A Typology of Institutional Practices for the Recognition of Open

Learning in Europe: Some Findings from the OpenCred Study

By Gabi Witthaus (ILI, University of Leicester)and Andreia Inamorato dos Santos (European

Commission, JRC IPTS )OER15, 14-15 April 2015: Cardiff, Wales

OpenCred Study

• Aim: to support European policy development

• May to November 2014

• University of Leicester and European Commission (JRC IPTS)

• Investigated institutional strategies to recognise non-formal, open learning

OpenCred methodology

• Desk research – MOOC portals, journals, e-mails to colleagues across EU

• Six interviews:– 2 MOOC teachers– 2 MOOC learners– 2 employers/employer bodies

• Analysis– Identification of key factors that influence recognition – Development of diamond model– Analysis of cases using diamond model

First key finding:

There are degrees of formality of recognition

Formality of recognition

Level Descriptors0 No recognition1 Completion certificate/badge2 Certificate/badge with online identity verification (e.g.

Signature Track, Accredible)3 - Exemption from entrance exam

- Certificate conferring up to 4 ECTS credits 4 - Certificate conferring a minimum of 5 ECTS credits

- Exemption from a course at issuing institution- ‘Gold standard’ certificate (information, ID verification,

supervision)- Continuing professional development (CPD) credits

‘Gold standard’ certificates

Certificate from an accredited institution which: a) ‘formally and clearly states on whose authority it was

issued, provides information on the content, level and study load, states that the holder has achieved the desired learning objectives, provides information on the testing methods employed and lists the credits obtained, according to a standard international system or in some other acceptable format

b) is demonstrably and clearly based on authentication [i.e. student’s identity is verified] and

c) states that the examinations have been administered under supervision and specifies the nature of this supervision.’ (NVAO 2014, p.9)

Second key finding

Factors that have the greatest impact on formality of recognition are:

1. Robustness of assessment

2. Affordability of assessment for learners

3. Learners’ eligibility for assessment

Robustness of assessmentLevel Descriptors0 No assessment1 - Record of completion of activities

- Self-assessment- Automated checking, e.g. MCQs (No ID verification)- Peer assessment (No ID verification)

2 Online exam with ID verification but no real-time supervision (e.g. Signature Track, Accredible)

3 - Submission of coursework where student is personally known to examiner (f2f or online)- Online exam with ID verification and real-time proctoring (e.g. ProctorU, Proctor2Me, Remote Proctor)

4 - On-site exam (including ‘challenge exams’)- RPL conducted by recognised experts

Affordability for learners (cost of assessment/ certificate)

Level Descriptors0 150 EUR or more1 81 to 149 EUR2 20 to 80 EUR3 1 to 19 EUR4 No cost to learners

Eligibility for assessment/recognition

Level Descriptors0 No assessment1 Only members of a specified group/ profession are

eligible for completion certificates or badges (CPD)2 Credit-bearing exams only for registered students3 Exam available to all, but only students enrolled on

programme are eligible for academic credit4 Everyone is eligible for assessment and recognition

OpenCred Diamond

0

1

2

3

4

Formality ofrecognition

Affordability forlearner

Robustness ofassessment

Eligibility forassessment/recogniti

on

Third key finding

Several different diamond-shaped models emerged, representing different types of open courses

Examples of recognition models

1. Typical MOOC with little or no recognition

2. Freemium MOOC: learner pays for assessment

3. MOOC with recognition for enrolled students

1. Typical MOOC (little/no recognition)

E.g. CARNET (Croatia) MOOC on Developing Courses in Moodle

0

1

2

3

4

Formality ofrecognition

Affordability forlearner

Robustness ofassessment

Eligibility forassessment/recogniti

on

2. Freemium-model MOOC

E.g. University of Osnabrueck MOOC on Data Structures & Algorithms

0

1

2

3

4

Formality ofrecognition

Affordability forlearner

Robustness ofassessment

Eligibility forassessment/recogniti

on

3. MOOC with recognition for enrolled students

E.g. University of Nicosia MOOC on Digital Currencies

0

1

2

3

4

Formality ofrecognition

Affordability forlearner

Robustness ofassessment

Eligibility forassessment/recogniti

on

Conclusions

• Robust assessment is central to recognition– Institutions either pass on the cost to learners or

restrict eligibility.

• Recognition only partial – no whole degrees yet• Online education and assessment still seen by

many as less rigorous • On-site exams with identity validation and real-

time supervision are seen as being most robust form of assessment

• ECTS credits are not yet a widely accepted currency for recognition of open learning

Recommendations to HEIs

• Give clear info to learners on open course portals about assessment and recognition

• Give comprehensive info about assessment on certificates/ badges

• OpenCred framework – a tool for analysingyour institution’s recognition model

• Collaboration between institutions (e.g. VMPass, OERu) can help learners reap benefits of open learning

Key OpenCred ReferencesAndrade, A., Ehlers, U., Caine, A., Carneiro, R., Conole, G. & Kairamo, A. (2011) Beyond OER: Shifting Focus to Open Educational Practices, OPAL Report 2011. Link

Camilleri, A.F. & Tannhäuser, A.C. (2013) ‘Chapter 4: Assessment and Recognition of Open Learning’, in L. Squires and A. Meiszner(eds) Openness and Education. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.85-118.

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2013) Maturing of the MOOC; BIS Research Paper 130, September 2013. Link

European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice (2014). Modernisation of Higher Education in Europe: Access, Retention and Employability 2014. Eurydice Report. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

Eurotech Universities (2014) EuroTech Universities session animates debate on MOOCs and future of education at ESOF2014, 7 July 2014. Link

Gaebel, M. (2014) MOOCs: Massive Open Online Course, EUA occasional papers. Link

Khalil, H. & Ebner, M., 2014. MOOCs Completion Rates and Possible Methods to Improve Retention - A Literature Review. In World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications. Tampere: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA, pp. 1305–1313. Link

NVAO (2014) MOOCs and Online HE: A Survey, The Hague: Accreditation Organisation of the Netherlands and Flanders Link

Open Education Special Interest Group (2014) Open Education Trend Report, SURF, Netherlands. Link

Verstelle, M., Schreuder, M. & Jelgerhuis, H., 2014. Recognition of MOOCs in the Education Sector. 2014 Open Education Trend Report, (March), pp.24–25. Link

For further info

Witthaus, G., Childs, M., Nkuyubwatsi, B., Conole, G., Inamorato Dos Santos, A. & Punie, Y., 2015. An Assessment-Recognition Matrix for Analysing Institutional Practices in the Recognition of Open Learning. eLearning Papers, January (40), pp.32–42. Link

Disclaimer: The views expressed here are purely those of the authors and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.

Thank you!

And finally…

© G. Witthaus on Flickr CC-BY