Você está na página 1de 55

Business and Sustainability Models in Open Education Concepts and Examples in 2012

June, 2012 Andreas Meiszner, PhD United Nations University | UNU-MERIT | CCG The Netherlands

The openED project has been funded with support from the European Commission. The content reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use, which may be made of the information contained therein. | openEd 2.0 505667-LLP-1-2009-1-PT-KA3-KA3MP

Copyright Notice: This work is published under a Creative Commons License Attribution-NoncommercialShare Alike 3.0 Unported. Attribution You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Noncommercial You may not use this work for commercial purposes. Share Alike If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. Content Notice: This work is a derivative of the openED project deliverable D9.1 Sustainability framework Version Information: June 19th 2012 v3.1

ii

Table of Content 1 2 3 4 Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 Open Education, OE Services and sustainability ....................................................... 2 A historic perspective: Education services and WTO GATS .................................... 3 Open Education service concepts and supportive market spaces .............................. 4 4.1 Open Education service concepts........................................................................ 4 4.2 Possible examples of Open Education services .................................................. 5 4.3 Supportive market spaces.................................................................................... 6

5 Sustainability Challenges: The Absence of an OE Service Infrastructure and perceived Lack of Business Models ................................................................................. 7 6 Comparison of openED concepts against further OE cases....................................... 8 6.1 Case 1: openED ................................................................................................... 9 6.2 Case 2: openSE.................................................................................................. 12 6.3 Case 3 UNUOpen (UN University)................................................................... 15 6.4 Case 4: MITx / EdX (MIT & Harvard) ............................................................. 18 6.5 Case 5: Coursera (Stanford) .............................................................................. 21 6.6 Case 6: Udacity (Stanford) ................................................................................ 24 6.7 Case 7: Saylor Foundation ................................................................................ 27 6.8 Case 8: OERu .................................................................................................... 30 6.9 Case 9: ict@innovation FOSS Business Training Programme ......................... 33 6.10 Case 10: Khan Academy................................................................................. 35 6.11 Case 11: UoP (University of the People) ........................................................ 38 6.12 Case 12: FTA (Free Technology Academy) ................................................... 41 6.13 Case 13: P2PU (Peer to Peer University)........................................................ 44 Reflections................................................................................................................ 47 7.1 Cost per student by OE component part............................................................ 47 7.2 Extension of regular course offerings (combined) vs OE as a parallel undertaking ................................................................................................................. 48 7.3 Currently existing OE business models & service concepts ............................. 49

Annex - List of section 6 secondary sources .................................................................. 51 References ...................................................................................................................... 52 List of Figures Figure 1 OE value chain for the learning industry (Source: ELIG, 2011) ....................... 5 Figure 2 Cost per student by OE component part; variable, fixed and cost neutral....... 47

1 Introduction There are a number of pathways and measures to allow for the sustainability of Open Education (OE) and they do depend on the respective OE scenarios. Donations, advertisements, or commission on sales are all viable and well-established means of revenue generation, and they are applied successfully within and outside of the education sector. In addition to this OE further potentially allows for cost-sharing and an added value for money, and for the provision of OE services (Meiszner, 2011). Costsharing means to optimize the use of the resources at hand and might be for example achieved through sharing the cost for the production and maintenance of open educational environments, related open educational resources or through shared online learner support. The openED project shows as a example how such a sharing might be realized in practice and how educational institutions can co-produce and co-deliver a course, including how support provision and course facilitation can be equally distributed amongst the participating educational institutions. OE further can provide an added value to traditional educational offerings and therefore could allow for a higher value for the same cost involved, or in the best-case even cost savings (Meiszner, 2011). Another possible mean to allow for sustainability of OE, and at a scalable rate, is seen to lay in the development and provision of OE services and as will be the focus of this report. In the following this report will provide a brief theoretic introduction into the thematic field of OE services, to then compare OE concepts, which have been developed and partially also tested within the openED project, against other currently emerging OE cases from across the globe. As will be shown within the final reflective section of the report, there are a number of common characteristics within all of such attempts. But perhaps more importantly from a sustainability perspective; all of such cases do indicate that OE services are still at its very beginning and that they appear to be at this point in time often limited to the basic and most obvious OE service concepts, namely an individual learner assessment and certification against fees. As will be discussed within this report, OE services do are however not limited to learner assessment and certification against fees. The possible OE value chain that the unbundling of the traditional formal education package and the institutional detachment of education in theory do withhold is still to be explored.

2 Open Education, OE Services and sustainability Over the past years the traditional formal education domain has been subject to a process of opening up resulting in an ever-blurring border between the formal and the informal and allowing traditional formal education to take advantage of the opportunities that participatory Web 2.0 provides (Meiszner, 2010, Weller & Meiszner 2008). Such blurring of borders can be seen both in the use of informal approaches within formal education and release of formal content for less formal use. Over the past years the traditional formal education domain has also started to take more and more advantage of the practicing and authentic learning opportunities that Web 2.0 based real-life context environments provide (Meiszner, 2010). This development bears the potential to systematically bring together traditional formal higher education offers and theoretic subjects, and from across higher education institutions, with practicing and authentic learning opportunities within real-life context environments that Web 2.0 provides. Such developments indicate an immense potential to better support learners, but they also change the context of what is to be understood as traditional formal higher education, and what current or future technologies might need to support. At present there is for example a clear absence of concepts and technical solutions that would allow for education design and provision across technologies and detached from a single education provider. Even in the case of supportive licensing for underlying open educational resources, and the access opportunity to educational communities, the disconnection of the respective technical solutions and environments has turned out so far to be a serious challenge. As a matter of fact current technological solutions are typically not designed or intended to allow for education across higher education institutions, nor to allow all type of learners to learn at any institution of their choice, nor to engage with students from such institutions, nor to obtain support from such institutions. Commercial approaches like Amazon for the retail sector or Sourceforge for software developer community do provide some insights on how Open Education Ecosystems might be perceived. Amazon and Sourceforge both offer examples that bring together competing commercial enterprises within their environments, which in the traditional formal higher education domain do not exist. Thus there is the need to advance knowledge in such new forms of collaboration in the education sector and to contribute towards specifications that emerging Open Education Ecosystems would need to meet.

Based upon those challenges and opportunities that OE potentially withholds, the EU LLP funded openED project has been developing and testing a number of new and service based OE concepts that potentially would allow OE to become sustainable in the future. An underlying assumption of such concepts has been that the detachment of education from a single education institution also would go along with an unbundling of the typically bundled education package. This is to say that within the traditional formal education system a given education institution typically would be the single education provider to their learner population. This starts from initial admission and access to physical or virtual infrastructures, the education itself in form of access opportunities to learning resources, classes, tutorials and so forth, followed by subsequent assessment and evaluations of learners, and commonly ending with recognition and formal credentials of learning outcomes. However, within an OE context this situation might be very different since traditional formal education offers can be provided from across higher education institutions, and under involvement of authentic real-life context environments that the Web 2.0 provides. From a sustainability perspective this allows for the unbundling of the traditional education package and to realize cost-savings and an optimized use of resources, a higher value for money, or for the provision of OE services to the learner itself, or also to education provider. In the following such new and service based OE concepts will be further discussed. 3 A historic perspective: Education services and WTO GATS The understanding of education as a service is not a novelty itself, and as exemplified for example within the World Trade Organizations General Agreement on Trade in Services as following shown. The World Trade Organizations General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) entered into force in 1995. One of the components of this agreement, and a perhaps highly controversial one, has been on Education Services. The European Students Union (ESU, nd) has been arguing for example that education is a public good and that it should be made available to society at large, but that it is not a good to be consumed by those only that are privileged as they can afford to pay for it. Apart from those certainly well justified debates, what the GATS show is that education has been considered as being a service for already more than one decade. The rise of the ICT and the Web are therefore perhaps less a cause for education services, but an enabler to provide those more efficiently and across borders. Very much in line with the GATS

notion of education as a service one further can observe a steady rise in the education service market at which private market actors offer those components of education that can be digitized or delivered at a distance or through networked environments. In 2007 CNET (2007), a popular online news service, noted that education would be the next big growth market and in April 2011 the FTSE1 100 publishing and education group Pearson (US) acquired New York based Schoolnet for $230 million in cash. Schoolnet is a fast-growing education technology company that aligns assessment, curriculum and other services to help individualize instruction and improve teacher effectiveness. The undertakings of such private market actors are well aligned with the recommendations of the UNESCO Report Towards Knowledge Societies (2005) that suggest that the pillars on which genuine knowledge societies can be built consist of a better valuation of existing forms of knowledge to narrow the knowledge divide; a more participatory approach to access to knowledge; and a better integration of knowledge policies (2005, p.188). Though Pearson, as a private for profit undertaking, might not be guided by the objective of building up knowledge societies, the case of Schoolnet provides some evidence for the validity of the UNESCO report recommendations with regards to synergies, participatory approaches and consistent policies. The information above illustrates that education services are not immature, but a well-established sector in many parts of our education systems. The recent opening up of the higher education sector therefore provides perhaps just the necessary stepping-stone to enable the provision of OE services. 4 Open Education service concepts and supportive market spaces

4.1 Open Education service concepts The unbundling and institutional detachment of the traditional formal education package provides the opportunity to develop services around the respective education component parts. Component parts of the traditional formal education package that have been identified alongside the openED project included Open Content, Open Degrees, Open Assessment, Open Learning, Open Tutoring, Open Technology, and Open Communities. Each of such component parts allows for the development and provision of services that might be provided to the learner itself, but also to education provider.

FTSE: an independent company jointly owned by The Financial Times and the London Stock Exchange.

OE services might be described as an on-demand concept at which services are provided around freely available educational offers, such as courses and programmes, and perhaps also with free basic support provision. OE services therefore might be close to a Freemium business model at which basic products or services are available free of charge, while charging a premium for advanced features, functionality, or related products and services. OE services are nonetheless not limited to a Freemium business model and the ultimate business model will also depend on the respective national education systems and the funding models in place. As such OE services are a possibly financial viable mean to allow for the sustainability of OE. As such OE services are also offering a business opportunity for private market actors and as depicted within Figure 1.

Figure 1 OE value chain for the learning industry (Source: ELIG, 2011)

4.2 Possible examples of Open Education services OE services might be provided as well to learners as to education providers. Examples of educational services for learners could include formal assessment, certification, local in-class support, study groups, online tutoring, or mentored internships. Services for education providers might include training, course and program development, (cloud)

hosting and maintenance, online assessment and certification systems, online spaces to provide tutoring, billing systems, physical ID verification and assessment control. The offering of such services thus potentially would allow (higher) education institutions and third party education providers to generate revenues and as such to allow for sustainability. 4.3 Supportive market spaces OE Service concepts are not entirely unrelated to those ones that are already offered within the traditional formal education system. Moreover, OE service concepts would provide clear incentives to education provider such as higher education institutions to deliver course, programs or services through supportive OE market spaces. Altogether such OE market spaces could also benefit other sustainability components, such as costsharing through co-authored production of courses, programs and other types of resources, numerous localization opportunities, or joint support provision. To provide such services would nonetheless require the establishment of supportive market space infrastructures that then would allow for the offering of such services from across education institutions and real-life context environments that the Web 2.0 provides. The unbundling of the traditional education package could then allow education providers as well as learners to customize education. Learners could decide the preferred mode of study, be it the traditional one, be it a mix of traditional and peer studying with service subscriptions from one or more providers, or be it learning for free. With this, such an education market space would follow common market principles in which supply and demand determine the price, and in which high quality education could potentially be provided at local economic rates. The openED project has been conceptualizing and testing such a market space approach and the results suggest that the joint offer of education from across institutions and competition at a service level might not be a conflict in itself. A conflict potential nonetheless, and as experienced within the openED case, might lay within the incompatibility of national legal frameworks that are at current in place with OE service and market space concepts. The OERu presented within section 6 and that is currently under development is pursuing a similar approach, by bundling strength across the participating higher education institutions for curriculum design, the joint use of supportive virtual infrastructures (e.g. for learner support), and by allowing participating education institutions to provide services to their local and also virtual distributed learner population. Given that the OERu is still at its

very beginning it is however not known if national legal frameworks that are at current in place are of an equal challenge to be overcome as experienced within the openED case. 5 Sustainability Challenges: The Absence of an OE Service Infrastructure and perceived Lack of Business Models At this point in time the concept of Open Education, as well as of Open Education Services, is still in its infancy and there is the absence of well-established market principles and concepts. The European Learning Industry Group (ELIG), as an openED project partner, has been carrying out a number of stakeholder consultations. The findings of such consultations (ELIG, 2011) highlighted in this regard that looking at similar market approaches, notably the Open Source Software one, shows that such new models are initially often confined to the specialist and fringe development communities. In this Open Source Software case commercial software companies long looked on Open Source Software, but did not embrace the concept and failed to see how Open Source Software could support their highly commercialised world. Twenty years on, Open Source Software is routinely behind many consumer and industrial products, such as satellite boxes, smart phones, PCs, etc. ELIG has further been carrying out a survey across the breadth of the learning industry (ELIG, 2011) that shows that there are clear indications that the commercial learning industry has not yet fully engaged with Open Education (OE). The commercial hesitation to adopt OE is in large part due to a perceived lack of associated new business models. Despite this perceived lack of associated new business models, education services are nonetheless already well established for more then a decade as has been detailed within section 3. What might be thus indeed a novelty is to provide services within an OE setting that is characterized by institutional detachment, the unbundling of the traditionally bundled education package into its component parts, and the larger number of stakeholders that might act as education provider. This certainly does require a certain infrastructure to support the offering of such services and as has been discussed within section 4. The comparison of currently existing OE case that is provided within the following section suggest however that such supportive infrastructure does not exist at this point in time.

6 Comparison of openED concepts against further OE cases The openED course has been implementing and testing a OE service infrastructure aimed at enabling third party education providers to offer services to the course participants, be it for free or against fee. This service infrastructure had been implemented alongside the openED piloting phase and it has been considering a limited number of services such as in-class support, virtual tutoring, and marked assessment and certification. During the openED piloting phase a number of OE service providers have been offering services for the course, though at this point in time remains unclear to which degree those services have been actually used and whether or not the implemented service infrastructure and approach does workout as envisioned and could be ultimately taken further from a research project level into a more formal and mainstream education context. Given that OE and OE services are still at a relatively early stage the openED concept can also not be compared against well-established and mature OE cases, which do not exist at this point in time. However, and to allow for a better understanding on the potential applicability of the openED concepts and its service infrastructure this section will compare a number of currently emergent similar OE initiatives. The purpose of this comparison is thus to gain a better understanding on the state of the art of OE concepts and service approaches and to identify similarities and deviations. The following provided information has been collected via desktop research within the investigated OE case websites or via third party sources as detailed within the Annex a.

6.1 Case 1: openED Characteristics / Cases Maturity Country Funding Stakeholder Formal / Non-formal education approach Traditional, Parallel or Combined approach (e.g. one course many provider / many provision modes) Education materials Localizations / Versioning Modularity Bundling of education package Institutional attachment Training of Trainers Programme Technology

openED Research Europe Grant (EU, EACEA). Higher Education Institutions, Adult Education Provider, Web based communities and social spaces. Formal and non-formal. Combined approach of traditional and open learning. One course many provider / many provision modes concept.

Use of educational materials from participating education provider. Use of educational material now available for free on the internet. Collaborative development of curriculum and course design. Yes, but no supportive technology in place Yes, course broken down in modules. Unbundled, broken down in component parts (course design, lectures, support, assessment, certification, etc.). Detached from single institution. Yes, short training course. Available and adapted OSS & web based technologies.

Licenses (Content & technologies) Pedagogy Learning, Tutoring, Support and Communities

Open licenses. Online versions of university level courses. Problem, inquiry, collaborative based learning. Online chat (IRC) sessions organized by the course team from participating education institutions. Forum based support provided by peers and as required by the course team from participating education institutions.

(Re-)Use/Integration of (A) learning outcomes (assignments, tests, etc.) and/or (B) internship reports Use/Integration of (A) real life learning environments and/or (B) internships Portability of learning and outcomes Track of learning pathways within internal and external learning environments Assessment Degrees / Credentialing / Recognition

Directory for/with learner assignments, including grading and evaluations.

Yes, such as Scribd, Slideshare, etc.

No. No.

Yes. Open Evaluation and Rating system for submitted assignments. Both, peer-assessment and assessment via OE service provider (fees might apply). Yes, automated Self-Print certificate or formal recognition via OE service provider (fees might apply).

10

Quality Assurance Service Concepts & Business Models

Responsibility of participating education institutions and based on their respective quality assurance mechanisms. System for rating and evaluation of the quality of third party OE service provider. Cost-sharing, higher value for money and OE services to learners such as: - Formal assessment - Certification - Local in-class support - Study groups - Online tutoring. www.open-ed.eu

Other URLs

11

6.2 Case 2: openSE Characteristics / Cases Maturity Country Funding Stakeholder

openSE Research Europe Grant (EU, EACEA). Higher Education Institutions, Adult Education Provider, Web based communities and social spaces, including OSS developer communities (via internships). Non-formal practice based approach focusing on authentic and real life learning. Combined approach of traditional and open learning.

Formal / Non-formal education approach Traditional, Parallel or Combined approach (e.g. one course many provider / many provision modes) Education materials

Use of educational materials from participating education provider. Use of educational material now available for free on the internet. Use of educational material from real-life learning environments (OSS developer communities). Collaborative development of curriculum and course design. Yes, but no supportive technology in place Yes, materials are made available by tasks and/or by learning objectives. Unbundled, focused on non-formal component parts (internships, p2p knowledge exchange, shared 2nd level support etc.). Detached from single institution.

Localizations / Versioning Modularity Bundling of education package Institutional attachment

12

Training of Trainers Programme Technology Licenses (Content & technologies) Pedagogy Learning, Tutoring, Support and Communities

Yes, short training course. Available and adapted OSS & web based technologies. Open licenses, but support of closed licensed third party offers. Online versions of university level courses. Problem, inquiry, collaborative and project based learning. Forum based support provided by peers and as required by the course team from participating education institutions. Access to support system of embedded authentic real-live environments (e.g. OSS developer communities).

(Re-)Use/Integration of (A) learning outcomes (assignments, tests, etc.) and/or (B) internship reports Use/Integration of (A) real life learning environments and/or (B) internships Portability of learning and outcomes Track of learning pathways within internal and external learning environments Assessment

Directory for/with learner internship project reports, including grading and evaluations. Directory for/with learner assignments, including grading and evaluations. Directory with learning resources from authentic real-live environments (e.g. OSS developer communities).

Use/Integration of authentic real-live environments (e.g. OSS developer communities) as part of a virtual internship. Yes, via Portable Education Portfolios (PEPS) that allows for single sign on across learning spaces and leveraging of all types of data across such spaces (3). Yes, via Portable Education Portfolios (PEPS) that allows for single sign on across learning spaces and leveraging of all types of data across such spaces (3). Yes. Open Evaluation and Rating system for submitted internship reports. Both, peer-assessment and assessment via OE service provider (fees might apply).

13

Degrees / Credentialing / Recognition Quality Assurance Service Concepts & Business Models Other URLs

Yes, automated Self-Print certificate. Responsibility of participating education institutions and based on their respective quality assurance mechanisms. Cost-sharing and higher value for money through bundling of 2nd level and peer support and learner generated contents. www.openSE.net

14

6.3 Case 3 UNUOpen (UN University) Characteristics / Cases UNUOpen (UN University) Maturity Concept Country Global Funding Conceptual phase only. Stakeholder Higher Education Institutions, Adult Education Provider, Web based communities and social spaces, public and private sector entities (via internship programme). Formal / Non-formal Formal traditional course based education approach, education approach non-formal practice based approach focusing on authentic and real life learning. Traditional, Parallel or Combined approach of traditional and open learning. One course many provider / many provision modes concept. Combined approach (e.g. one course many provider / many provision modes) Education materials Use of educational materials from participating education provider. Use of educational material now available for free on the internet. Collaborative development of curriculum and course design. Localizations / Yes, via supportive technologies (analogue to Amazon / Sourceforge concepts). Versioning Modularity Yes, to support re-bundling and education provision in multi contexts, across institutions and collaborative/jointly. Bundling of education package Institutional attachment Unbundled, broken down in component parts (development, lectures, support, assessment, certification, internships, p2p knowledge exchange, shared 2nd level support, etc.). Detached from single institution.

15

Training of Trainers Programme Technology

Yes, via partnership & training programme. Two core technologies. (A) Higher level technological OE system framework analogue to Amazon & Sourceforge concept that integrates available third party technologies (e.g. common OSS & proprietary LMS systems, Content repositories, web based technologies, etc.) and allows for multi-technology support. (B) Portable Education Portfolios. Open licenses, but support of closed licensed third party offers. Online versions of university level courses. Problem, inquiry, collaborative and project based learning. Online lectures or support chat (IRC) sessions organized by the course team from participating education institutions. Forum based support provided by peers and as required by the course team from participating education institutions. Remote participation opportunities at classroom based lectures for online learners within the courses of participating education institutions. Access to support system of embedded authentic real-live environments (e.g. OSS developer communities). Directories for/with learner assignments and internship project reports, including their grading and evaluations. Directory with learning resources from authentic real-live environments (e.g. OSS developer communities).

Licenses (Content & technologies) Pedagogy Learning, Tutoring, Support and Communities

(Re-)Use/Integration of (A) learning outcomes (assignments, tests, etc.) and/or (B) internship reports Use/Integration of (A) real life learning environments and/or (B) internships Portability of learning and outcomes

Yes, flexible embedment options to integrate authentic real-live environments into courses or programmes.

Yes, via Portable Education Portfolios (PEPS) that allows for single sign on across learning spaces and leveraging of all types of data across such spaces (3).

16

Track of learning pathways within internal and external learning environments Assessment Degrees / Credentialing / Recognition Quality Assurance Service Concepts & Business Models

Yes, via Portable Education Portfolios (PEPS) and through OE software system framework (4).

Yes. Open Evaluation and Rating system for submitted assignments and internship reports. Both, peer-assessment and assessment via OE service provider (fees might apply). Yes, automated Self-Print certificate based on Portable Education Portfolios (PEPS information and formal recognition via OE service provider (fees might apply). Responsibility of participating education institutions and based on their respective quality assurance mechanisms. System for rating and evaluation of the quality of third party OE service provider. Cost-sharing and higher value for money through bundling of 2nd level and peer support and learner generated contents. Traditional funding and sustainability models for traditional course & program delivery. OE services to learners and to third party OE service provider via marketplace concept, incl. commission on sales and shared revenues: Learner perspective: - Formal assessment - Certification - Local in-class support - Study groups - Online tutoring Provider perspective: ! Commission on service fees generated through UNU Open ! Course & Programme hosting & update services.

Other URLs

n/a

17

6.4 Case 4: MITx / EdX (MIT & Harvard) Characteristics / Cases MITx / EdX (MIT & Harvard) Maturity Under development Country USA Funding Own funding ($60 million). Stakeholder Transformational partnership of MIT and Harvard in online education to collaborate to enhance campus-based teaching and learning and build a global community of online learners (1). Formal / Non-formal education approach Traditional, Parallel or Combined approach (e.g. one course many provider / many provision modes) Education materials Localizations / Versioning Modularity Bundling of education package Institutional attachment Training of Trainers Programme Formal traditional course based education approach. Parallel. Enriching traditional on-campus experience while offering high level online education to learners around the world (1).

Use of educational materials from MIT and Harvard. No. Yes, course broken down in modules. Traditional version bundled; Open version bundled. Attached to single education institution. No.

18

Technology

Online learning platform that [envisioned]: organizes and presents course material to enable students to learn worldwide features interactive instruction, online laboratories and student-to-student and student-to-professor communication allows for the individual assessment of any students work and allows students who demonstrate their mastery of subjects to earn certificates awarded by MITx operates on an open-source, scalable software infrastructure in order to make it continuously improving and readily available to other educational institutions, such as universities and K-12 school systems. Open and closed licenses. Online versions of university level courses (1). Video lesson segments, embedded quizzes, immediate automated feedback, student-ranked questions and answers, online laboratories, and student paced learning. Homework can be published at the course wiki.

Licenses (Content & technologies) Pedagogy Learning, Tutoring, Support and Communities (Re-)Use/Integration of (A) learning outcomes (assignments, tests, etc.) and/or (B) internship reports Use/Integration of (A) real life learning environments and/or (B) internships Portability of learning and outcomes Track of learning pathways within internal and external learning environments

No

No No

19

Assessment Degrees / Credentialing / Recognition

Yes, automated and optional (against fees) personalized. No course credit, degree or certificate from the universities involved. Instead, successful students can hope for a signed letter of completion from their well-known instructor or a certificate from the organization (e.g. MITx brand label) (1). Non-formal recognition possible via badges. Responsibility of participating education institutions and based on their respective quality assurance mechanisms. Yes, via MITx /EdX brand name, and assessment/credentials against fees. The edX platform will enable the study of which teaching methods and tools are most successful. The findings of this research will be used to inform how faculty use technology in their teaching, which will enhance the experience for students on campus and for the millions expected to take advantage of these new online offerings. http://www.edxonline.org

Quality Assurance Service Concepts & Business Models Other

URLs

20

6.5 Case 5: Coursera (Stanford) Characteristics / Cases Coursera (Stanford) Maturity Under development Country USA Funding Funding ($16 million) from Doerr & Sandell Stakeholder For profit start-up founded by two Stanford University computer science professors, Coursera is partnering with that school, as well as Princeton University, the University of Michigan and the University of Pennsylvania to offer classes in disciplines including computer science, medicine, literature and history. Formal / Non-formal education approach Traditional, Parallel or Combined approach (e.g. one course many provider / many provision modes) Education materials Localizations / Versioning Modularity Bundling of education package Institutional attachment Training of Trainers Programme Formal traditional course based education approach. Parallel, HEI university-level education.

Lecture videos, which are broken into small chunks, and integrated quiz questions. No Yes, course broken down in modules. Open version bundled. Attached to participating education institutions. No

21

Technology

Courseras learning management service (LMS) platform can be used internally by universities to revamp their online course programs. The plan is to shake up how most college classes are typically run with long, boring lectures. Ng and Koller believe that short online video lectures and interactive assignments, provided with Courseras LMS, will open up more time in classrooms for discussions, case studies, and more riveting presentations that will keep students engaged (9). All content or other materials available on the Sites, including but not limited to code, images, text, layouts, arrangements, displays, illustrations, audio and video clips, HTML files and other content are the property of Coursera and/or its affiliates or licensors and are protected by copyright, patent and/or other proprietary intellectual property rights under the United States and foreign laws. Online versions of university level courses. There is a Q&A forum in which students rank questions and answers, so that the most important questions and the best answers bubble to the top. Teaching staff will monitor these forums, so that important questions not answered by other students can be addressed. Where essays are required, especially in the humanities and social sciences, the system relies on the students themselves to grade their fellow students work, in effect turning them into teaching assistants. No, though in principle possible since assignments are systematically collected and stored (including their evaluations).

Licenses (Content & technologies)

Pedagogy Learning, Tutoring, Support and Communities

(Re-)Use/Integration of (A) learning outcomes (assignments, tests, etc.) and/or (B) internship reports Use/Integration of (A) real life learning environments and/or (B) internships Portability of learning

No

No

22

and outcomes Track of learning pathways within internal and external learning environments Assessment No

Peer-evaluation. To participate in peer evaluation one must first submit an assignment, and to receive credit for completing an assignment one must also complete the peer evaluation. That means that an assignment will be reviewed by about five other people. Statement of Accomplishment that one earns based on the work submitted Responsibility of participating education institutions and based on their respective quality assurance mechanisms. Business Model still under development. One of their main backers, the venture capitalist John Doerr, a Kleiner investment partner, said via e-mail that he saw a clear business model: Yes. Even with free courses. From a community of millions of learners some should opt in for valuable, premium services. Those revenues should fund investment in tools, technology and royalties to faculty and universities. (6).

Degrees / Credentialing / Recognition Quality Assurance Service Concepts & Business Models

Other URLs

http://www.coursera.org

23

6.6 Case 6: Udacity (Stanford) Characteristics / Cases Udacity (Stanford) Maturity Under development Country USA Funding Funding ($5 million (8)) from Charles River Ventures (5) and corporate partnership with Pearson VUE (7). Stakeholder Formal / Non-formal education approach Traditional, Parallel or Combined approach (e.g. one course many provider / many provision modes) Education materials Localizations / Versioning Modularity Bundling of education package Institutional attachment Training of Trainers Programme Technology For profit start-up founded by three roboticists who believed much of the educational value of their university classes could be offered online. Formal traditional course based education approach. Parallel, non HEI university-level education.

Use of educational materials from participating education provider. Use of educational material now available for free on the internet. No Yes, course broken down in modules. Open version bundled. Detached from single institution. No Online learning platform to use the economics of the Internet to connect some of the greatest teachers to hundreds of thousands of students all over the world.

24

Licenses (Content & technologies) Pedagogy Learning, Tutoring, Support and Communities

Freely available materials, unclear licensing. Online versions of university level courses. Video lessons. Forum (Q&A) based support provided by peers and as required by the course team. Recorded answers by the course team of selected questions. Life office hours with course team. No

(Re-)Use/Integration of (A) learning outcomes (assignments, tests, etc.) and/or (B) internship reports Use/Integration of (A) real life learning environments and/or (B) internships Portability of learning and outcomes Track of learning pathways within internal and external learning environments Assessment Degrees / Credentialing / Recognition Quality Assurance

No

No No

Yes, automated. Badges to recognise actions that benefit the community. For initial AI course: Students get a letter with their grade and class rank, signed by the professors in the name of the professor (5). Responsibility of participating educators.

25

Service Concepts & Business Models

Business Model still under development. One possibility would be to double as a recruiting agency for tech companies and engineering firms, says Stavens. Rather than granting credentials that students might use to impress employers, Udacity could cut to the chase by headhunting within its student body on behalf of companies, matching students to jobs and collecting recruiting fees (5). http://www.udacity.com

Other URLs

26

6.7 Case 7: Saylor Foundation Characteristics / Cases Saylor Foundation Maturity Under development Country USA Funding Saylor Foundation funding and donations. Stakeholder Faculty and peer-review teams from various higher education institutions to package primarily open license educational materials into degree level programs. Saylor is collaborating with both p2pu and the University of the People to create and share courses, and some of Saylor's math courses come from the Khan Academy. Thus there seems to be a community working with some cooperation towards similar goals (1). Formal / Non-formal education approach Traditional, Parallel or Combined approach (e.g. one course many provider / many provision modes) Education materials Localizations / Versioning Modularity Bundling of education package Institutional attachment Formal traditional course based education approach. Parallel, HEI college level education.

Use of educational material now available for free on the internet. They repackage this material into majors, and incorporate it into their individual educational approaches (1). No Yes, course broken down in modules. Not applicable as content only Not applicable as content only

27

Training of Trainers Programme Technology Licenses (Content & technologies) Pedagogy Learning, Tutoring, Support and Communities (Re-)Use/Integration of (A) learning outcomes (assignments, tests, etc.) and/or (B) internship reports Use/Integration of (A) real life learning environments and/or (B) internships Portability of learning and outcomes Track of learning pathways within internal and external learning environments Assessment Degrees / Credentialing / Recognition

Not applicable as content only Online content repository Except where otherwise noted, content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. Rather rudimentary in terms of use of pedagogy and technology compared to what one finds in well funded online programs (1). Any person can sign up for a course at any time, and it does not appear that there is any peer learning involved at present (1). No

No

No No

No It is not clear whether Saylor intends to offer a degree to students who succeed in passing the prescribed courses (1).

28

Quality Assurance Service Concepts & Business Models Other URLs

Responsibility of participating educators. Donations and grants http://www.saylor.org

29

6.8 Case 8: OERu Characteristics / Cases Maturity Country Funding Stakeholder

OERu Under development New Zealand (Global) Hewlett Foundation funding and donations. The OER university is a virtual collaboration of like-minded institutions committed to creating flexible pathways for OER learners to gain formal academic credit. Current network HEIs are University of Southern Queensland (AU), Otago Polytechnic (NZ), Athabasca University (CA), Gujarat Open University (IN), Empire State College (US), Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology (NZ), NorthTec (NZ), Open Polytechnic (NZ), Southern New Hampshire University (US), Thompson Rivers University (CA), University of Canterbury (NZ), University of South Africa (SA), University of Wollongong (NZ), Thomas Edison State College (US), University of the South Pacific (FJ). Formal traditional course based education approach. Parallel, HEI university-level education with the option of obtaining credentials by participating HEIs.

Formal / Non-formal education approach Traditional, Parallel or Combined approach (e.g. one course many provider / many provision modes) Education materials Localizations / Versioning Modularity Bundling of education package

Courseware from network HEIs and other open-education material found on the Internet. Unclear, still under discussion. Yes Unbundled. Local training provider decide about the type of services offered to their learning population.

30

Institutional attachment Training of Trainers Programme Technology

Detached from single institution. Yes, via wiki based guidelines and/or workshops. Open Source licensed core technologies (notable MediaWiki), which needs to be integrated with the LMS systems of partnering HEIs (currently Blackboard, Moodle, myUnisa, Sakai). At current OERu is less focusing on technology development, which appears to take on an equal importance within the wider OERu framework amongst e.g. content, pedagogy, support, assessment, certification, etc. Open licenses for OERu. Currently under development. Currently under development. Intended use of volunteering system, including peer to peer support currently under test and based on Askbot Q&A forum software. Currently under development and therefore unclear, though open assessment is named and thus could potentially allow for re-use / integration of learning outcomes.

Licenses (Content & technologies) Pedagogy Learning, Tutoring, Support and Communities (Re-)Use/Integration of (A) learning outcomes (assignments, tests, etc.) and/or (B) internship reports Use/Integration of (A) real life learning environments and/or (B) internships Portability of learning and outcomes

At current apparently not foreseen.

Currently under development and therefore unclear; but in principle would need to be available to allow for assessment and credentials via partner HEIs.

31

Track of learning pathways within internal and external learning environments Assessment Degrees / Credentialing / Recognition Quality Assurance Service Concepts & Business Models Other URLs

At current apparently not foreseen.

Yes, peer assessment as well as personal assessment via partner HEIs. Yes, via partner HEIs Responsibility of participating HEIs. Yes, assessment and certification against fees are foreseen. http://wikieducator.org/OER_university

32

6.9 Case 9: ict@innovation FOSS Business Training Programme Characteristics / Cases ict@innovation FOSS Business Training Programme Maturity Production Country Africa / Germany Funding Capacity building grant via German GIZ programme. Stakeholder Volunteers from different backgrounds, incl. HEI and professional education educators Formal / Non-formal education approach Traditional, Parallel or Combined approach (e.g. one course many provider / many provision modes) Education materials Localizations / Versioning Modularity Bundling of education package Institutional attachment Training of Trainers Programme Technology Licenses (Content & technologies) Pedagogy Formal traditional course based education approach. Parallel, professional level education. One course many provider / many provision modes concept.

The educational programme of ict@innovation is a collaborative production and exploitation process based on open licensed course materials. Yes, with the possibility of feeding back localized versions into the ict@innovation portal. Yes Unbundled. Local training provider decide about the type of services offered to their learning population. Detached from single institution. Yes, via training programme Open Source licensed LMS systems based on Drupal and Dokeos. Open licenses. Case based learning.

33

Learning, Tutoring, Support and Communities (Re-)Use/Integration of (A) learning outcomes (assignments, tests, etc.) and/or (B) internship reports Use/Integration of (A) real life learning environments and/or (B) internships Portability of learning and outcomes Track of learning pathways within internal and external learning environments Assessment Degrees / Credentialing / Recognition Quality Assurance Service Concepts & Business Models Other URLs

Self and peer support for online learning. Tutor based support for local learning population (either in-class or online). Partially via potential availability of past assignments / tests within the LMS system.

Yes, via associated mentored internship programme.

No No

Within the responsibility of local education provider. Within the responsibility of local education provider. For course delivery within the responsibility of local education provider. For programme design within the responsibility of participating educators. For the overall ict@innovation programme: Volunteering and added value / cost sharing amongst volunteers. For the individual volunteer / local training provider: Fees for in-class support, assessment, certification, etc. http://www.ict-innovation.fossfa.net/

34

6.10 Case 10: Khan Academy Characteristics / Cases Khan Academy Maturity Production (Advanced) Country USA Funding Donation from Ann Doerr, large grants from Google ($2 million) and the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation ($1.5 million). Stakeholder The Khan Academy is a not-for-profit with the goal of changing education for the better by providing a free worldclass education to anyone anywhere. All of the site's resources are available to anyone. It doesn't matter if you are a student, teacher, home-schooler, principal, adult. Formal / Non-formal Topic based education approach. education approach Traditional, Parallel or Combined approach of traditional and open learning. Traditional education, notably teachers, can make use of the Combined approach (e.g. system and have unprecedented visibility into what their students are learning and doing on the Khan Academy. one course many provider / many provision modes) Education materials Over 2700 10-20 minute long videos on a huge number of K-16 subjects. Most videos are made by the founder Salman Khan, but some come from other sources (1). Localizations / Versioning Yes, e.g. translation to other languages. Plan to allow teachers around the globe to use the Knowledge Map to build their own courses and also have access to the in-depth analytic tools Khan Academy is providing at the back-end, but the content must be put up to Khan Academys non-commercial public domain (10). Yes Unbundled, since only some component parts are offered (e.g. Full courses or programmes are not supported).

Modularity Bundling of education package

35

Institutional attachment Training of Trainers Programme Technology Licenses (Content & technologies) Pedagogy

Detached from single institution. Yes, sort of including guidance to the teacher through real-time metrics and reporting on student performance. Open Source licensed LMS system. Open licenses. Individualizing learning by replacing one-size-fits-all lectures with self-paced learning. Taking a mastery-based approach to learning critical knowledge and skills. Creating collaborative learning environments with students solving problems together and tutoring one another. Using focused coaching by the teacher to address students' individual needs. Student can access a number of tools that help to visualize progress and the growing knowledge map. Similarly, teachers who use Khan material can get class statistics (1). Support is available e.g. via Q&A forums, custom selfpaced learning tools, or a custom profile, points, and badges to measure progress. No

Learning, Tutoring, Support and Communities (Re-)Use/Integration of (A) learning outcomes (assignments, tests, etc.) and/or (B) internship reports Use/Integration of (A) real life learning environments and/or (B) internships Portability of learning and outcomes

No

No

36

Track of learning pathways within internal and external learning environments Assessment Degrees / Credentialing / Recognition Quality Assurance Service Concepts & Business Models Other

Yes, via portfolio system.

Automated tests for open learning. Teachers can access all of their students' data to support their assessments by summary of class performance as a whole or diving into a particular student's profile. Badges and points for open learning. Responsibility of KA. Donations and grants Teachers and coaches can access all of their students' data. You can get a summary of class performance as a whole or dive into a particular student's profile to figure out exactly which topics are problematic. The class profile lets coaches glance at their dashboard and quickly figure out how to best spend their time teaching. Khan Academy empowers teachers by giving them access to the data they should've had for years.

URLs

http://www.khanacademy.org

37

6.11 Case 11: UoP (University of the People) Characteristics / Cases UoP (University of the People) Maturity Production (Advanced) Country USA Funding $1 million seed funding through founder. Stakeholder University of the People (UoPeople) is the worlds tuition-free, non-profit, online academic institution dedicated to opening access to higher education globally. Based on the principles of e-learning and peer-to-peer learning, coupled with open-source technology and Open Educational Resources, UoPeople is designed to provide access to undergraduate degree programs for qualified individuals, despite financial, geographic or societal constraints. UoPeople has partnered with Yale University for research, New York University to accept students and HewlettPackard for internships. Formal / Non-formal education approach Traditional, Parallel or Combined approach (e.g. one course many provider / many provision modes) Education materials Formal traditional course based education approach. Parallel, HEI university-level education.

Basic course material is assembled from open educational materials, some from the Open Courseware Consortium (1). Course designers who modify and enhance the materials. An in house group develops assessment standards for the degrees (1). No Information not available. Bundled

Localizations / Versioning Modularity Bundling of education package

38

Institutional attachment Training of Trainers Programme Technology Licenses (Content & technologies) Pedagogy

Attached to single institution, though partnership developments under preparation (e.g. NYU, US). Apparently for volunteering academics. Online learning platform (access to registered students only). Unclear To look at a course one apparently needs to matriculate in order to do so (1). Peer to peer learning is considered core to the approach, so students in a course are divided into groups of 20-30 that work together online on weekly assignments. Each group has an instructor who facilitates the peer to peer process by e.g. assuring that it is working towards correct outcomes, and suggesting other sources of information as needed (1). UoPeople operates on a limited budget without sacrificing the quality of education by employing collaborative and open-source e-learning. UoPeople embraces peer-to-peer and collaborative learning to provide university-level programs to a global student body. Within the online study communities, students share resources, exchange ideas, discuss weekly topics, submit assignments and take exams. Unclear

Learning, Tutoring, Support and Communities (Re-)Use/Integration of (A) learning outcomes (assignments, tests, etc.) and/or (B) internship reports Use/Integration of (A) real life learning environments and/or (B) internships Portability of learning and outcomes

Partnered with Hewlett-Packard for internships.

Unclear

39

Track of learning pathways within internal and external learning environments Assessment Degrees / Credentialing / Recognition Quality Assurance Service Concepts & Business Models

Unclear

Personalized assessment. Students who successfully complete the degree requirements are awarded a bachelor's degree by the University of the People. The University is not accredited, but the website says that it is seeking accreditation at this time (1). Responsibility of UoP and based on their respective quality assurance mechanisms. UoPeople offers tuition-free education, and presently charges only a nominal Application Processing Fee of between $10-$50 that is adjusted on sliding scale based on the economic situation in each applicants country or place of residence. In the future, UoPeople plans to implement Exam Processing Fees of between $10-$100 that will operate on the same sliding scaled as the Application Processing Fee.

Other URLs

http://www.uopeople.org/

40

6.12 Case 12: FTA (Free Technology Academy) Characteristics / Cases FTA (Free Technology Academy) Maturity Production (Advanced) Country Europe Funding Grant (EU, EACEA); Revenues; Donations Stakeholder The Free Technology Academy is hosted by the Free Knowledge Institute (FKI). The founding partners are the FKI and two European universities: the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (Spain) and the Open Universiteit of the Netherlands. The Associate Partner Network adds to the founding base with a widespread network of organisations that share a common interest in offering courses in the area of Free Technology. Formal / Non-formal education approach Traditional, Parallel or Combined approach (e.g. one course many provider / many provision modes) Education materials Localizations / Versioning Modularity Bundling of education package Institutional attachment Training of Trainers Programme Formal traditional course based education approach. Parallel, HEI university-level education with the option of transferring to full degree programmes of participating HEIs.

The educational programme of the Free Technology Academy is a collaborative production and exploitation process based on open licensed course materials. No Yes Bundled Detached from single institution. Yes

41

Technology Licenses (Content & technologies) Pedagogy Learning, Tutoring, Support and Communities (Re-)Use/Integration of (A) learning outcomes (assignments, tests, etc.) and/or (B) internship reports Use/Integration of (A) real life learning environments and/or (B) internships Portability of learning and outcomes Track of learning pathways within internal and external learning environments Assessment Degrees / Credentialing / Recognition Quality Assurance

The software used in the FTA virtual campus is Free Software and is built upon an Open Standards framework. Open licenses. Online versions of university level courses. A course methodology based on group debates, individual and group assignments and peer and tutor feedback. Online tutored sessions organized by the course team from participating education institutions, peer learning/support No

No

Partially, via transfer of credits to participating HEIs. No

Tutor based assessment Certificate that is recognized by participating HEIs. Responsibility of participating education institutions and based on their respective quality assurance mechanisms.

42

Service Concepts & Business Models Other URLs

Learners interested in a certain topic form a group of peers willing to take part in a self-organised course and commit to contribute an agreed tuition fee to cover the course's costs. Discounts can be obtained by the group when reaching a certain number of participants. http://ftacademy.org/

43

6.13 Case 13: P2PU (Peer to Peer University) Characteristics / Cases P2PU (Peer to Peer University) Maturity Production (Advanced) Country USA (Global) Funding Grants from various donors Stakeholder Volunteers from different backgrounds, incl. HEI educators. At P2PU, people work together to learn a particular topic by completing tasks, assessing individual and group work, and providing constructive feedback. The Peer 2 Peer University is a grassroots open education project that organizes learning outside of institutional walls and gives learners recognition for their achievements. P2PU creates a model for lifelong learning alongside traditional formal higher education. Leveraging the internet and educational materials openly available online, P2PU enables high-quality low-cost education opportunities. Formal / Non-formal education approach Traditional, Parallel or Combined approach (e.g. one course many provider / many provision modes) Education materials Non-formal, topic based education approach. Parallel. p2pu as an institution equivalent that provides a space for asynchronous discussions with other students (2). One course, one environment, potentially many provider.

Courseware from leading universities and other open-education material found on the Internet. Volunteers, who are expected to have some background in the subjects, submit ideas for courses, create syllabi of open courseware, and organize group study (2). No Yes, topic focus. Relatively seen unbundled since a variety of providers offer different components of the education package.

Localizations / Versioning Modularity Bundling of education package

44

Institutional attachment Training of Trainers Programme Technology Licenses (Content & technologies) Pedagogy Learning, Tutoring, Support and Communities (Re-)Use/Integration of (A) learning outcomes (assignments, tests, etc.) and/or (B) internship reports Use/Integration of (A) real life learning environments and/or (B) internships Portability of learning and outcomes Track of learning pathways within internal and external learning environments Assessment

Detached from single institution. Not dedicated, but number of guidance available to providers/volunteers. Online learning environment by thematic area. Open licenses. Varies by offer. Volunteer teachers guide students working in groups through open courseware (2). Varies by offer.

Varies by offer.

Potentially via Mozilla Open Badges Backpack. Potentially via Mozilla Open Badges Backpack.

The communities work on tasks, then assess individual and group work, and provide feedback.p2pu awards badges for achievement as part of the Open Badges project (1).

45

Degrees / Credentialing / Recognition Quality Assurance Service Concepts & Business Models Other URLs

Open Badges Project to recognize skills, achievement, and learning beyond the classroom, issued by organizations, courses and communities (1). Responsibility of participants. Donations and grants http://p2pu.org

46

7 Reflections The foregoing sections provided a comparative overview of the OE concepts that have been developed and partially also tested within the openED project against other currently emerging OE cases from across the globe. This comparative overview is providing a number of insights with regards to the maturity and state of the art of OE itself and also on possible avenues towards allowing for the sustainability of OE and as following reflected on. 7.1 Cost per student by OE component part Component parts of the traditional formal education package that have been identified alongside the openED project included Open Content, Open Degrees, Open Assessment, Open Learning, Open Tutoring, Open Technology, and Open Communities. The cost per student for each of such component parts, within an OE setting is seen to vary and as depicted within Figure 2.

Figure 1 Cost per student by OE component part; variable, fixed and cost neutral

Learning in general is a self-directed action and therefore understood as being cost neutral from an education institution perspective. Equally Open Learning might be considered as being cost neutral, since no institutional resources are consumed by learning as such. The cost of developing and maintaining Open Content and Open Technology might be overall considered as being fixed costs and therefore such cost potentially significantly decrease on a per learner base as larger as the student population becomes. Open Communities alone, and

47

analogue to the Open Learning case, might be at first considered as being cost neutral. However, within an OE setting Open Communities likely would require some type of virtual environment to be in place and at which such a community could be established. Thus Open Communities might come along with a fixed cost component, as is the case for Open Content and Open Technology. In addition to this Open Communities might come along with a variable cost component since communities typically require for some type of community support staff and the demand for such staff will be in some way proportional to the community size. As the Open Source Software case shows nonetheless, the need for formally employed support staff might be reduced to some degree through the involvement of non-paid volunteers and through peer support. Open Tutoring, and analogue to traditional tutoring, can be overall considered as being a variable cost component, though the cost of Open Tutoring per learner like decreases with the number of learners since much of the support that tutors within an OE setting provide could be preserved and thus remains to be available to other learners. Finally, Open Assessment and Open Degrees are believed to constitute rather variable cost positions and that do not decrease significantly per learner and are therefore cost that are independent from the number of learners involved. In line with this, assessment and certifications against fees has been considered as a sustainability model by some of the cases presented in section 6. It remains to be seen however if such services alone are sufficient to cover all of the cost positions that are depicted within Figure 2. 7.2 Extension of regular course offerings (combined) vs OE as a parallel undertaking The cases of MITx / EdX, Stanford Coursera, Stanford Udacity, Saylor Foundation, OERu, ict@innovation, UoP, Free Technology Academy and P2PU presented within section 6 are all examples for OE as a parallel undertaking. This is to say that those OE cases are not carried out as an extension of the traditional formal education system of the respective education institution, but that they constitute a parallel effort that is partly or largely disconnected from the institutions traditional formal education system. In comparison to this, there are a number of Open Courses (Meiszner 2010, 2011) that show how OE can be integrated into the traditional formal education system and at which OE is thus only an extension of it, but not a parallel effort that the institution undertakes. Integrating OE as an extension into the traditional formal education system however is also impacting the cost involved, since the traditional formal education element can be funded by traditional means and therefore lowers the cost for the OE extension. In addition to this the OE element potentially provides a higher

48

value for money and in particular to the traditional formal learner population (Meiszner 2010). OE as a parallel undertaking on the other hand has a very different starting point, since very likely no traditional formal education element has been in place that could be extended and re-used, or where cost could be shared across the traditional formal and the OE elements. As a result of this the initially required resources and efforts are likely higher for OE as a parallel undertaking then it would be the case once integrating OE as an extension into the traditional formal education system. This assumption of higher initial cost is also supported by the above cited OE cases from section 6, which all feature a significant amount of initial investment, which has not been observed in the case of Open Courses (Meiszner 2010). 7.3 Currently existing OE business models & service concepts The 2011 survey that has been carried out by ELIG across the breadth of the learning industry (ELIG, 2011) has shown that there are clear indications that the commercial learning industry has not yet fully engaged with Open Education (OE). The commercial hesitation to adopt OE is in large part due to a perceived lack of associated new business models. The cases presented in section 6 do however show that this perceived lack of associated new business models is not a real lack and that OE business models and service concepts already exist or that they are currently under development though still not covering the full potential value chain as introduced at section 4. OE business models and service concepts that can be seen at section 6 are: MITx/EdX and UoP intend to provide, respectively provide already, assessment and certification services against fees, Stanford Coursera is considering to offer premium services, Udacity considers a headhunting success fee to be paid by employers, analogue to the openED case the OERu is considering to provide a variety of services to learners and that in the OERu case are provided by partnering HEIs against fee, FTA is using a tuition fee based business model, and UNUOpen considers the full range of services to be provided as well to learners as to education providers. Though all of such concepts are still at the very or relative early stage, they all provide an insight on possible business models and service concepts that might be adopted to allow for the sustainability of OE. As a concluding note it might be highlighted that none of such cases presented within section 6 indicates that up to now the respective national education systems does support OE in the same way as it support its traditional formal education counterpart. This is an important

49

observation in so far as in many countries education is largely public funded and thus constitutes a part or the entirety of the business and sustainability model of national education institutions. If OE would be equally considered by national education systems then this again might change the type of business models and lower the burden for OE to become sustainable.

50

Annex - List of section 6 secondary sources Secondary sources used in section 7: 1 http://www.changinghighereducation.com 2 http://chronicle.com/article/Open-Access-Courses-HowThey/131677/?sid=wc&utm_source=wc&utm_medium=en 3 http://www.slideshare.net/andreasmeiszner/peps-portable-education-portfoliosoutline-use-case 4 http://www.slideshare.net/andreasmeiszner/oe-systems-andlearninganalytics 5 http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/01/24/stanford-open-course-instructorsspin-profit-company 6 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/technology/coursera-plans-to-announceuniversity-partners-for-online-classes.html?_r=1 7 http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidstavens 8 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303299604577326302609615094.ht ml 9 http://venturebeat.com/2012/04/18/coursera-raises-16m/ 10 http://bigthink.com/ideas/41180?page=all

51

References CNET, (2007), The next big growth market: education, CNET News Service, Michael Kanellos, 11 May 2007, viewed 25 May 2012, <http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_39718610-7.html>. ELIG, (2011), Open Education: a wake up-call for the learning industry? Is open education fundamental to a sustainable learning industry or a noble but commercially flawed cause?, White Paper 2011, ELIG - the European Learning Industry Group. ESU, (nd), Gats and Education, The European Students Unions, viewed viewed 25 May 2012, <http://www.esib.org/index.php/issues/Commodification/88-gats-and-education.html>. Meiszner, A. (2011), The Why and How of Open Education - With lessons from the openSE and openED Projects, United Nations University, UNU-MERIT, The Netherlands Meiszner, Andreas (2010), The Emergence of Free / Open Courses - Lessons from the Open Source Movement, submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Centre for Research in Education and Educational Technology, Institute of Educational Technology, The Open University, UK UNESCO. (2005). Towards knowledge societies: UNESCO world report. Paris: UNESCO Publishing Weller J.M. and Meiszner A. (2008) Report on the effectiveness of a FLOSS-like learning community in formal educational settings, FLOSSCom Project, 2008.

52