14;
however,
institutions
could
augment
this
support
or
otherwise
recognize
these
efforts.
8. Faculty
should
be
encouraged
to
pilot
the
use
of
OER
within
their
courses,
whether
as
a
replacement
for
a
paid,
proprietary
resource
or
even
as
a
supplementary
resource.
These
might
include,
for
example,
materials
from
MIT
OpenCourseWare15,
open
textbooks
from
the
BC
OTP16,
or
open
source
software
like
R17.
A
pilot
adoption
of
an
open
textbook
may
also
be
a
viable
approach
in
cases
of
multi-‐section
courses
in
which
textbooks
are
selected
by
committee.
Because
students
in
participating
pilot
sections
will
not
incur
any
textbook
costs,
the
fear
that
students
switching
sections
or
repeating
a
course
will
have
to
purchase
another
textbook
will
be
allayed.
9. Faculty
should
be
encouraged
to
design
and
assign
non-‐disposable
course
assignments
that,
for
example,
involve
students
in
the
creation
and
adaptation
of
OER
(e.g.
the
University
of
California
at
11
See
http://www.sfu.ca/oergrants.html
12
See
http://www.neuroanatomy.ca/
13
See
http://thatpsychprof.com/the-‐great-‐psychology-‐testbank-‐sprint/
14
See
http://open.bccampus.ca/call-‐for-‐proposals/call-‐for-‐reviewers-‐2/
15
See
ocw.mit.edu
16
See
http://open.bccampus.ca/
17
See
https://www.r-‐project.org/
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 33
Davis’
ChemWiki
project18).
These
efforts
require
education
and
support
through,
for
example,
professional
development
workshops
offered
by
the
university
teaching
and
learning
centre.
10. Faculty
as
well
as
staff
at
teaching
and
learning
centres
should
be
encouraged
to
design
and
conduct
research
to
investigate
the
impact
of
OER
adoption
on
educational
outcomes
such
as
course
performance,
program
completion,
and
student
retention.
Results
from
this
research
should
be
disseminated
widely
within
the
institution
to
support
evidence-‐based
decision-‐making
concerning
OER
policies
and
practices.
Internal
funding
to
support
this
research
is
also
highly
desirable.
Conclusion
Adopting
open
educational
practices
holds
great
promise
in
terms
significant
cost
savings,
innovative
pedagogy,
and
improved
educational
outcomes.
The
results
of
this
survey
and
the
accompanying
recommendations
provide
a
road
map
for
institutions
not
only
in
British
Columbia,
but
elsewhere
who
are
looking
to
reap
these
benefits.
18
See
http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 34
References
Allen,
E.,
&
Seaman,
J.
(2014).
Opening
the
Curriculum.
Babson
Survey
Research
Group.
Retrieved
from
http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/openingthecurriculum2014.pdf
Arcos,
B.
de
los,
Farrow,
R.,
Pitt,
R.,
Perryman,
L.,
&
Weller,
M.
(2015).
OER
Research
Hub
Data
2013-‐
2015:
Educators.
OER
Research
Hub.
Retrieved
from
https://oerresearchhub.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/educators_final_oerrhdata.pdf
Arcos,
B.
de
los,
Weller,
M.,
Pitt,
R.,
Perryman,
L.,
&
Farrow,
R.
(2014).
OER
Evidence
Report
2013-‐2014.
Retrieved
from
http://oerresearchhub.org/about-‐2/reports/
Bliss,
TJ,
Hilton
III,
J.,
Wiley,
D.,
&
Thanos,
K.
(2013).
The
cost
and
quality
of
online
open
textbooks:
Perceptions
of
community
college
faculty
and
students.
First
Monday,
18(1).
http://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v18i1.3972
Bliss,
TJ,
Robinson,
T.
J.,
Hilton
III,
J.,
&
Wiley,
D.
(2013).
An
OER
COUP:
College
Teacher
and
Student
Perceptions
of
Open
Educational
Resources.
Retrieved
from
http://jime.open.ac.uk/articles/10.5334/2013-‐04/
Boston
Consulting
Group.
(2013).
The
Open
Education
Resources
Ecosystem.
Hewlett
Foundation.
Retrieved
from
http://www.hewlett.org/library/consultant-‐publication/open-‐education-‐
resources-‐ecosystem
Clements,
K.
I.,
&
Pawlowski,
J.
M.
(2012).
User-‐oriented
quality
for
OER:
understanding
teachers’
views
on
re-‐use,
quality,
and
trust:
User-‐oriented
quality
for
OER.
Journal
of
Computer
Assisted
Learning,
28(1),
4–14.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-‐2729.2011.00450.x
Cordell,
E.
(n.d.).
Open
Educational
Resources
(taught
students).
Retrieved
January
12,
2016,
from
http://ses.leeds.ac.uk/info/22149/a-‐
z_of_policies_and_key_documents/645/open_educational_resources_taught_students
Council
of
Alberta
University
Students.
(2014,
April).
Building
a
Brighter
Alberta.
Council
of
Alberta
University
Students.
Retrieved
from
http://caus.net/beta/wp-‐content/uploads/2014/04/CAUS-‐
Lobby-‐Document-‐2014-‐final.pdf
Donaldson,
R.
L.,
Nelson,
D.
W.,
&
Thomas,
E.
(2012).
Florida
Student
Textbook
Survey.
Retrieved
from
http://www.openaccesstextbooks.org/pdf/2012_Florida_Student_Textbook_Survey.pdf
Durbin,
R.
(2015,
October
8).
Text
-‐
S.2176
-‐
114th
Congress
(2015-‐2016):
Affordable
College
Textbook
Act
[legislation].
Retrieved
January
12,
2016,
from
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-‐
congress/senate-‐bill/2176/text
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 35
EKOS
Research
Associates.
(2015).
Public
Opinion
on
the
Value
of
Books
in
the
Education
Book
Sector
(p.
37).
Retrieved
from
http://publishers.ca/images/downloads/Book%20Value%20Educ%20Sector%20Final%2031%20
Mar%202015.pdf
Financial
Consumer
Agency
of
Canada.
(2013,
August
14).
Budget
for
student
life—How
much
will
your
post-‐secondary
education
cost?
Retrieved
January
11,
2016,
from
http://www.fcac-‐
acfc.gc.ca/Eng/forConsumers/lifeEvents/payingPostSecEd/Pages/Budgetfo-‐
Unbudget.aspx#books
Government
of
British
Columbia,
Government
of
Alberta,
&
Government
of
Saskatchewan.
Memorandum
of
Understanding
on
Open
Educational
Resources
(2014).
Retrieved
from
http://www.gov.sk.ca/adx/aspx/adxGetMedia.aspx?mediaId=f3d342c4-‐ab61-‐44a4-‐9f96-‐
71ceb7810a5d&PN=Shared
Government
of
Canada.
(2014,
October
16).
Tri-‐Agency
Open
Access
Policy
on
Publications.
Retrieved
January
12,
2016,
from
http://www.science.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=F6765465-‐1
Government
of
Canada,
S.
C.
(2015,
November
30).
Postsecondary
enrolments
by
institution
type,
registration
status,
province
and
sex
(Both
sexes).
Retrieved
January
11,
2016,
from
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-‐tableaux/sum-‐som/l01/cst01/educ71a-‐eng.htm
Hilton,
J.,
&
Laman,
C.
(2012).
One
college’s
use
of
an
open
psychology
textbook.
Open
Learning:
The
Journal
of
Open,
Distance
and
E-‐Learning,
27(3),
265–272.
http://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2012.716657
Kelt,
M.
(2015).
Scotland:
Glasgow
Caledonian
University
OER
Institutional
Policy
-‐
Creative
Commons.
Retrieved
January
12,
2016,
from
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Scotland:_Glasgow_Caledonian_University_OER_Institut
ional_Policy
Klein,
G.
(2015,
August
27).
UMUC
Replaces
Textbooks
with
Embedded
Digital
Resources
|
UMUC.
Retrieved
January
12,
2016,
from
http://www.umuc.edu/globalmedia/embedded-‐digital-‐
resources.cfm#sthash.TxueS2Is.dpbs
Leicester
City
Council.
(n.d.).
Open
Education
for
Schools.
Retrieved
January
12,
2016,
from
http://schools.leicester.gov.uk/ls/open-‐education/
Lumen
Learning.
(n.d.).
Success
Story:
Tidewater
Community
College.
Retrieved
January
12,
2016,
from
http://lumenlearning.com/success-‐story-‐tidewater/
McGreal,
R.,
Anderson,
T.,
&
Conrad,
D.
(2015).
Open
Educational
Resources
in
Canada
2015.
The
International
Review
of
Research
in
Open
and
Distributed
Learning,
16(5).
Retrieved
from
http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2404
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 36
OnCampus
Research.
(2015).
Attitudes
&
Behaviors
Toward
Course
Materials.
Retrieved
from
http://www.nacs.org/portals/nacs/uploaded_documents/PDF/Research/2015_SpringStudentW
atchTakeaways.pdf
Pitt,
R.
(2015,
May).
Exploring
the
Impact
of
Open
Textbooks
Around
the
World.
Presented
at
the
Open
Textbook
Summit,
Vancouver,
BC,
Canada.
Retrieved
from
http://www.slideshare.net/BeckPitt/exploring-‐the-‐impact-‐of-‐open-‐textbooks-‐around-‐the-‐world
Robinson,
T.
J.,
Fischer,
L.,
Wiley,
D.,
&
Hilton,
J.
(2014).
The
Impact
of
Open
Textbooks
on
Secondary
Science
Learning
Outcomes.
Educational
Researcher,
43(7),
341–351.
http://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14550275
Senack,
E.
(2014,
January
27).
SURVEY
SHOWS
STUDENTS
OPTING
OUT
OF
BUYING
HIGH-‐COST
TEXTBOOKS.
Retrieved
January
11,
2016,
from
http://www.uspirg.org/news/usp/survey-‐shows-‐
students-‐opting-‐out-‐buying-‐high-‐cost-‐textbooks
Vancouver
Foundation.
(2015,
May).
Vancouver
Foundation
Open
Licensing
Announcement.
Retrieved
from
https://www.vancouverfoundation.ca/sites/default/files/documents/Vancouver%20Foundation
%20Open%20Licensing%20Announcement%20-‐%2005-‐07-‐2015.pdf
Wiley,
D.
(2012,
January
25).
Utah
Moves
to
Open
Textbooks.
Retrieved
January
12,
2016,
from
http://opencontent.org/blog/archives/2134
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 37
Appendix A: Institutional Types
From
Public
Post
Secondary
Institutions,
BC
Ministry
of
Advanced
Education
and
Understanding
BC’s
Post-‐Secondary
Institutions,
(2014)
Parady
Group
for
BC
Council
of
Administrative
Tribunals
(BCCAT).
Research-Intensive Universities
● The
University
of
British
Columbia
● Simon
Fraser
University
● The
University
of
Victoria
● The
University
of
Northern
British
Columbia
Teaching-Intensive Universities
● Capilano
University
● Emily
Carr
University
of
Art
and
Design
● Kwantlen
Polytechnic
University
● Vancouver
Island
University
● University
of
the
Fraser
Valley
● Royal
Roads
University
● Thompson
Rivers
University
(including
TRU-‐Open
Learning)
Colleges and Institutes
● Camosun
College
● College
of
New
Caledonia
● College
of
the
Rockies
● Douglas
College
● Langara
College
● North
Island
College
● Northern
Lights
College
● Northwest
Community
College
● Okanagan
College
● Selkirk
College
● Vancouver
Community
College
● Justice
Institute
of
British
Columbia
● Nicola
Valley
Institute
of
Technology
● British
Columbia
Institute
of
Technology
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 38
Appendix B: Figures
Figure
1:
Sample
by
Institution
..................................................................................................................
11
Figure
2:
Years
of
teaching
experience
......................................................................................................
12
Figure
3:
Use
of
OER
by
type
of
institution
................................................................................................
13
Figure
4:
OER
use,
adaptation,
and
creation
by
years
of
teaching
experience
..........................................
14
Figure
5:
Most
frequently
cited
purposes
for
using
OER
...........................................................................
15
Figure
6:
Purposes
for
using
OER
by
type
of
institution
.............................................................................
15
Figure
7:
Most
frequently
used
types
of
OER
.............................................................................................
16
Figure
8:
Perceived
quality
of
OER
relative
to
traditional,
proprietary
materials
......................................
16
Figure
9:
Reported
reasons
for
not
using
open
textbooks
from
the
BC
OTP
.............................................
18
Figure
10:
Perceived
importance
of
open
licensing
when
using
resources
for
teaching
...........................
19
Figure
11:
Most
significant
barriers
to
OER
adoption
................................................................................
19
Figure
12:
Most
significant
barriers
to
OER
adoption,
by
type
of
institution
.............................................
20
Figure
13:
Most
significant
enabling
factors
for
using
OER
........................................................................
22
Figure
14:
Most
significant
enabling
factors
for
using
OER,
by
type
of
institution
....................................
23
Figure
15:
Belief
that
students
save
money
by
using
OER
.........................................................................
27
Figure
16:
Belief
that
their
institution
benefits
financially
from
the
use
of
OER
.......................................
27
Figure
17:
Institutional
OER
policies,
by
type
of
institution
.......................................................................
28
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 39
Appendix C: Tables
Table
1:
Intercorrelations
among
uses
of
OER
...........................................................................................
13
Table
2:
Perceived
impact
of
OER
use
on
learners..
...................................................................................
24
Table
3:
Perceived
impact
of
OER
use
on
classroom
practice.
...................................................................
25
EXPLORING FACULTY USE OF OER AT BC POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS| 40