Collaborative Development of Open Educational Resources for Open and Distance Learning

Open and distance learning (ODL) is mostly characterised by the up front development of self study educational resources that have to be paid for over time through use with larger student cohorts (typically in the hundreds per annum) than for conventional face to face classes. This different level of up front investment in educational resources, and increasing pressures to utilise more expensive formats such as rich media, means that collaborative development is necessary to firstly make use of diverse professional skills and secondly to defray these costs across institutions. The Open University (OU) has over 40 years of experience of using multi professional course teams to develop courses; of working with a wide range of other institutions to develop educational resources; and of licensing use of its educational resources to other HEIs. Many of these arrangements require formal contracts to work properly and clearly identify IPR and partner responsibilities. With the emergence of open educational resources (OER) through the use of open licences, the OU and other institutions has now been able to experiment with new ways of collaborating on the development of educational resources that are not so dependent on tight legal contracts because each partner is effectively granting rights to the others to use the educational resources they supply through the open licensing (Lane, 2011; Van Dorp and Lane, 2011). This set of case studies examines the many different collaborative models used for developing and using educational resources and explain how open licensing is making it easier to share the effort involved in developing educational resources between institutions as well as how it may enable new institutions to be able to start up open and distance learning programmes more easily and at less initial cost. Thus it looks at three initiatives involving people from the OU (namely TESSA, LECH-e, openED2.0) and contrasts these with the Peer-2-Peer University and the OER University as exemplars of how OER may change some of the fundamental features of open and distance learning in a Web 2.0 world. It concludes that while there may be multiple reasons and models for collaborating on the development of educational resources the very openness provided by the open licensing aligns both with general academic values and practice but also with well established principles of open innovation in businesses

The idea of integrating innovation: Entrepreneurship and a systems perspective

In this book the authors are exploring how the linkages within the system can be conceptualised and made transparent.Göran Roos, Allan O'Conno

Disruptive innovation and the higher education ‘eco-system’ post-2012

Disruptive innovations in business sectors are arguably triggered by the arrival of new competitors who disturb, or punctuate, an existing equilibrium. They can be aided by changes to a wider context. The eco-system of professional services has seen major disruptions over the last 10 or 15 years. We extend our review of managerial lessons from a previous essay to present speculative scenarios of pending disruptions in higher education. We present a strategic map of the sector which hints at disruption and differentiation as an ongoing process, albeit with a large, undifferentiated middle. We write not to predict but to, hopefully, provoke thought. The challenges posed by the potential disruptors will, we argue, require many institutions to respond in new and innovative ways. Innovation in higher education which spread well beyond traditional research, knowledge transfer and the curriculum interpretations will be required to a much greater extent than in the past

Leadership and innovation lessons from professional services firms

This paper compares and contrasts higher education with professional services firms. It considers what (if anything) leaders in higher education may gain from reflecting on how other sectors are evolving and the extent to which lessons can be learned by looking outwards. We structure the paper by outlining the world of PSFs, its many manifestations and some of the current challenges in Section 2. We then move on to compare and interpret one particular leadership framework we developed to understand PSFs, and use this to identify some potential questions for higher education leaders. Finally, we conclude by exploring how, in the light of some of the current drivers of change, our view of the higher education sector may evolve as a new ‘eco-system’ emerges

Supporting and Scaling Change: Lessons From the First Round of the Investing in Innovation (i3) Program

Assesses the degree to which the i3 program helped advance innovation in public education. Outlines takeaways, challenges, and recommendations for the Education Department and grantmakers, including optimizing support for different stages of innovation

2011 Strategic roadmap for Australian research infrastructure

The 2011 Roadmap articulates the priority research infrastructure areas of a national scale (capability areas) to further develop Australia’s research capacity and improve innovation and research outcomes over the next five to ten years. The capability areas have been identified through considered analysis of input provided by stakeholders, in conjunction with specialist advice from Expert Working Groups   It is intended the Strategic Framework will provide a high-level policy framework, which will include principles to guide the development of policy advice and the design of programs related to the funding of research infrastructure by the Australian Government. Roadmapping has been identified in the Strategic Framework Discussion Paper as the most appropriate prioritisation mechanism for national, collaborative research infrastructure. The strategic identification of Capability areas through a consultative roadmapping process was also validated in the report of the 2010 NCRIS Evaluation. The 2011 Roadmap is primarily concerned with medium to large-scale research infrastructure. However, any landmark infrastructure (typically involving an investment in excess of $100 million over five years from the Australian Government) requirements identified in this process will be noted. NRIC has also developed a ‘Process to identify and prioritise Australian Government landmark research infrastructure investments’ which is currently under consideration by the government as part of broader deliberations relating to research infrastructure. NRIC will have strategic oversight of the development of the 2011 Roadmap as part of its overall policy view of research infrastructure

A creative learning ecosystem, quality of education and innovative capacity: a perspective from higher education

Globally, governments recognize the importance of creativity and innovation for sustainable socioeconomic development, and many invest resources to develop learning environments that foster these capacities. This paper provides a systematic framework based on Nair’s Innovation Helix model for studying the factors of a country’s creative learning ecosystem (CLE), the quality of its education system (QES), and its innovative capacity (IC). The CLE factors are infrastructure/infostructure (physical and digital infrastructure), intellectual capital, interaction, integrity systems, incentives, and institutions. Using a composite CLE index for 113 countries, the findings indicate a strong correlation between a country’s CLE, QES and IC. Through brief case studies of countries that measure highly in CLE, QES and IC, this study points out their higher education strategies and their best practices for other countries to emulate, in order to facilitate creativity and innovation through higher education

Regional economic activity report 2014

Provides consistent information for each of New Zealand’s 16 regions. This allows us to compare the regions’ economic performance, distinguish their attributes and specialisations, and understand the different roles they play in the New Zealand economy. Summary The 2014 regional economic activity report report shows that nearly all of New Zealand\u27s 16 regions have made good economic progress over the last 12 months, reflecting New Zealand’s recovery after the global financial crisis. Each region provides a different contribution to the New Zealand economy and, while there is diversity, all regions have the potential to attract further investment, improve their living standards and generate high-value economic growth. Most regions experienced job growth over the last year. This is despite the 2013 drought which particularly affected primary production in the North Island. Canterbury has been the fastest growing region over the last two years, driven by the Christchurch rebuild and supported by its primary sector. Actions to enhance regional economic activity and outcomes need to be underpinned by a sound knowledge of each region’s historical trends and its strengths and weaknesses.This report provides comprehensive and comparative information about economic outcomes and the drivers of those outcomes across all regions. In addition, the government, in partnership with local decision-makers, is this year undertaking in-depth economic growth studies of regions such as East Coast, Northland, Bay of Plenty, and Manawatū-Wanganui. Those studies will help the regions prioritise opportunities for growth and identify how to overcome any barriers to that growth. This report highlights several key findings. First, each region has industry specialisations which have developed historically due to natural resource and infrastructure endowments, geographic location and skills. Those specialisations are the chief contributors to the different economic outcomes seen across the regions. Some sectors, such as dairy farming and milk processing, are benefiting from high commodity prices and market growth while others, such as horticulture, have lower returns. Secondly, the report identifies a regional dimension to the economic disparity between Māori and non-Māori. Some of the regions with poorer outcomes are also regions that have a higher proportion of Māori in their populations. The Crown and Māori have entered into an economic growth partnership to improve economic outcomes for Māori and to build economic growth from Māori assets and Māori Inc. This partnership will be delivered regionally and will include Business Growth Agenda actions such as the Māori and Pasifika Trades Training programme. Thirdly, the report shows there is significant diversity in demographic trends across regions, partly in response to relative economic opportunities. New Zealand, like all developed countries, has an ageing population but in some regions and sub-regions the population is ageing at a significantly faster rate than others. There is also disparity in regional shares of international migrants. Local decision-makers face the need to anticipate today how their projected population profiles will impact infrastructure and services demand

Innovation and Self-Leadership: The Effects of Self-Leadership Knowledge on the Innovation Landscape

The open innovation landscape of today allows any individual the ability to work, use their creative ideas, and receive external ideas for innovation. Innovators are no longer the chosen few behind closed doors who are at the right level in an organization, at the right place, and at the right time. The open innovation environment requires individuals who are self-leaders with the skills and abilities to lead innovation projects. This study explores how the organizational position of individuals can affect how they feel about innovation and their perception of their innovative abilities. This information can help to guide organizations on where to focus self-leadership awareness and training and to match individuals with high innovator natural tendencies and perceptions with those in an organization that need to build their self-leadership skills for innovation