Understanding Innovation Vectors in the Use of Open Educational Resources

Introduction

Open Educational Resources (OER) are teaching, learning and research materials in any medium – digital or otherwise – that are in the public domain and/or released under an open licence that permits no-cost access, use, adaptation and redistribution by others with no or limited restrictions. They are free at the point of use and ‘free’ in the sense that they provide users with greater freedoms in how resources are shared, used, customised and iterated (UNESCO, n.d.; Hewlett Foundation, 2024; OER Commons, 2024). The UNESCO Recommendation on OER (UNESCO, 2019) was issued to recognise the important contribution OER has to make in supporting access to education and innovative pedagogical practice, and OER are increasingly recognised as a crucial element of future-facing educational ecosystems (Bozkurt et al., 2023).

OER challenge the traditional copyright model and so introduce new possibilities for how teaching and learning are facilitated. OER have long been associated with pedagogical innovation. The most common concept here is the use of OER to improve access to education by lowering the cost of educational materials (Brahim, Khribi & Jemni, 2017; Bohrer et al., 2016; Bossu et al., 2016; Brahim et al., 2020; Blackmon, 2018; Blomgren, 2018; Hameed & El-Ameer, 2020; Henderson & Ostashewski, 2018; Herrera-Cubides et al., 2022; Kopp, Gröblinger & Zimmermann, 2017; Mays, 2020; Mazohl et al., 2018; Wong & Li, 2019) or to reduce costs incurred directly by students (Farrow, Pitt & Weller, 2020; Fischer, Ernst & Mason, 2017; Henderson & Ostashewski, 2018; Hilton, 2020; Hollister & Patton, 2021; Julien et al., 2018). Many OER based innovations consequently begin with the substitution of OER for proprietary materials, either in classrooms or online. However, the affordances of OER can also support innovation behaviours that are subsequent to this initial step. OER can act as a catalyst for innovation, facilitating institutional culture of pedagogical innovation and collaboration as the OER themselves are used as the basis of further creation, co-creation or innovative pedagogical activity (Coughlan et al., 2019; Otto, 2019; Senn et al., 2022; Smirani & Boulahia, 2022).

Despite this, a detailed conceptualisation of the relationship between OER and innovation is lacking in the scientific literature (Guevara-Pezoa, 2023). It is quite common for OER to be referred to as ‘innovative’ or as a catalyst for innovation. However, the extent to which one considers OER as innovative largely depends on existing understandings of OER. For the complete novice, incorporating some form of OER into their pedagogical activity is innovative, while for the experienced user of OER this may be understood as a first step and prerequisite for more unique innovations such as remixes of resources or a shift to open pedagogy (Hegarty, 2015; Tietjen & Asino, 2021). Differentiating these senses of innovation in the research literature is challenging because the keyword ‘innovation’ is used imprecisely and interchangeably. Innovation with OER is also often under- theorised and the language used to describe and evaluate OER innovation is inconsistent. The goal of this study was to develop a conceptual framework for evaluating instances of OER implementation and use this to consistently describe a collection of cases which could illustrate alternative interpretations of what constitutes innovation in the context of OER. There is a clear case for such outcomes because a shared set of concepts and terminology can make it easier to learn from innovative applications of OER and potentially replicate or adapt these in new contexts. This entails using a common language and, hence, moving towards a common understanding in the description of identifiable indicators around innovation. The current lack of such a framework and evidence base can be understood to present a barrier to innovative practice. There is a gap in the understanding of how different factors such as the location, size or maturity of OER implementation affect innovation behaviours. Also of interest was the ways in which different stakeholders conceptualise or communicate the value proposition of OER to their target audiences.

Conceptual Framework

To evaluate and describe instances of innovation consistently and identify outstanding examples of innovation with OER, a rubric was produced. There are no specific theories of OER innovation and much of the language of innovation studies comes from business studies which tend to conceptualise innovation with respect to competitive practices. From such perspectives, innovation is a route to competitive advantage. (It should be noted that many open educators understand what they do as primarily oriented towards collaborative approaches which are in tension with any assumed profit motive.) The research proceeded by identifying existing theoretical constructs which could be mapped onto areas of interest and elaborating a conceptual framework around these. The framework was then used to generate questions which could serve as data points or proxies. This identified a set of indicators which could consistently compare diverse cases across differing contexts of application.

Table 1 summarises the main elements of the conceptual framework.

Tables 2, 3, 4 provide more detail on key elements presented in Table 1.

An important consideration in the study was how to describe the different business models that might be used in the cases. As part of the theoretical foundation, a typology of OER based business models (Farrow, 2023) was synthesised from strategies that are proposed in the literature (Tlili et al., 2020; Padilla Rodriguez et al., 2018; Belleflamme & Jacqmin, 2015; Ubachs & Konings, 2016; and Farrow, 2019). To keep the analysis manageable, respondents were asked to select a single simplified model which most closely represents their case. (In practice, revenue models are often hybrid.) The business model typology presents 14 models organised into 4 categories.

Similarly, categories were imposed on descriptors for the type of case (business, initiative, institution, project, social enterprise, other); the length of implementation (0–3 months, 4–6 months, 7–12 months, 1–2 years, 3–5 years and 5 years+); and the scale of the implementation (micro/institutional, meso/regional, macro/national, or international).

Methods

This framework was used to create a rubric for an online survey that collected data from people currently using OER to innovate their practice. A key challenge in writing the survey instrument was to balance the collection of rich data across a range of variables while keeping cognitive load to a minimum. Though there were typically opportunities to provide longer form responses, questions were presented as selections from predetermined categories where possible. The conceptual framework was also used to create a reflective evaluation tool which can be used independently of the study. Hence, the framing of the questions around innovation tended towards reflective rather than summative evaluation. Though this paper focuses on quantitative analysis, many of the questions around innovation behaviours were free text to support the statistical analysis with rich qualitative data.

The survey was open from 11 September 2022 to 28th February 2023 across three different collectors on the JISC Online Surveys platform (namely, one for the ENCORE+ project as a whole; one for users of the H5P OER platform; and one for Baden-Wuerttemberg Cooperative State University). Both Baden-Wuerttemberg Cooperative State University and H5P were partners in the ENCORE+ project and used independent collectors. Using the JISC survey tool ensured compliance with relevant data protection legislation, and the study received approval after review from the Human Research Ethics Committee at The Open University, UK.

The responses were compiled into a single dataset. 57 responses were received, with 44 cases eligible for inclusion in the analysis following quality review; these provide the basis for the analysis below. (It should be noted that the number of responses to specific items may vary in relation to the total number of cases.) The rest of the cases did not meet the quality threshold for being included – which means that their data was incomplete or the material provided was either not relevant to the questions asked by the survey, or a commercial educational technology provided was using the survey as a route to promote a product. As it can be observed in Figure 1, the survey had a wide geographical spread including Argentina, Australia, Canada, Colombia, UK, Germany, Greece, Hungary, India, Ireland, Kenya, the Netherlands, Norway, Scotland, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, USA, and Zanzibar. Contributors were given several weeks to review the presentation of their case and respond to queries before the analysis proceeded.

Figure 1

A basic analysis of the data was conducted with Excel to generate descriptive statistics. Inferential statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics. Given the non-normal distribution of the sample, Pearson’s chi-square values were obtained to test the potential dependency between qualitative variables, and their association strength was measured by Cramer’s V test, a chi-square-based measure of nominal association which explains how two categorical fields are related. This value reveals the degree of significance, so the probability of finding results like those observed when the null hypothesis is rejected for a 95% confidence interval. This calculation allowed us to explain which elements within the dependent variables were significantly related and the effect size (ES) between them. The interpretation of Cramer’s V test can be found in Table 6.

Additionally, Krusk al-Wallis (non-parametric) test was applied for the comparison of the different size conditions of the cases through data measured on ordinal scales (Likert-scale questions) based on the organisational culture and processes related to innovation from the cases. This test informed whether the differences among the participants grouped by size (n = 4) were significant enough that they were unlikely to have occurred by chance (95% of confidence interval).

Results

This section presents descriptive data from the cases in relation to the conceptual framework developed in Table 1 in which this work is based. Then, relevant relationships between the different variables which shape the concepts studied are explained. The latter demonstrates which aspects of innovation processes were most likely to converge.

Strategic Approach

Miles & Snow (1978) proposed a simple model for organisational strategy. For 7 key aspects, organisations can be understood as defenders or prospectors. Defenders focus on preserving market share, specialisation, emphasising stability and gradual growth. Prospectors, by contrast, are embracers of change and adaptability who seek new markets, new practices and new technologies in search of new product markets. Survey respondents were asked to classify themselves in relation to the 7 aspects proposed by Miles & Snow: products and services; target groups; communication channels; value chain; competitive advantage; networks; and sustainability. Prospector attitudes were found to be generally prominent, particularly around their competitive advantage, value chain and communication channels (Figure 2). However, the target markets, products and services appear to be traditional. Taken together, this gives the impression that OER users are exploring alternative approaches to formulating and communicating their value proposition to established groups. The most ‘prospective’ variable was for competitive advantage, suggesting this is a focus for innovation.

Figure 2

Moving towards revenue generation and sustainability, the survey employed an inclusive and comprehensive description of existing open business models (Farrow, 2023). Respondents were asked to align their business models to one of those provided. Looking at the macro categories, externally funded models were the most recurrent ones (n = 17; 41%) along with internally funded ones (n = 15; 37%). Higher Education Service Models accounted for 12% (n = 5) of the sample; similarly, community funded ones accounted for 10% (n = 4).

Figure 3 shows the percentages obtained for individual modalities total count for the categories they belong to. Institutional models were the most prominent among these. Almost half of the funding structures in OER cases relied on budgets provided by public administrations and governments. However, cases also explored more innovative manners to raise revenue such as donations, community-owned infrastructure hosting, or the use of OER in online courses. (There were additional revenue model types in the wider sample but these did not meet the quality filter; this may imply they had less resource available for contributing data.)

Figure 3

Implementation of OER

The SAMR framework (Puentedura, 2006) was employed to conceptualise how OER, as technological objects, were employed through a progressive sequence which trends towards innovation. This can be illustrated with the example of open textbooks. First, open textbooks are substituted for proprietary resources with no behavioural change. They can also be considered augmented since they improve access, enable pedagogical experimentation and can be shared freely. More innovative behaviours may follow, such as modification of pedagogical tasks or teaching approaches supported by OER, remixed content, or collaboration across institutions. Finally, the use of OER can lead to the redefinition of pedagogical approaches, such as through open pedagogy or rethinking the textbook as the standard pedagogical aid or organisation of curricula. We can therefore classify substitution and augmentation as forms of enhancement and modification and redefinition as more innovative and transformative.

In this study, practitioners mostly described themselves in relation to these more transformative approaches: allowing for significant redesign of tasks and functions associated with teaching/learning (modification, n = 18, 41.8%) and allowing for new ways of conceiving teaching/learning (redefinition, n = 14, 32.6%); this implies moving towards a sophisticated an innovative conceptualisation of practice. By contrast, behaviours related to the enhancement of existing learning/teaching processes by the use of OER were less prominent, with augmentation (n = 7, 16.2%) and substitution (n = 4, 9.3%) next in decreasing order of frequency. Substitution was most closely associated with institutional use, as can be seen in Figure 4.

Figure 4

SAMR categories also map well onto Darwish’s (2019) Edupreneurship Business Models (static, interactive, dynamic, transformative) which describe how different forms of content delivery are associated with organisational aspects and revenue models. When considered in conjunction with data about business models, we found qualified support here for Darwish’s prediction that more innovative use of OER is associated with more entrepreneurial and diverse revenue models.

Innovation: Barriers and Enablers

Respondents informed about enablers and barriers encountered based on vectors potentially involved in the cases. Figure 5 reflects the vectors mostly identified as barriers. The most significant barriers correspond to the regulatory environment and the use of proprietary software (74% of the sample respectively).

Figure 5

The rest of the vectors were perceived as enablers to innovation, and 75% of them obtained this evaluation ation from 70% of the sample (existence of evidence, Open Educational Practices, leadership, organisational culture, personal characteristics, our skills, open source software, internet access, research-practice links, quality of evidence, responding to authentic learners’ needs, stakeholders’ relationships, social context, other infrastructure, and Virtual Learning Environments). Conversely, other vectors, mostly perceived as enablers as well, obtained a more modest representation as Figure 6 shows.

Figure 6

Discussion

The cases collected for this study are diverse, representing a range of organisations with variances across the size and maturity of the organisation, location, target audiences, key stakeholders, and mission. One of the central challenges addressed is the need to find a set of concepts that could act as a universal framework for understanding how innovation is understood in practice.

While the data set is relatively small in terms of the number of cases, the cases themselves provided a lot of detail. We found that OER users are exploring alternative approaches to formulating and communicating their value proposition to their respective stakeholders. Perceived attributes of value propositions/impact in terms of innovation can ascertain their rate of diffusion. According to Rogers (2003) innovations should possess the qualities of relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability and observability. These was also reported by respondents, who reflected on effective routes of impact to their different stakeholders. Micro-level cases tended to significantly find the attribute “compatibility with existing practice” as an effective route to innovation for users, which can be seen to endorse a common sequence where OER are initially introduced and used alongside or in the same way as proprietary resources. Micro-level cases also differed from other types in that top-down decision-making processes were not common but they felt that their strategic approach nonetheless supported innovative practice. This may reflect the relative agility and freedom of smaller organisations in terms of ability to innovate.

As shown in Figure 4, more complex and reflective OER implementations are associated with more innovative forms of delivery. This finding is consistent with the hypothesis put forward by Darwish (2019) that “providers continually try to build up the opportunities to constitute the expansion and variation of users and providers’ motivation”. However, Darwish focused on a supply and demand model. The UPIG model used in this study reveals more complex and multifaceted stakeholder relationships, but the trend nonetheless appears to be that, over time, increased maturity of organisations in the OER space sees the extension of value propositions to a wider range of stakeholders. Deductively, the data suggests that a more complex conceptualisation of innovation involves processes that are distanced from a basic use of educational resources, where OER are no longer proposed only for the most commonly found tandem of stakeholders (users-providers). This can see OER being used online at scale, being used as part of a shared learning platform or repository, or in hybrid forms of delivery. Those working within institutions seem more likely to simply adopt OER, while extra-institutional innovations are more likely to draw on the downstream behaviour of the 5 Rs of OER (Wiley & Hilton, 2018) as they innovate practice.

How do innovative practices emerge? One response to this could be to implement formal management practices which attempt to enculture an innovation mindset. We did not find evidence of this being the case in our sample. Most of the organisations in the case studied believed they had an innovative culture, but this was not codified into key performance indicators, reward or recognition structures, even in larger organisations. The suggestion is instead that innovation culture in open spaces may be fluid, informal and lightly regulated. As Table 12 indicates, there was universally strong agreement with the idea that individuals working within the cases were part of innovative cultures which focused on the empowerment of the individual. While it could be argued that few managers (whether in the “open” space or not) would declare the opposite, it would be interesting to see (perhaps through triangulation) whether the same would be true for more traditional education providers.

Figure 2 showed that the most innovative approaches are associated with competing for and communicating with end-users (who often themselves meet the traditional definitions of learners and educators). As OER using organisations develop and mature, extending their offer to a wider group of potential stakeholders, they often become more distanced from their end users as the classroom is left behind. Interactions are further mediated as size and ambition increased. Providers, influencers and governance may have a looser sense of their users in such circumstances, and this may drive innovation in how value propositions are formed and communicated. Similarly, Table 10 shows that more mature, transformative approaches to OER use (redefinition and modification) were highly represented in the offer of value propositions concerned with all stakeholder types. Increasing distance from the point of OER use can obviously act as an obstacle to mutual understanding of stakeholders, but also seems to drive innovative online practices. Those providing online services as a starting point rather than an evolution of campus interactions also face this challenge, since users of their services may be understood indirectly or abstractly.

The effect of the Covid-19 pandemic (Stracke et al., 2022a; 2022b) is potentially a confounding variable here, since many providers were obliged to expand online provision rapidly. The “online pivot” (Camacho & Legare, 2021; Bozkurt et al., 2022) forced experimental and improvised shifts to online provision and evolutions in practice. This could be seen as a driver of innovation in that “necessity is the mother of invention”. However, the importance of this interpretation shouldn’t be overstated since, by the time of the survey, many had returned to classroom education and educators in the OER space are often used to online or blended learning scenarios.

Table 13 suggests that policy and regulation factors are considered the biggest barrier to innovation. This was a consistent finding, and may mean that combinations of institutional rules and government policies restrict individuals from experimenting with change. Conversely, regulatory environments may also act as enablers when sympathetic. The elements found as enablers can be interpreted as indicators of a relative standardisation of the processes influencing innovation. In this case, some elements mostly acting as “enablers” had an influence on the type of OER implementation (SAMR), innovation strategy focus and the diffusion of innovations. In all cases, the effect size (ES) was moderate. It should be noted, though, that internal policies were also found to be a moderate driver of innovation (Figure 6).

Table 13 also indicates that influencers, overall, are not a particularly relevant stakeholder for the sample, and, consequently, practically no relationships of dependence or influence with other variables were found. For less transformative uses of OER (augmentation, substitution) this group is practically ignored. This may reflect that influencers become more relevant when activities scale up and become more visibly part of a wider ecosystem with more stakeholders to consider. One interpretation here is that targeting influencers with value propositions for OER is not currently prominent. Given that influencers are diverse (including funders, development agencies, advocates, charities, non-governmental organisations, professional associations, student organisations, trade unions, consultants, institutional actors, parents and guardians) there could be untapped potential for developing communication strategies which focus on their ability to affect change and communicate.

Chesbrough (2006) argued that openness itself is a route to innovation. We found empirical support for this, particularly through OEP and open source software being frequently named as enablers (Figure 6). Openly licensed software is arguably so prevalent as to often be overlooked. It was also found that leadership and personal qualities were important for effecting change and innovating practice. Overall, many factors are considered relevant enablers of innovation but reflective practice, recognising achievements, empowering staff and retaining an “open” mindset were consistently reported. These qualities correspond with Chesbrough’s idea that information flow across institutions is an effective modern paradigm for supporting innovation.

Conclusion

This paper addresses a significant gap in the OER research literature which pertains to claims commonly made about OER being a catalyst for innovative practice, providing a conceptual framework and an empirical base that can support future research in this area. This study analyses a diverse array of cases across various organizations, indicating the multifaceted nature of innovation in Open Educational Resources (OER). While the dataset is relatively small, it offers detailed insights into how OER users navigate value propositions and conceptualise innovation within their practices. The study underscores the importance of compatibility with existing practices in driving innovation, particularly for smaller organizations or less mature implementations of OER. As organizations mature in the OER space, their value propositions extend to a broader range of stakeholders, leading to more complex and reflective implementations. The emergence of innovative practices is not solely driven by formal management practices but is rather fostered within fluid, informal, and lightly regulated innovative cultures. As organizations evolve, they may become more distanced from end-users, which can both hinder mutual understanding and drive innovative online practices. The COVID-19 pandemic acted as a catalyst for rapid shifts to online provision, potentially influencing innovation trajectories. Policy and regulatory factors are identified as significant barriers to innovation, while openness itself is recognized as a route to innovation, particularly through Open Educational Practices (OEP) and open-source software. Leadership qualities, reflective practice, and maintaining an open mindset are highlighted as crucial enablers of innovation, aligning with the notion that information flow across institutions is pivotal for fostering innovation in the OER ecosystem. We find that OER value propositions evolve along four dimensions: they are transformative, focusing on modifying pedagogical activity; practical, targeting direct and achievable behaviour change; emphasise observability, simplicity, and compatibility in communication; and become more inclusive of various stakeholders as organisations mature in their use of OER.

Data accessibility statement

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available in the ORDO repository, https://doi.org/10.21954/ou.rd.25809337.v1.

Ethics and Consent

This study is informed by BERA’s Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research (https://www.bera.ac.uk/resources/all-publications/resources-for-researchers) and governed by The Open University’s Code of Practice for Research (https://www.open.ac.uk/research/governance/policies). This research has been reviewed by, and received a favourable opinion from, The Open University Human Research Ethics Committee: reference HREC/4379/FARROW. All participants provided informed consent, including for open release of the dataset.

Funding Information

This paper is funded by Erasmus+ with grant number 621586-EPP-1-2020-1-NO-EPPKA2-KA.

Competing Interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Author contributions (CRediT)

Robert Farrow: Conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, investigation, data curation, visualization, funding acquisition, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing; Paz Díez-Arcón; formal analysis, investigation, software, validation, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.