Understanding Innovation Vectors in the Use of Open Educational Resources
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Open educational resources (OER) are teaching and learning materials that are either in the public domain or published on an open licence which permits various forms of redistribution, reuse and repurposing. Many organisations and higher education institutions around the world are using such resources, and anecdotally many believe this is supporting innovations in practice. However, there is scant research into how such innovations should be understood or evaluated conceptually. In this paper, we present a conceptual framework that can describe and evaluate innovative practice as well as results from a study of 44 cases using this framework in the context of the ENCORE+ (European Network for Catalysing Open Resources in Education) project (2021–2023). This conceptual framework provides a rich qualitative description for instances of innovation which use OER. Our examples cover many countries, including Argentina, Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, UK, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Ireland, Kenya, the Netherlands, Norway, Scotland, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Taiwan, USA, and Zanzibar. The sample includes organisations of all sizes and maturities of implementation. This allowed us to differentiate OER value propositions for a range of stakeholders at different levels of maturity of OER use. We explore whether variables such as the size and maturity of an organisation influences innovation strategies and the perception of stakeholder relationships. Our data indicates four elements to the development of OER value propositions as innovation vectors. Firstly, OER value propositions tend to be transformative, and focused on modifying or redefining pedagogical activity. Secondly, they are practical, targeting users/providers and influencing behaviour in direct and achievable ways. Thirdly, OER users and advocates emphasise observability, simplicity and compatibility as key aspects for communicating OER value propositions. Fourthly, OER innovation is aspirational in that greater maturity of organisations using OER sees the OER value proposition widened to include more stakeholder types.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it